Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil R Nair

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of heroic stock characters[edit]

List of heroic stock characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't established notability; appears to be an indiscriminate list; doesn't state anything that isn't already on Stock characters, and has been tagged for improvement for a while but doesn't appear to have been touched. SpikeJones (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per "doesn't state anything that isn't already on Stock characters" Ryan4314 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, Delete Actually, it does state all sorts of things not already in the article Stock characters, but the list of examples is totally unsourced, cobbled together instead from the contributions of passers by who added their own opinions about who's a born loser, who's a lovable klutz, who's the person chosen by fate for greatness, etc.. The sad thing is that examples could be sourced. Entertainment sections in newspapers and magazines compile such lists all the time; you'll read a review of Steve Carrell in Get Smart, or a celebration of Charlie Brown, and the editors dust off a list "The 10 Greatest _______s". Wikipeida is gradually making the transition, from "add to this bulletin board" stubs to "google before you publish" articles. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reason to source examples, not to delete the article. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. What WP should be making the transition to is fixing articles, not deleting them and not ignoring the problems. DGG (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you to an extent on that, but someone has to be willing to take the time to do the fixing. In this case, it would take a lot of work. If there's any indication of improvements being attempted, then I would urge that we hold off. On the other hand, if nothing changes by the close of discussion, then I would say that the problems have been ignored form more than two years. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your high horse much DGG? How can any of the reasons we've given for deletion be "improved", it is a fact that list merely contains duplicated information from it's parent article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having recently been blocked for awhile for incivility, I shall say that we all need to try to stay civil here. Although, in this case, I may disagree with DGG's view of what Wikipedia should be, I respect his views. Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I gave the impression of being incivil, I did not intend it (lol I knew I should've put a ";)" after my "high horse" jib). I hope you, DGG, haven't taken offence :) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I'll stay on my high horse, thank you! :) JBsupreme (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An appropriate child article off the parent presented concisely and without undue sensation. I see reasons to clean-up but not to delete. The parent article also splits off several other lists making all the articles more user-friendly. No need to to recombined them all back together or to otherwise form one mega-super article when we have a split article here that seems to work just fine. -- Banjeboi 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Apart from the OR, the list treads the same ground as Stock characters. Leithp 07:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it doesn't. And OR worries can be addressed by simply adding sources to confirm examples are considered examples for which they are listed. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article [1] doesn't give me any confidence that sources are going to be added. I've seen one attempt to preserve the article by removing unsourced entries, which would be part of a rebuilding process. Instead of a citation being found for any of those examples, the entire group was put back in, along with a comment that all of the examples were "sourceable to the original source". I don't see an original source, but I see a lot of original research. If all of these examples do come from an original source, then I don't know what that would be. I don't see any bar to recreating a verifiable list of examples, but this article isn't it.Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sourced to the original means the originating source of the content; for instance, Job of the Bible can be sourced to ... (wait for it) The Book of Job in the Bible. I would love if all content on all article was sourced in-line clearly and concisely but most content on Wikipedia is not sourced at all. Having stated that I would prefer that we target content that is likely untrue, outlandish, disreputable and that doesn't seem to be the issue here. It feels like wikilawyering to counter that an example has to be sourced. It would be nice but are you really suggesting that this information is false? Obviously our editors felt, and I happen to agree, that providing examples of heroic archetypes was more illustrative to readers using a variety of traditoinal and pop culture characters. I find it quite helpful actually and think the article and our readers are better served by actual examples. This is how people learn and one way we convey concepts. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whipper (The Budgie)[edit]

Whipper (The Budgie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion on the grounds of being "incoherent text or gibberish" was probably rightly contested because this warrants debate, but it appears to apply. The article appears to be a joke and even if some of it is based on reality, its reliability is severely in doubt. Is the article serious when it says that the bird is "soft" and "adorable"? Are we to believe that a budgie "tragically rejected" is a "pop star" that "enjoys" celebrity attention? In short, no matter whether the subject is notable or not the article is predominantly incoherent, orginal research and unverifiable. Delete - there's nothing to rescue here - and start again if needed. Ros0709 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This article is about a bird that received some media attention a few years ago for its unusual appearance. Google News Archives does find a few references, but mostly on pay sites (which is not a point against notability, but does make it more difficult to use those references for information). There was also a reference (in a list of one-sentence items) stating that the bird had died, which is not mentioned in this article. This might be worth revising into a proper article, although I am not sure of that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Though I hadn't heard of "Whipper", it looks like he was somewhat well known in New Zealand, Australia, and that area about five years ago [2]. Maybe some of the editors Down Under know more about this animal, even if it wasn't in the news here in Up Over. Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Maias (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple media stories suggest notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable Notability Whipper's story and public notability are both valid and verified. There are language barriers between the term "budgie" and the US English term "parakeet". Google is not part of Wikipedia nor is an internet search going to alway return "hits" of something historical. I am presently adding yet another valid reference article http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13064712,00.html from the UK this article is a few years old and did not come up with Goggling. The mere mutation of this bird is historic, and the given articles only add to the fact of his fame (even if he has less publicity today).

--Hasbrook (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2008 (EST)

  • Delete - since when were "oddspot" stories encyclopedic? dramatic (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is it our place to make value judgements on why reliable sources like Sky News chose to cover a subject in an article? Notability does not have a "coverage we think is silly" out clause. Rare and unusual animals are often the subject of significant reliable coverage, just like rare and unusual people. Just because it could be seen as a light-hearted animal story doesn't make it less valid as evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronalda[edit]

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

Being the sister of Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't make this less of an unreferenced, poorly written, POV/COI vanispamcruftisement. Húsönd 23:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -Yupik (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Badly written articles should be rewritten not afd'd. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the part of "unreferenced, POV and COI" that you do not quite understand? Or did you just read "poorly written"? Or are you just wikistalking me? You are free to rewrite if all it matters to you is the poorly written, but bear in mind this article also fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 16:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea to accuse me of wikistalking you, methinks, please refactor your poor faith accusation, and check my contribs, all I have tried to do is to improve the article and I am generally reluctant to delete marginal non-English articles due to systemic bias, she both has albums (according to the article) and a famous brother, heaven knows plenty of bio articles with less notability survive. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its current state, the article should be deleted as unreferenced, and also because there is no real assertion of notability. Since notability is not inherited, her famous brother is irrelevant, so the only thing that remains is her music. Since there is no indication of why her albums are notable, the subject of the article is obviously not notable. – PeeJay 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Unsourced and non-notable subject (one single hit on Google). Not worthy of its own article, since it was created only because she is CRonaldo's sister and not because of her own career. sixtynine • spill it • 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Gilkey[edit]

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

Karate practioner, owner of gyms. Doesn't seem to be known outside Oklahoma. Can't find much about him, seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. The championship mentioned in the previous AfD is amateur level, not the required professional or "Olympic Games or World Championships" level.    SIS  23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non notable as far as i can see. Manitobamountie (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. As I see it, his induction into the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame is fulfillment of the WP:ATHLETE inclusion criteria. Trusilver 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Changing position due to questions about the subject's credentials. 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As far as I can tell that particular Hall of Fame hasn't been updated since 2004 and its criteria for inclusion are very relaxed. See the (mainly defunct) main page here [3].    SIS  23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeah. I'm reading that now. It's kind of a big site, but I'm seeing a mind-boggling large number of "inductees" with no statement concerning the reason for which they were inducted besides a page outlining the criteria for inclusion, which in some cases is not that noteworthy. Still looking for sources... Trusilver 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AfD nomination had a comment: "Also note Internet Halls of fame are often based on paying to be added". Xuz (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless factual proof of notability provided. A Hall of Game with thousands of nominees without description of achievements is a dubious criterion of notability. Xuz (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. JS (chat) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this person warrants encyclopedic coverage right now. JBsupreme (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ophydian[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Google doesn't throw up much, except the usual MySpace pages. Can't find anything establishing required notability.    SIS  23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails music. I can't find any reliable sources or proof that it passes any of the other criteria. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also fails WP:MUSIC in my book. I couldn't find anything reliable to keep this page up. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete full of fail. JBsupreme (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dessie Larkin[edit]

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

Excruciatingly non-notable local politician whose apparent claim to notability seems to involve getting extensive chemical burns on his testicles as well as having a notable father. Fails WP:N, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BLP1E and WP:ITSA. Trusilver 22:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It would also appear that this individual has been the subject of a previous AfD around 16 months ago which ended in a delete consensus. I have looked over the previous incarnation of the article and the new one doesn't appear to have anything in it that wasn't available for the previously deleted one. So this is probably also deletable under CSD. Trusilver 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since that discussion, which occured over a year ago, reliable sources concerning this topic have been written. Some of this information has been added to the article. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Has media coverage for multiple events from multiple reliable sources. Also, Larkin's notability was already established as Larkin was mayor of Donegal. Media attention from multiple reliable sources adds to Larkins notability and verifies this notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Media coverage for multiple events doesn't mean the same thing as notability. Please check the policies cited above for more information. Thanks. Trusilver 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The media only take notice of notability, especially the national media. They do not waste their time on non-notable people with non-notable lives and non-notable events. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Has received Significant coverage, sources address the subject directly in detail. Also they are reliable secondary sources. Has received attention in British newspapers also [4]. As a mayor he meets the political notability per [5]. Larkin is notable in his own right. His father is just mentioned. --Balloholic (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Larkin also backed lawsuit by Sean McEniff in the case of Met Eireann Ice-Aging the County. [6]. Thanks --Balloholic (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was illegally appointed to a state board by a government TD. [7] --Balloholic (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these notable events haven't already been added it would help. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability and sourcing seem to have been established - like many (most?) articles it needs clean-up but that's not a reason to delete. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nor is he the son of the trade union leader James Larkin. Snappy (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply James Larkin is not under discussion here and has nothing to do with the notability of Dessie Larkin. Dessie Larkin is notable in his own right as a public official who has recieved substantial media coverage for multiple events. As such, Dessie Larkin is notable. The James Larkin bit is a red herring at this point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - James Larkin is mentioned in the deletion statement and this was why I commented on it. Dessie Larkin is just one of over a 1000 local councillors in Ireland and is not notable. Getting chemical burns on his testicles is amusing but again not notable. Snappy (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - a clear case of WP:BLP1E Snappy (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not, WP:BLP1E concerns writing an article about one news event which would only serve to embarass a BLP; this is a BLP who is covered in numerous sources about numerous events and they are a politician which puts them immediate out of WP:BLP1E range. A better example is a fat kid who slips on a banana peel and the video becomes a viral meme. We likely shouldn't have am article for that reason alone on the fat kid and should be careful about identifying him if we do an article about the meme. -- Banjeboi 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:POLITICIAN Dessie Larkin meets the 2nd and 3rd criteria. 2) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. 3) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Addition. Has also appeared in the Daily Mirror[8], Belfast Telegraph[9], The London Daily Mirror [10].In fact he has appeared in a large amount of newspapers which are published in Ireland and Britain. Also appeared on national broadcaster RTE [11] --Balloholic (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Wessel[edit]

Bryan Wessel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Light on the Starch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a musical artist that initially appears sourced, but all the provided references are either broken links or completely irrelevant articles. This currently appears to be some kind of odd hoax. ~ mazca t|c 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I've added the article for his album too, also added by the same user. The same issues apply, although the album article is even less convincing. ~ mazca t|c 22:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor Keep - Seems notable with few references. --86.45.211.74 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see it has no legitimate references, though - all the listed ones are broken links. ~ mazca t|c 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single Approachable Girl[edit]

Single Approachable Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:MADEUP Sarcasticninja (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Laughing Out Loud. JuJube (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Funny nonsense, but nonsense all the same. Trusilver 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep G1 this.... as I laugh reading the article. Nonsense for sure. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I laughed out loud after reading the conversation and the story. I'm sorry that this will be deleted before anyone gets to read it in context, but the basis for the article was an IM discussion, that closes with "you think I'm easy?" "no...nice." Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeah, this is a case that I really hate to see the article go from a personal standpoint. I have read it four times now and laughed every time. I hope the user finds his way over to Uncyclopedia and recreates it. Trusilver 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, lets not have an Article for everyones IM conversations. G1 and possibly G10 material. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:07, 6 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 Cuneiform script. MBisanz talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian Records[edit]

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

Blatant advertisment; should be speedy deleted, but CSD G11 was declined; this article was speedied once before, I believe for CSD G11 -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I cleaned up the article. The result is a reasonable stub on a small record label that did sign a few mildly notable bands. We're talking about a fairly small niche so we can't expect the label to be that well-known outside of the equally small community of fans. I really can't see any compelling result to delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was leaning toward keep until I really started digging into the acts associated with the label. Of the four of them that actually have articles written, three of them badly fail WP:BAND and should probably be up for AfD themselves. Trusilver 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if it isn't kept, then Redirect to Cuneiform script. Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Nothing but a blatant advertisment. -- 149.142.220.66 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero ACDC[edit]

Guitar Hero ACDC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources to verify this is coming (and I keep close tabs on Guitar Hero-related news to make sure of any such titles). The article was previously PROD'd but the prod removed, so per contested deletion, sending to AFD, though I implore if this can be speedied in some fashion to do so. MASEM 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some non-existent game that according to the article is being "designed" by a couple of 12 year olds and gonna be sent to Activision. If you want standard AFD reasons: no sources, no claims of notability. TJ Spyke 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas dishes[edit]

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

The items listed are not necessarily Christmas dishes at all per se (perhaps Holiday dishes?) but in any case this is largely an unsourced list / original research and would be better off on Wikibooks or another project that accepts this type of material. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Definitely - how else will we know what other countries/cultures do on this special festival? I've recommended it to several friends from other countries as a way of understanding what the English do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baranfin (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be quite a few sources to me. Wouldn't say it's an OR issue, even for those sections that don't have sources. WP:V, yes. Maybe trim it to just the sections that are sourced until sources can be found for the other sections. The different things different cultures do to celebrate a particular holiday is a clearly encyclopedic subject, so I see no reason to transwiki elsewhere. JulesH (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a valid topic, as there are several sources about Christmas dishes around the world: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Any other problems with the article can be solved through normal editing. Zagalejo^^^ 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard information, easily sourceable. There are probably 100s if not 1000s of magazine articles and books available. DGG (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I already sourced my part of the world so I think you should to. Merry Christmas!--Lenticel (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most links are blue links, and the information gathered this way makes it much easyer to get a general impression of the different countries Christmas eating habits. Merry Christmas to Everybody! Warrington (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gut it but still keep. The list is total garbage, full of questionable material that most definitely doesn't belong, but I think this one can *gasp* ultimately be salvaged. JBsupreme (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBsupreme please stop stalking me and call stuff I work with for garbage and crap, like here Talk:Croquette, sources and such and stalking here as well.[17]. And Christmas dishes are really NOT garbage!! Warrington (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disease in colonial America[edit]

Disease in colonial America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article, like my AFD above for another article by the same author, reads like a personal essay and contains WP:POV and WP:OR. It is too far from meeting Wikipedia's quality standards to justify a cleanup tag. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - FWIW, I didn't feel it was not notable, there is nothing wrong with the topic. My criticisms are of the actual article. But if consensus is that it can be saved, all is well. -Freqsh0 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against userfying. It is a very nice example of WP:OR. RayAYang (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep It is a notable topic. Brain fart on my part; OR is usually taken care of in cleanup. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I would recommend moving the title to Medicine in colonial America. Though the writing and organization can certainly be improved, it's a valid topic, and there are articles such as Medicine in ancient Rome or History of medicine in Canada that examine the treatment of illness in the days before antibiotics and x-rays. Though it may need to make better use of its sources, it uses sources. And though it could be written more eloquently, Wikipedia is a place where people perfect their skills, not a place where people have perfect skills. Thus, I would describe this as a nice attempt to comply with Wikipedia's expectations. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obsessively-referenced article with references to 7 independent publications. Topic is clearly notable, any problems with content can be fixed without deletion. JulesH (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete. Keep On the surface, this entire article seems to be a sublime example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It is quite obviously a POV fork, but that's not ALWAYS a 100% bad thing. I'm going to try to dig up some of these publications that are mentioned in the article over the next few days and see if I can prove or disprove the references. Trusilver 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep. I have gotten a hold on a few of the sources used in the creation of this article, and while there are many overtones of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, there is still enough notable here to repair the article rather than to delete it entirely. Trusilver 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable topic. Warrington (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable well-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while there is a problem with tone, the subject is obviously notable, and the article seems well-referenced. Everyking (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Strategy of the American Civil War[edit]

Military Strategy of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article reads like a personal essay and contains WP:POV and WP:OR. It is too far from meeting Wikipedia's quality standards to justify a cleanup tag. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. School project essay that is going to get marked down due to the misspelling of strategy. Nuttah (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not for school essays. That is all this article is. This article does not provide any information not already addressed in various other articles about the American Civil War. Needless article, does not add to Wikipedia, content is available elsewhere and would not be sufficient as a stand-alone article even with cleanup. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:NOT. Do not merge, since there is a misspelling in the title. RayAYang (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The typographical error was taken care of with a redirect; typos happen, and we all learn eventually what it means to move an article. Nevertheless, even if Noah Webster had written this, it appears to be an essay or term paper that has been submitted to Wikipedia. A term paper or essay starts with a thesis and then attempts to prove it; the encyclopedic style is, pardon the pun, the antithesis of an essay. Rather than trying to construct an article for a subject too vast to be contained in a few pages, I'd recommend that the author contribute to other articles about Civil War weaponry and tactics, using some of the infomation gleaned from the sources. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was surprised to see the format of this article, as it included references; but still the WP:NOT bit about being essays is overwhelming. Surely a myspace site would be a good place to host this paper, if the creator really wants to see it online? Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super delete. Completely violates our no original research policy. JBsupreme (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay (even though there are "70" sources, lol). Tavix (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn-Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political machine[edit]

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

This is an essay, and it is factually wrong. "political machine" and "machine politics" are simply pejorative labels applied to infer that a politician or political administration is corrupt, nepotist, controlled by power-groups or sub-democratic somehow. No one ever used the term neutrally. It is the equivalent of saying "corrupt politician", and we certainly don't have an article on that phrase (since most politicians have been called corrupt by someone). All we could neutrally offer here would be a dicdef indicating what the caller is inferring when they use the term, but last I checked we don't do dicdefs. My immediate reaction here was that this needed cleaned up, but I'm damned if I can see how that isn't POV or a dicdef. If anyone can see a way, I will withdraw this nomination, but please don't vote keep unless you can suggest what the article could contain. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's the encyclopaedia entry for "machine politics" in William Safire's Safire's Political Dictionary (Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 9780195343342, pp 406.) that provides a fairly good guide. ☺ It takes up one and a half columns. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable historical concept, and the rise of machine politics (as opposed to mere faction) is a crucial part of the history of democracy. OR, and the like, can be cleaned up in the article, and does not merit deletion. RayAYang (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RayAYang, this nomination has nothing to do with notability. The term is notable - but we don't do mere terms. Concept? I don't think this is a concept. It's a term that is/was used as a pejorative attack. Can you outline what would be in the article if cleaned up? Because I've no idea what wouldn't ultimately be POV.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagreement with the article content is not a rationale for deletion. Improve, not remove. The concept of a political machine is controversial but that should not prevent us from producing a neutral article about it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, disagreement with the article content is NOT a rationale for deletion - who is suggesting it is? I'm suggesting that no article could be written on this. It isn't that it is "controversial", it is that it is just a negative term, not an objective concept. If you think a neutral article can be written, please outline it and I will withdraw, but don't vote keep without answering the problems actually outlined in the nomination.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right that it's not an objective concept. We would have to delete a great deal of Wikipedia articles if we removed every concept that is not objective. For an example of a neutral article written on the history of a controversial perjorative term, see Islamofascism. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable concept with historical usage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article isn't great, but the all you need to do is see Boss Tweed to conclude that the concept is real. Avruch T 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see Tammany Hall for another example of a famous political machine. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like the nominator and others are working to improve the article. Before anyone says "AfD is not for _____", I would say that this is where the forum is at its finest: calling attention to an article that could be saved if there are people willing to do so. Kudos to McDonald, Delaney, and Avruch on this point. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have other fora for calling attention to bad articles, not least among them WP:ICU. AfD is for irretrievably unencyclopaedic articles. Skomorokh 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the "selected reading" texts that I added are nearly all available in their entirety on Google Books. Avruch T 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BookPage[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete As the article is about a company that provides a number of information services, both in print and over the web, I'd say WP:ORG is the more appropriate standard. I don't, however, see any non-trivial reliable sources about this service. I see a lot (and I mean _a lot_) of libraries stating that they're subscribers and offering their readers advice on how to use the service, but I'd class such articles as trivial. I'd change my mind if just one independent source with substantial information about the service is found. It sounds like it _should_ be notable. JulesH (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources found. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Coin Flip[edit]

Curse of the Coin Flip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just a pure example of original reasearch as it could be. None of the sources with the exception of one fan site mentions a curse of the team, and I got less than 100 direct google hits and 0 google news hits. It's litterally a fan-based WP:COATRACK Delete Secret account 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yuk. The Curse of the Coin Flip sounds like a Hardy Boys mystery, but the real mystery is how this stayed up since March. This is an original research essay that describes the curse as "Two seasons after selecting Alcindor, who later changed his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the Bucks won an NBA Championship (1971), while the Suns still have yet to do so." Notwithstanding that the Suns somehow made it to the 1976 championship without Kareem, this is simply a rewriting of existing material on the team's history in a supposedly humorous style. It's worth noting that the only "source" that actually refers to a curse is a comment in a blog [18] that got no responses. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's certainly interesting, but not enough sources to keep it from being called original research, per User:Mandsford, ARBITRARILY0 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OxiClean[edit]

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

A product whose apparent claim to fame is solely based on the spokesperson, Billy Mays. In this case, notability is not inherent, nor does popularity (or fame) equate to notability as given in guidelines. There are no references give, and as such, none of the information is verifiable. Given the famous nature of this product, one would imagine that there are plenty of secondary sources, but after scouring basic Google (and Blogs and Books and Scholar), the best are simply trivial mentions, such as sales hype or hints, or of similar nature. As the article reads, it is very close to a simple advertisement, but the lack of available sources indicates it will never be anything beyond that. Charles D. Ward (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's also this and this. Zagalejo^^^ 19:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo, sources do seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that Billy Mays promoted it in advertisements does not mean that e can't write about its chemical components or whether there are doubts about its claims. People consulted Wikipedia for information about Lipitor without Robert Jarvik telling them to do so. I agree that this could be written in a less spammy way, and perhaps even given a redirect to the less exciting sodium percarbonate when people click on the blue link OxiClean. Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable despite their completely annoying informercials. JBsupreme (talk) 03:35, 7 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. discounting socks it's a obvious G11 Secret account 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchable DJ Drastic[edit]

The Untouchable DJ Drastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced, self promotion, I see no real claim to notability, just a lot of association with other notable people, notability is not inherited. search shows nothing past self promotion Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page meets guidelines WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles although the subject is a multi-faceted professional. Editors that express their opinions outside of technical guidelines should not be deemed valid. (i.e. “Delete for all of the above reasons. It sucks that this article has lasted 2 months here before being brought to AfD. This sort of thing drastically lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and devalues the good work done by responsible editors.”)

This article does not devalue editor contributions. The article needs revisal although most recent page revisal seems satisfactory.

As an editor, you should improve the article. Editors some times tend to act as as Wiki terminators. Secure this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia-Wikki (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete page but instead add references

More references would be ideal. I do not feel this page should be deleted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieAmaze (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Page / Do Not Delete

The Untouchable DJ Drastic is one of New York's most prominent talents. Keep this page. I don't feel this page promotes him at all. I tend to observe that some editors on Wikipedia hate on certain pages that they are unfamilar with themselves. This is fact. I'm not saying anyone in particular is doing so although it's very easy to nominate pages for deletion. If that is the case then anytime you review a person's bio, it would be considered "Promotion" - {{User:Millz Jae|Millz Jae} 01:00 10 December 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millz Jae (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secure Article

This article elaborates on a majority of Daniel M. Johnson (The Untouchable DJ Drastic)’s professional work within the entertainment and media industries. I am reading the user talk and additional comments regarding this article, I feel that this article does not promote the subject. It elaborates on his professional outlets. I recently touched up a few of the paragraphs in order to save the article.

The user below stated that the article displays that the subject has affiliation to notable people although I feel that it is notable people that have affiliation to the subject and/or are notable as a result of the subject.

This page has been vandalized before and while Wikipedia is a user maintained. I feel that this page should be secured as the subject is a media professional.

The subject’s references are valid.

-Wiki Revisals 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revise Article This article should be re-written and additional references should be made available. Some of the user talk listed below seems draconian to me. This page has been vadalized in the past and should be revised for appropriate insertion but not deleted. JessicaWiki 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would say speedy under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, but there is a long history, so I guess CSD can't apply. And I smell WP:COI. This is reads like a chaps self-written resume. Charles D. Ward (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sadly I can't agree with A7 , G11 may apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the above reasons. It sucks that this article has lasted 2 months here before being brought to AfD. This sort of thing drastically lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and devalues the good work done by responsible editors. Boston (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Revise Article This article should be re-written and additional references should be made available. Some of the user talk listed below seems draconian to me. This page has been vadalized in the past and should be revised for appropriate insertion but not deleted.


and I would say speedy under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, but there is a long history, so I guess CSD can't apply. And I smell WP:COI. This is reads like a chaps self-written resume. Charles D. Ward (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sadly I can't agree with A7 , G11 may apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Revise Article This articuleI disagree and this page should be re-written



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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of British regions and territories[edit]

List of leaders of British regions and territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom for Nuttah. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, the nomination. This a a prod that has been contested without a reason given. This is a random collection that ranges from virtually independent nations with their elected leaders to QUANGOS with their appointed heads. Of these very many are neither a region or a territory, and even if they were these two entities are massively different in scope. Essentially, a random and unencyclopaedic agglomeration of facts. As nominator I say delete. Nuttah (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH. See also Wikipedia:Listcruft. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another randomly assembled hodgepodge list. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim. The heads of government of British Overseas Territorys is clearly a notable, encyclopedic topic, and such a list would be useful. I don't see much point in including regional leaders, though. At the very least, it should be a separate list. And speaking as a resident of the West Midlands, I didn't even know we had a regional assembly... JulesH (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more unmaintainable listcruft with vague inclusion criteria. Trusilver 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I'm assuming that there are leaders for most governments, even rather powerless devolved governments in England and Scotland; as such, they would pass WP:POLITICIAN, and would be notable: having a list of them would be rather analogous to List of current United States governors. Meanwhile, all leaders of colonies/dependent territories/etc. are notable by dint of being those leaders, and having a list of them would be highly useful as well as being in line with established policy. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmet Sweeney[edit]

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

Minor fringe theorist. Article (and its subject) fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:RS. Biruitorul Talk 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable independent source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Boston (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF; see also WP:FRINGE. None of his books has been published by an academic press, nor is there evidence of any academic position. I couldn't find any evidence that anyone has taken him seriously enough to rebut his claims. RJC TalkContribs 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A WorldCat search returned 15 book entries, several of which were duplicates, and almost all published by small publishers. The most widely held, Empire of Thebes, is held by only 146 libraries worldwide in electronic form. A Google Scholar search for him as an author yielded only a few articles with even fewer citations. A Google News search returned nothing.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and everything else too. JBsupreme (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eric Yurken. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:FRINGE. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely promotional, fails several guidelines. The subject may grow more notable, but it shouldn't be because wikipedia made it so. Dahn (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bass N' Cream[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable band. Google search brings up very few (i.e. 15 "unique") results, and they are not significant mentions in reliable, independent sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sterby[edit]

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

Non-notable computer programmer. The person's software company doesn't even seem to have a website. The only web page that mentions the person's name and company name together is this Wikipedia article. Gary King (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, the article indicates no notable achievement (with the exception of going to college). Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I declined the speedy because there is, in fact, a weak claim of importance in the article. (Founding a company.) No harm in letting the AfD run its course.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I figured that the bit of information was good enough to require that the article be sent to AfD instead of CSD. Gary King (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. I'd support a Speedy Delete because any of us can found a company by filing the proper papers Monday morning but such an action wouldn't make one notable. Boston (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree that founding a company doesn't make one notable -- I've founded a company, and I'm definitely not notable. But A7 doesn't require a claim of notability, it requires a claim of importance, which is a lower standard.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone ever heard of a computer programmer or their website without any web presence whatsoever? Seems unlikely... -= Mgm|(talk) 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes. MBisanz talk 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostesses in the Slot Machine[edit]

Ghostesses in the Slot Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article provides no reception information, no production information, and no citations from reliable sources. The entire article consists of plot summary and lists of inside jokes and cultural references. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no independent sources that suggest notability for this particular episode.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We should really have more precise guidelines with respect to TV episodes, like we have for songs. But I'll echo Kww: no source for notability. Also WP:PLOT, WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO--Boffob (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes.Sandmaster (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator - It would be preferable to delete and then recreate as a redirect so that the article cannot be easily recreated in full, and also so that this discussion can decisively establish the individual non-notability of this episode. Neelix (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and perhaps merge to List of Drawn Together episodes. There ought to be a happy medium between the long episode articles and the short one-sentence TV Guide type plot synposes in the list. And it is not preferable to delete and then recreate as a redirect. If it were necessary to prevent recreation, a protected redirect would accomplish the same thing and still allow access to the edit history for potential merge purposes. Our episode guideline says that redirects and merges are preferable to deletion, unless the content is "completely unverifiable and original research". Much of the information in this article is verifiable at least to primary sources, and possibly to secondary sources. Deleting harmless edit history goes against the promise made in our fifth pillar: "Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity." DHowell (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for finding and quoting some guidelines on this! Redirecting looks like it would be the most appropriate option. The extent of merge can be discussed on the List of Drawn Together episodes talk page. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've actually changed your opinion with my argument?! Thank you for making my day. :) You might want to strikeout your bolded recommendation above, or indicate that you are withdrawing or changing your nomination, to help the closing administrator determine the proper outcome. DHowell (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall Time Travel Therory[edit]

Whitehall Time Travel Therory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD by page's creator. Non-notable theory, only source is self-published. Fails WP:V, WP:NFT, possibly WP:COI. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clearly. Zero coverage anywhere else other than here, funnily enough. It almost qualifies as WP:HOAX. And please send this "physics student" off for some spelling lessons while we're at it .... --Nickhh (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no source for notability, original research, etc...--Boffob (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Time travel is possible and has been proven and demonsrated, just not in the way suggested in this unsourced essay. This is not the place to publish original research. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • rereading it this is sort of almost the real example of time travel (sorry was too eager to dismiss this bullshit as bullshit) but it is not, as suggested, an original idea from Whitehall, just based on the demonostrated example of a shown example of time travel already demonstrated. The main real difference is the "wormhole" which I see no support for. Unsourced original research.Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely non-notable. WP:MADEUP clearly applies here. Plus, the title made me think it was some kind of conspiracy theory involving Whitehall and time travel. It just couldn't live up to that. JulesH (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was rather disappointed about that as well. --Nickhh (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "due to lack of funding and the inability to create wormholes." Errr, seriously, this is a prime case of WP:MADEUP. gnfnrf (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale exclusive singles[edit]

Ashley Tisdale exclusive singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiple reasons. First, I think this could technically be speedied as the product of a blocked user. Msoldi was blocked indefinitely on Sept. 28th, and Voices4ever was the puppetmaster of that account. Failing that argument, I just don't see any value in this article. Everything in it is already covered under the individual single articles or in Ashley Tisdale. —Kww(talk) 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clipta[edit]

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

I won't exactly call this spam, but the apparent lack of third-party coverage renders it a WP:WEB violation, and hence liable to deletion. Biruitorul Talk 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Alexa rank listed in the article is pretty unimpressive, and the only substantial claims of notability are crystal ball this-might-happen-someday future stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Clipta claims to have the intellectual property that will lead Clipta to be the largest deep indexed Video search engine on the Internet." is obviously self-aggrandization (or however you spell that). Apart from the Alexa link, none of the links are independent. A Google news source turned up blank and a Google search, reasonable to use regarding websites turns up half a million hits, but no sources in the first three pages either. - Mgm|(talk) 00:04, 6 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, a clear case of blatant advertising, it was admitted by the creator. Wikipedia is not a webhost to store information about your personal film project. Mgm|(talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haarushi[edit]

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

Made up character, author has asked that it is kept until they finish a movie they are making [19], however wikipedia is not a webhost provider nor a soapbox to advertise from Terrillja talk 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Author's message very clearly indicates that they are attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising mechanism. No reason to give this a full five days (or even another five minutes, in my opinion). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, possibly speedily as nonsense, or under WP:SNOWBALL. Why should the criteria prevent us getting rid of such rubbish? TrulyBlue (talk) 20:13, 5 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 g1, nonsense, WP:SNOW if you must. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Balloon[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism, band that coined the phrase doesn't have an article and appears to be NN. Declined speedy, wanted to open up to community consensus. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:DICT wikipedia is not a slang, usage or jargon guide, side note, a specific slang speedy criteria would be nice.--Terrillja talk 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Ventura Jr: Pet Detective[edit]

Ace Ventura Jr: Pet Detective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable future film that fails WP:NFF and the general film notability guidelines. Little coverage beyond standard trivial notes about possible future DVD release. It is not released yet, so no reviews, and while it may or may not actually be completed, there is little reliably sourced information about it at this time. Was prodded by another editor with reason of "non-notable firm could also be fail wp:crustal ball"; prod removed by IP without reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Looks like production on the film has started (at least according to the article). IIRC, that means the film is considered notable enough to have its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since while this may be DTV, it is part of a popular franchise. The trailer showed at Quantum of Solace, so it is pretty complete, I'd say. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Film is completed and is scheduled for release by a major studio (whether to theatres or DVD is irrelevant). Needs better sourcing, but notable enough; reviews can't be added till the film is released, but that's the case for all future films. It's also, as noted, part of a notable franchise. 23skidoo (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:NFF. Sources do indeed show that it has been filmed and completed. That its original release date had been rescheduled does not detract fom the multiple WP:RS that speak toward its completion and ultimate release on DVD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who honestly cares for notability? We need to make these bad mockeries of films known. Or Wikipedia will have no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.80.185 (talk) 00:00, 9 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 IAR. This nomination was the nominator's very first edit, and furthermore, the issuing seems only to be with sourcing. This can easily be sourced, and unless I'm mistaken anything that can be easily sourced shouldn't be deleted. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist countries[edit]

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

The article has been nominated for deletion a few months ago, and the result of the discussion was to keep mainly because most users felt that while the article was badly written and biased, it could be improved. However, it had not improved, because it couldn't. A list of socialist countries could not be NPOV, as socialism is an ideology that had many different characteristics, definitions and interpretations. There is no neutral way to give a list of socialist countries in the world, and so instead the article gave a list of countries (solely by original research) which described themselves as socialist in their constitutions somehow. But imagine if there is a list of countries which described themselves as capitalist. It would be largely unrepresentative and biased, and would surely not be encyclopedic. Indeed, the introduction of this article itself described the article as unrepresentative and meaningless. To conclude, the article is useless original research and could not be improved because there could not be a credible and definitive source for a list of socialist countries. While a rename to "list of countries which describe themselves as socialist" may be a solution, it would, in my opinion, be of little encyclopedic value and would only serve as a fertile ground for ideological debate. Hence I propose a delete. Naur (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - List of socialists and all other articles of lists of socialists have recently been deleted. The main discussion is here. The rationale is similar. Naur (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I did not participate in the previous AFD, but I think the conclusion of that one is correct- keep and improve. In response to nom's assertion that it can't be improved, I respectfully disagree. Just because it HASN'T been improved, doesn't mean it CAN'T be improved. This is a viable topic that can be fixed with proper sourcing and re-writing. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could you elaborate? What would the sources be? There couldn't be a list of socialist countries in the world. No one could make such a list, because definitions of socialism differ. Imagine if there is, say, a list of capitalist countries. Imagine the nightmares it would cause. So should, like the article currently does, simply include countries which describe themselves as socialist in their names or constitutions? First off, this would become original research. And second, this would be "list of countries which describe themselves as socialist", instead of "list of socialist countries". You see the problem? To elaborate, many countries in Europe ruled by parties from Socialist International is not included, apparently because some users think social democracy is not socialism. That's original research and a NPOV nightmare, and we couldn't fix it because there's no source out there that could clearly define an ideology for us. Would Arab socialism, which is anti-colonial in nature, be regarded as socialism? Some agree and some disagree. There is no source that could resolve a dispute that is ideological in nature. Naur (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not really seeing any problem with this list that can't be fixed by cleanup and attention. LOTS of cleaup and attention mind you. But just because it would be hard doesn't mean giving up is the better option. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are loads of sourced to back up this concept ([20],[21],[22]). Yes, the current article is a mess, and pretty bad, but improvement is at least feasible. If not improved with sources, though, then this could be considered original research and deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you click through your sources, you'll find that every list is different. Which list should we take? It is perfectly possible to create a list by your own definitions. It is impossible to create an encyclopedic article of it. I disagree that the current article is a mess. On the contrary, I think it's the most objective list possible, because the inclusion criteria gives little room for POV, which would run rampant if we attempt to source them (the POV coming from deciding which source to use). The major problem remains that there is no certain definition of socialism, and what countries it include. In one of the lists you provided, for example, there are "mixed socialist economies" and "socialist economies". The problem is best described by the source itself (third source, the page after that): "are the categories really conceptually distinct?..the distinction between mixed socialist and socialist is troublesome to apply..any classification of countries into types of politico-economic regimes is bound to be time dependent.." The source included this list solely to elaborate the problems one would face in an attempt to give a list of socialist countries. Your source explains exactly why this article should be deleted. Naur (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Certainly a discriminate list. I would like to see more verifiability of all these socialist states, past and present, but that can easily be found with various papers from the media or even in academic research. Also, I, even though I personally do not agree with socialism, do not think that this is NPOV. Obviously, you cannot go around and declare every left-leaning/leftist state as socialist without verification that they have declared themselves as such (that would amount to synth/OR). MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources likely exist in the articles about the various countries discussing where on the socialism spectrum these countries exist, and the political orientation of nations is obviously notable in terms of world politics. If there is disagreement about whether North Korea is socialist, sources can be presented on each side, such as the refs in the North Korea article from the Times, the Telegraph, and the New York Times describing North Korea as a Stalinist dictatorship. The fact that someone can quibble about definitions does not make it impossible to have such an article. This is a content dispute, not a notability dispute. The list is discriminate and encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 18:34, 5 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 Super Robot Wars. MBisanz talk 03:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow-Mirror[edit]

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as we did with all the other Super Robots articles (more than 60). No notability. -- nips (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reason as all the other articles. I certainly wouldn't make a redirect because I don't think someone looking for "shadow mirror" is necessarily looking for something related to Super Robot Wars.--Boffob (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Merge, it should at least be mentioned in the SRW article. Laurent paris (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect: no notability, due to a lack of reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect: Per all my other "Super Robot War" entries, how many of these noms are there lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional governments[edit]

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

Trivia list that contains entry; "Witch's Council - Sabrina, the Teenage Witch"!

A "category" would be better for this, at it'll only show the ones of any interest. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of selected fictional elements from a vast universe of such elements. There are far too (hundreds of thousands?) many governments in fictional works, like every episode of Mission Impossible or Get Smart or other fiction where real governments are not used as villains, and every futuristic science fiction writing or show. A category would be better, and would be restricted to ones notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. "Fictional government" too wide a criterion to make a manageable list.--Boffob (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear violation of WP:NOT. JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case citations would certainly be available, so this is not a reason to delete
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This trivial cruft/clutter belongs elsewhere, not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is exactly what lists are and why lists are much more and more useful than categories. First off categories don't organize information as such, to get the same level presented here would be spread amongst dozens of category pages and even then only presently alphabetically. The context would be utterly lost whereas one can easily overview this list to quickly assess different series as well as an overall survey of fictional governments. It's not presented sensationally and all and the items can be sourced to the originating properties. This is useful information presented concisely and in context perfect for fiction writers, researchers and fans of such. Wikipedia is not made better by labeling it as cruft and deleting it. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN and WP:SALAT and per Benjiboi. If it is necessary to make this a list of only notable fictional governments then this is accomplished by trimming the non-notable ones. If the list is too broad, then the solution is to split it into more manageable lists, as per the relevant guideline. A lack of sources is not a reason to delete anything with verifiable information; every item on this list is verifiable to the published fictional work in which it exists. If the source isn't cited here it may be cited on an article to which this list links, we do not require every fact to be cited everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, especially if the citation is only a wikilink click away. And "better as a category" is not a reason to delete a list, as lists and categories complement each other. DHowell (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something can be "verified" does not make it notable or encyclopedic as per Wikipedia policies. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And just because you are able to link to WP:NOT and say the words "clear violation" does not make it one. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - I was going to say if List of governments existed that could justify this list, but it does not exist. It would be very hard to make this a usefully complete list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful list for organization and navigation, redlinks help generate new content in a way that no category ever can, primary deletion criteria appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is unconvincing. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this argument before, I find it a bit bizarre, keeping an article full of red links in the hope that it will generate more articles (probably trivial ones in this case) shouldn't be justification for inclusion. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bizarre as red links are one way we build Wikipedia. If you eliminate the list and have only a category - which arguably many users don't even use - then only existing articles can even be seen and only if they are categorized correctly and only if you are on the right category page. A list addresses all those issues as well as pointing out which articles likely need to be written. An informed reader looking at the list might be surprised that an obvious article doesn't yet exist and may ... write an article. I know, it's a lot easier to delete articles (and lists) but people do follow redlinks and write articles. This is, in part, why we have lists. -- Banjeboi 19:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to delete this article to delete this article because of some "conspiracy of ease", I want to delete it because it's trivial rubbish. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting that you want to delete this article because you don't like it. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never denied not liking trivial rubbish (it even says so on my user page!), but that doesn't make my nomination (or anyone else's Delete votes) any less valid. This is not some conspiracy to delete every article from Wikipedia, just to replace this with a much more useful category. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as the category already exists (so there is no need to "replace" anything) and several people apparently find a list more useful than the category, why should your opinion take precedence over theirs? DHowell (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry when I say "replace" I meant that the already existent category would then take over the role "providing a list of fictional governments to our readers", once this is deleted. I do not believe this list if useful, as stated before it's full of trivia, lacks references and is vulnerable to OR.
"My opinion take precedence over theirs?" What are you talking about???? This is why we're having a deletion debate, to see what everyone thinks, this is not "me versus you", this isn't some secret conspiracy by me to take over Wikipedia.
I also think your above argument to JBsupreme is hypocritical, "just because you are able to link to WP:NOT and say the words "clear violation" does not make it one", then (in that same edit) you posted to me a link, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:42, 10 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. Both sides made good and bad points. The article isn't verified, but it's not fully unverifiable. Once I disregard the bad reasoning on both sides, I can't find a consensus either way. Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military organizations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional military organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of trivial mentions, some of which are OR (i.e. Terran Federation "Armed Forces"). A "category" would be better, at it'll only show the ones of any interest. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:V, with no citations provided to demonstrate these are indeed what they claim to be. - Biruitorul Talk 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' The organisations can be easily documented through the references for the articles for the notable works. A perfectly reasonable list, meeting the list criteria. If one or two are undocumentable OR, that can be discussed on the talk p. A category would be much inferior, because it would a/require making an article for each of these groups, while there is significant activity (unfortunately sometimes successful) trying to delete such articles, b/even if they were all recognized as notable enough for an article, the category would only give their names, not the fictional works involved or the name of the author, information which is given here, as usual for a list. I'm sorry, but without any implication about the individual nominator here, I see deletions such as this a part of the trend to remove fictional content--removing full articles and putting inadequate summaries in combination articles, followed by removing combination articles and putting the bare bones on lists, followed by removing the lists. this is not a good trend, and would never have been approved by the community in toto, but is being carried out piecemeal. DGG (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Maybe it's me, but I am not understanding where WP:OR comes into play here. For instance, I don't see how listing that the Terran Federation, which is the centerpiece of the famous novel (later films) Starship Troopers, is considered original research. The same can be said about most of the other items in this list. I also think this can be improved by making this a list of lists and splitting this into other, smaller, and more maintainable lists. MuZemike (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OR is that the article literally calls it "Terran Federation Armed Forces", I don't believe it's ever been referred to by this name in the book, if someone deduced it, then it's OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. It's been a while since I read Starship Troopers, but it certainly had a "Mobile Infantry" and I recall an "Army" and a "Navy" (or perhaps it was a "Fleet") as well. If they weren't collectively called the "Armed Forces" they could at least be called whatever they were called in the book. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have the audacity to say to me "so fix it", and then go on to say "any original research is solved by removing or fixing the specific OR", so why don't you go and "fix it". It is not the responsibility of the nominator to "fix" an article, if anyone cared enough to do it, they would. If they don't, then it's a fair indicator that no-one ever will. In fact if you look at the history, since this article was last nominated, no attempts have been made to improve it, just more trivial data added. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you have the audacity to say to all of us, that there's some OR, and nobody's working on it, "so delete it" if it's not completely fixed in 5 days. There is no deadline, and AFD is not cleanup, etc. This is a volunteer project and fixing Wikipedia is every editor's responsibility. It is especially the responsibity of anyone who believes there is a problem that needs to be fixed to fix it. And it is the responsibility of the nominator to consider all other options before nominating an article for deletion. If "Terran Federation Armed Forces" is the worst example of OR you can find in this article, then there is hardly any OR that needs to be fixed. Who exactly is going to be harmed because "Wikipedia said Starship Troopers has a 'Terran Federation Armed Forces'"? Anyway, I've gone ahead and fixed that particular item, so now I've gotten rid of the only OR that has been pointed out in this entire discussion. So will you now withdraw "original research" from your nomination rationale? DHowell (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, some categorization may be original research as well. Again, "fictional something" is too vague a criterion to make the list manageable. Could possibly be split into more manageable separate list articles (e.g. military orgs in tv series, books, games).--Boffob (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable clutter/cruft that isn't very encyclopedic. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcability doesn't mean notability. This is just another shovelful of unmaintainable listcruft. Trusilver 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A lot of the problems could be solved by "normal editing", but the list would look nothing like what it does now. This list is indiscriminate, unsourced, and divided along editor classifications. Who is to say that there is a commonality between the Tau in Warhammer 40,000 and a fictional company in a WWII game? How many of these links in this article are redirects and how many entries in this list aren't individual notable elements? Who determines what a fictional terrorist organization is? Protonk (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Drum this indiscriminate, unsourced, cruft collection out of the corps. Much better served by a category. L0b0t (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these objections were all answered in the first unsuccessful deletion nomination 2 years ago. Although consensus can change I do not see any reason why it could or should. As demonstrated in that discussion, the list criteria are well-formed, closed-ended, and discriminate: these are (1) military forces, (2) that are fictional, (3) in works of fiction. List articles are perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia and it is up to those who maintain each list to address the threshold of verifiability required of each list item. The list is useful as a navigational / categorization system to a reader who might be interested in the subject. Editors are free to enjoy or not enjoy fictional universe but the opinion that they are "cruft" is just that, an opinion, and not a valid source of argument. Personally, I don't like real military history either, but I don't go about trying to rid the encyclopedia of ancient battles as "war cruft". Many readers must appreciate the subject because military fiction (a somewhat broader category that includes fictional accounts of real military organizations) is a bona fide category of fiction (see [23]). It allows one researching the subject to quickly find notable information, for example depictions of fictional United Nations military operations or fictional US Army units - analysis of how fiction writers treat various subjects is a real subject for purposes of studying both literature and popular culture. Neither categories nor internal hyperlinking would work because this ties together two data points (name of organization, which itself is often notable, and the name of the work). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. A good article could be written on Portrayals of the military in fiction or similar, but it wouldn't look anything like this (it wouldn't be an unreferenced list, for starters). Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any fictional item can easily be sourced to the original source - the book, movie, etc. in which it appeared. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well those would be primary sources and are useful only up to a certain point. They are not enough to demonstrate real-world notability or importance of the subject. That is only managed through secondary sources (3rd party material that is independent of the subject of the article such as media-studies textbooks, published guides to series and the like.) This is all pretty clearly laid out at our policy and guideline pages verifiability, reliable sources, original research and, particularly germane to the discussion at hand, writing about fiction (a guideline this article fails miserably by the way.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those sources would be perfectly suitable to show that a fictitious military organization is indeed a fictitious military organization - what the list is about. If the list was instead about the most dangerous, least effective, most famous, etc. fictitious military organizations then waving OR concerns would be valid. Instead this is just a list and every item on a list doesn't need to be independently notable, at all. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG and Wikidemon. I'm also troubled by the campaign that now seems in effect to delete all fictional lists - this is draining on the community. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where to start, there are so many problems with this article. Falls foul of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:V for starters. Doesn't conform to policy see WP:WAF. Looking at the original delete discussion, none of the promise improvements have materialised. Much better served by a category than a list. Justin talk 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who exactly is served better by a category - which I believe exists already? -- Banjeboi 03:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be better as only the notable "fictional military organizations" will be shown, at the moment it's a list of stuff like;
  • 5th Defense Group
  • 5th Special Division
  • 6th Fleet
  • 6th Orbital Fleet
  • 7th Mobile Fleet
  • 7th Orbital Fleet
  • 8th Air Defense Group
  • 8th Fleet
This explains nothing, except that a "fictional military organization" exists in "Gundam Seed" called "7th Orbital Fleet". We have nothing against sci-fi or comics (although this is what the majority of the contains), just against lists of indiscriminate information. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So how exactly is multiple categories better than a list again? You might want to note that many articles were started because they started as a redlink - removing a bunch of items from a list doesn't necessarily make it better, at all. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I just answered that question, nobody wants a long list of trivial information. And "having a list of red-links, hoping that other articles might be created" is not a justification for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually you didn't, you made it clear that you don't like the list but besides a strict alphasorting of articles - which isn't always so helpful - I see no benefits of eliminating this list and assuming users will use the category instead. In fact, I think it's more than likely that they won't as categories are traditionally under utilized. This list orgainzes the material in meaningful ways and fills in gaps where we don't presently have articles. And a recent study about Wikipedia showed that redlinks do work. Likely why we still use them. -- Banjeboi 19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First you ask "who", I answer, then you ask "how" and I answer. I'm stating my point; the few noteworthy articles linked too in this list are in the category, people are better served by this than searching through a swarm of trivial mentions (as exampled above) for the few small nuggets of interest. I don't think your logic of "having a list of red links will help the encyclopaedia will grow" is justification for inclusion. You've stated your argument, and I've stated mine, I hardly think we're gonna persuade each other to change our minds and this is starting to go around in circles. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked who is better served if we delete this list and to me the answer is no one, I guess you see everyone as better served. We'll have to agree to disagree then. You then fall back on well there are trivial items on the list and - OMG! - redlinks; these are regular editing issues and quite commons to all lists. Not every list contains only notable items. I still see no one as benefiting by deleting of this content. -- Banjeboi 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN and WP:SALAT and per DGG and Wikidemon. If it is necessary to make this a list of only notable fictional military organizations then this is accomplished by trimming the non-notable ones. If the list is too broad, then the solution is to split it into more manageable lists, as per the relevant guideline. A lack of sources is not a reason to delete anything with verifiable information; every item on this list is verifiable to the published fictional work in which it exists. If the source isn't cited here it may be cited on an article to which this list links, we do not require every fact to be cited everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, especially if the citation is only a wikilink click away. And "better as a category" is not a reason to delete a list, as lists and categories complement each other. Finally, any original research is solved by removing or fixing the specific OR, not by deleting an entire article because it has some OR. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikidemon. Sure it needs some more referencing but I don't see what deleting it will accomplish, it's not offending anyone and it can't be improved if it's gone. Mfield (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful list for organization and navigation, primary deletion criteria appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not convincing. - Dravecky (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category would be useful for organizing and navigation, this list, not so much. As for "I don't like it", actually, I do like it but it fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:WAF. L0b0t (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list with no assertions of notability and too few internal links to be useful as a directory.ALR (talk) 11:12, 10 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. Additional information has been provided showing she was known before 2008 and the Joe the Plumber incident. Since most comments about merging were before additional sources and info was provided, I'll leave a possible merge to be discussed on the talk page. In any case, I'd like to point some people in this discussion to Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Jones-Kelley[edit]

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

This person is only notable for one event. Perhaps Joe the Plumber will have lasting notability but the person who leaked accessed his records without permission probably will not. Clearly the intent of the article is hostile to Ms Jones-Kelley, as are many about people involved in the 2008 US presidential campaign. The WP policy on attack articles may or may not apply. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep/Merge - on the face of it, this article might seem to pass WP:RS (given the amount of sources provided), but I agree with the nominator that there are WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E issues here - Helen Jones-Kelley isn't really notable in her own right. However, I think there are better alternatives to deletion: one would be to rewrite the article to focus on the event rather than the person (e.g. 2008 Ohio illegal search controversy), another would be to merge it into a subsection of the Joe the Plumber article. Terraxos (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This was announced on the Joe the Plumber talk page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge NN and NOTNEWS.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge - well-sourced but basically a footnote to the Joe the Plumber page. A page on the "ohio illegal search controversy" as mentioned above might work but better would be a subsection of the Joe the plumber page. csloat (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reading the article, it's clear she is notable for two things: leaking Joe the Plumber's records, and a scandal involving fundraising for Obama on state time. Plenty of sources for both (although one needs to be fixed - I'll see about doing that). A merge wouldn't work because the information on the fundraising scandal, while supported by reliable sources, would be off-topic in the Joe the Plumber article. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a public figure in Ohio, now a nationally known public figure. The article is well referenced, and I agree with Kafziel, she is notable for more then just the Joe the Plumber records search. The article may need a bit of rework to avoid being perceived as a hostile work, but I had similar issues with the Diane Wilkerson article; that being most of the references available refer only to negative events not positive. Hardnfast (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up, it seems her actions in the Joe the Plumber searches may cause the Ohio legislature to enact a new law mandating the "firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information". In addition to what I previously stated, having state law changed as a result of your actions would seem to be further cause for the article to stay. However, I would support the delete of the section titled "Ohio newspaper editorial comments on Jones-Kelley" as it does seem gratuitous and out of place in the article. Hardnfast (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your facts are not correct. Her department's budget is in the billions, not the millions. Her budget is 17 Billion dollars. This demonstrates the importance of her present job position. Please see the Department biography of Helen Jones-Kelley. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that her agency issues unemployment and family aid checks, not that she is free to spend the $17 billion any way she wants. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are people not reading the article, where it talks about two completely separate events? I had to actually read it, because I had never heard of her before, but are most other people just assuming that the nomination is correct in applying BLP1E? Because it's not. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Director of major state agency and therefore notable. The Joe the P. business is worth inclusion, but incidental. BLP wouldnt apply anyway, because it was a major event of national political significance. DGG (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Helen Jones-Kelley heads a major state agency and recieved media attention prior to her background checks on Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, aside from the Joe Wurzelbacher scandal, Jones-Kelley has also participated in another scandal. Numerous reliable sources have commented on Jones-Kelley's misuse of state computers to campaign for the 2008 election - this is documented in Ohio Inspector General Thomas Charles' report on Jones-Kelley's conduct. The issues listed above are about events and not one specific event. As there are numerous media articles concerning her various notable activities, Helen Jones-Kelley has earned a vote of strong keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She is notable by virtue of office, by virtue of c.v. and by virtue of being the subject of a report from the Inspector General of Ohio (three separate and distinct claims for being notable - each of which is sufficient by WP standards) . Some of her actions were totally unrelated to Joe the Plumber, hence impossible to "merge" with any rationale at all. It is not "coatrack" as the article is quite clearly limited directly to her specific actions. It is not "WP:BLP1E" as with three separate claims to notability, that argument fails. No reason to delete. No article where it would merge with any logic at all. Person is notable otherwise. Pretty clear, even is some people wish she did not exist. Collect (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Joe Wurzelbacher can be notable for simply asking a question, then Helen Jones-Kelley can be notable for performing searches that breach protocol on notable figures (in this case Wurzelbacher) and for allegedly using her computer for political fund raising. Since she's famous for two events, a merge wouldn't be appropriate. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator The other "controversy" is only alleged, says the article. It also seems fairly minor, using her work e-mail to forward some addresses of potential donors to Obama's campaign. I also nominated Barbara West (TV news anchor) for deletion because her article was mainly only about one event. It that case I argued for making a new article on just the event. In this case the information on the event could be given in Joe the Plumber. In both cases I don't think WP should have articles whose main purpose is to tell the world about some bad thing some marginally notable person did. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Then I don't think WP should have articles whose purpose is to tell the world about one or two bad things a person has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to provide a biography about a notable person. If most of the content is negative, that's because most of the coverage has been negative. If positive content (like her work with CASA) can be supported by reliable sources, it can certainly be added. This article has its problems, but it's far from an attack page. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of people who will read the article (if it's not deleted that is) will judge it by what it says, not by the high ideals of the Wikipedia community. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As they should. We're here to compile previously published information, not to avoid conflict or write sanitized hagiographies. If there's good stuff, we can put it in. But if the majority of what's out there is negative, then it's not undue weight to include it. The article on Sirhan Sirhan is hardly a glowing biography; we just work with what we're given. Kafziel Complaint Department 09:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Sirhan Sirhan gives some worthwhile information on him. It's not just telling us that he is a bad person. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that you have compared murder with someone misusing IT at work. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comparing the people, I'm comparing the article content; it's not our job to take sides. But his article doesn't have any information that this doesn't. A paragraph of background info, then on to what he did, how, and why. I chose that article as an example for that very reason. It's a guy who isn't notable for much, with an article that talks mostly about the bad things he did. And since that's what he's known for, it's okay. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sirhan Sirhan is an article I am proud of as a Wikipedian. I think most people reading it would see that an effort had been made to make it fair and informative. On the other hand, Helen Jones-Kelley would give the average person the impression that it was written to advance a political agenda or to punish its subject. (IMO of course) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - she's basically not know for much except for the Joe the Plumber issue. Sure there are some folks mad at her for looking at Joe's record (and the information was not shared). The censure for use of her e-mails for politicking was derivative of the the scrutiny around JtP and not a completely separate issue. In fact, there are those who would still love to connect her political activity with a conspiracy theory that she looked into Joe's record because of her support for Obama.Mattnad (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question your reasoning as she is the director of an agency that has a 17 Billion dollar budget. Also important, she has had media attention prior to the Joe Wurzelbacher database searches. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not particularly notable - for instance most senior vice presidents in fortune 100 corporations have multi-billion dollar P&L responsibilities. We might mention them as part of an article on their companies, but we wouldn't create articles for them alone. Again, the root of interest in her is Joe the Plumber, not her budget.Mattnad (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but much more relevant in the context of Joe the Plumber. Not itself an argument for a separate article. Mattnad (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore notable. Oren0 (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to Joe the Plumber page. Snappy (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about e-mails - let's get real about what warrants an article. This is a minor infraction that was brought up because of politics and will be forgotten because of politics. It's so meaningless from an encyclopedic POV. I think the only reason some editors want it in here is because it satisfies other agendas. Keep in mind, just because something is in the news doesn't make it encyclopedic. We also don't publish a local police blotter - e.g. On 10/25 Mary Williams cat was rescued from a tree by officer Bob. Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that. What if we had an article on every person who used their employer's computer or e-mail account to help Obama or McCain? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If their actions were covered by multiple reliable sources, how would that be a problem? Wikipedia is not paper. And we've already established that she is notable for more than just that (in fact, the email thing is the second thing). Kafziel Complaint Department 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Ohio ACLU which has now come out and called for much stronger measures against the ethics violators. Seems that they do not consider use of government computers for political purposes to be minor ... Collect (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Ohio ACLU. IMO Ms Jones-Kelley misused her authority and probably should be fired. I just don't think she needs to be further punished by being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Collect, Kafziel, Ism schism, Hardnfast, and others. If she was notable only for the Joe Wurzelbacher records look up, I would agree with merging into Joe the Plumber and redirecting. However, the issue of political emails, the investigations, size of her agency, the Ohio bill 646, and the press coverage more than satisfy BLP1E. The email issue is completely separate and would not apply to the Joe the Plumber article, therefore merging there doesn't work. There is obviously more than sufficient reliable sourcing. — Becksguy (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's review the facts presented in the article: 1. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has a director named Helen Jones-Kelley, it doesn't have its own article however. 2. Ms Jones-Kelley used her office e-mail improperly to do political activities. 3. Joe the Plumber's records were illegally accessed by Ms Jones-Kelley. This is mentioned in his article. I don't think that adds up to an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's going to be one of WP's more thrilling articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This woman is the head of a major state agency and has been implicated in two scandals, all of which are reported by reliable sources. The article clearly meets WP:BIO. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary Clinton's cleavage has also been widely reported on by reliable sources. Should we have an article on it?Steve Dufour (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really going to hassle every person who thinks this should be kept? We all know how you feel. You've said it again and again and again. But the fact of the matter is, it meets WP:V and WP:BIO, and your original assertion that it fails BLP1E is clearly incorrect. So until this becomes a guideline, you don't have a leg to stand on. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you were thinking of counterexamples, was Hillary's cleavage the first thing that popped into your head? All kidding aside, the subject has independent notability. Hillary Clinton's chest does not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It took me a couple days to think of it. :-) I'm going to make one more comment and then that's it for me. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment by nominator: This article is not really about Helen Jones-Kelley. It is about the fact that Joe the Plumber's records were illegally accessed. This is already covered in his article. Please delete this one. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we know what you think. You told us. Here and here and here and here and here and here. Saying it ten more times isn't going to make you any more right. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP. And note that the editors in JtP basically deleted the material not directly related to JtP - in short the only article dealing with the full IG report, use of government email and asking an employee to lie is this article. And, of course, her biographical information, and the Ohio department she heads. Collect (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Collect. The records lookup coverage may have catapulted this subject to greater public attention, but much of the article is unrelated to JtP. It's notable on it's own with multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:V and WP:N easily.
Further, although Steve Dufour has responded to most of the keep !votes, he has spoken to the arguments and not to the editors, as he has a right to do. He has also been quite civil in his comments so I don't see his behavior as hassling others. However, often less is more :-)
— Becksguy (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Your comment concerning NOTNEWS makes little sense concerning the detailed discussion above. As Collect has stated, "The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP." These arguements, along with the mass of substantial media coverage Helen Jones-Kelley has recieved for multiple events, are strong and clear reasons for keeping this article - as opposed to a simple NOTNEWS arguement with no explanation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. — Becksguy (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is only nominally about her, the vast bulk of it is about one incident, with only a few minor resume bits thrown in for cover. BLP1E violation. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vast bulk"? An exaggeration, due primarily to the fact that two separate sets of actions do appear to make up a lot of the article. Calling it "one incident" is actually incorrect. Collect (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collect is correct. There is no "vast bulk" about just one incident. Rather the records lookup and political emails are two major and very unconnected separate incidents, together with the previously mentioned events, information, and coverage that comprise the article. BLP1E clearly does not apply. — Becksguy (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then there should be articles about those incidents. This article is not a biography, it is an article about two separate but related incidents. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment concerning BLP1E makes little sense concerning the detailed discussion above. As Collect has stated, "The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP." These arguements, along with the mass of substantial media coverage Helen Jones-Kelley has recieved for multiple events, are strong and clear reasons for keeping this article - as opposed to a simple BLP1E arguement with no explanation - and an acknowledgement of the fact that this article has reliable sources covering more than one significant event. This is documented. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is substantial news coverage of Helen Jones-Kelley before 2008 - please see; 2006 Dayton Daily News reported Montgomery County official picked to run state department. Also, 2007 Columbus Dispatch reported One child left lasting mark on new chief and Dayton Daily News reported Success would be the end of my job, director says. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a lot of material about J-K to the article just now. None of which can be construed as negative, to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, I have added material from reliable sources for the year 2007. In each article, Helen Jones-Kelley is the subject. None of this material is negative as it focuses on her role as director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • When this article becomes about her and not about these incidents with a few bits of other material thrown in, I will change my vote. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • When you say, "these incidents," which ones are you refering to? I was under the assumption you thought this was about only one event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think they are essentially the same thing, though one could view them as two separate but related events. Regardless, my voteopinion stands until the article is more than a recounting of one or two events with minor biographical data thrown in. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a good thing this isn't a vote, then. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness everyone is being quite pedantic today. Or is it always like this on AfD these days? Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it gets a little old seeing editors - and particularly fellow admins - ignore the rest of the discussion, barely bother to look at the article, and just toss off the same argument that has been pretty well discounted since day one. I've never edited the article before this AFD, and I had never heard of this woman, but it's obvious she's had enough news coverage - about more than one thing - to warrant an article. And since the BLP1E is completely irrelevant (you yourself admit they are "two separate but related incidents"), I'm glad this isn't a vote. That's all I'm saying. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sattmals[edit]

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

Non-notable book series that is yet to be published. No reliable sources, and I couldn't find any either. Probable COI. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry M. King[edit]

Barry M. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an obscure UFO conspiracy theorist. Some mention of him on discussion boards and fringe websites, but nothing much elsewhere in decent WP:RS which would demonstrate notability, even as a noted crackpot. No reason why Wikipedia should be giving him free publicity. See also Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/James Casbolt --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep better to hve the information than not--the widespread interviews show some notability, though based on less than customarily reliable sources. DGG (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not sure I see any "widespread interviews". Where did you see those? The trusted Google search brings up 36 results. Most of those are not about this Barry King. Those that are include mirrors or extracts of his WP entry, his own Amazon profile, a couple of self-made online videos and a couple of mentions on message boards. Come on, that's not notability by WP standards, however interesting his somewhat left-field views might be to some people. --Nickhh (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't seem to find sources that are both independent and reliable.--Boffob (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is an extremely notable Ufologist of the 1970's and 1980's. Referred to as Barry King, Barry M. King and BMK. He was a leading investigator for 'Flying Saucer Review', a leading UGO group in Britain. He has featured in the majority of their publications and features as a source of investigations in over 40 rather notable ufologist books. A couple a linked in the article. And, based on his credentials as a ufologist noe works for Dr. Steven M. Greer and his Disclosure Project. Notable enough for that and also for Jenny Randles, Andy Collins, Timothy Good, Nick Redfern and even UFO Reality editor Jon King to write about. Also Carl Nagaitis and Philip Mantle and Dr. Helmut Lammer. Those youtube videos oare snippets from the infamous 90's 'British Bases 2' [24] videos of whch there were two and sold by leading UFO magazines here in Britain. He also worked with Larry Warren and Bill Uhouse on these videos and other projects. He is referenced heavily in UFO Casebook[25] throught he 70/80's. Speak to Mr. King himself on Wikipedia, [26] or Valuca[27]AWT (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, none of these are serious for WP:RS purposes or significant enough. For genuine notability, we would need broader coverage in the mainstream - for example features in The Daily Telegraph and elsewhere about UFO conspiracy theorists which identified him as a key figure in the movement (not simply a mention buried in that article) - or evidence that he was a successful published author or whatever. That's why David Icke correctly has a page here, but 1000s of others do not. --Nickhh (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A BLP that contains no reliable sources, an utter disgrace. RMHED (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every source that mentions hims does so tangentially. He doesn't appear to have any real notability of his own. Everything I have been able to find out about him so far as been by the mode of message boards and blogs. Trusilver 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disgraceful article which violations BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Rhiwabon[edit]

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

No sources cited, no relevent information to warrant having a page Garkeith (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rapid keep Perfectly acceptable article on secondary school. The information provided (location ,size, notable alumni, history ,headmaster), is the usual information & i don'ts ee how it can possibly be called "irrelevant". I am unable to explain the sudden burst of tries at changing the fairly well established consensus that all secondary schools would have sources in enough work were done, and thus meet the WP requirement of being sourceable. the nom does not appear to have tried to look for sources. DGG (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG as it's a secondary/high school, particularly of its size. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 6 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 redirect to Superbad (film). boldly Mgm|(talk) 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superbad 2007[edit]

Superbad 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a substantial copy of Superbad. It may be a test page. In any case, it cannot be confirmed that there is any notable derivative work of Superbad called Superbad 2007. Richard Cavell (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or boldly redirect, as it's a plausible search term.--Boffob (talk) 12:53, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BackSmack[edit]

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

Just a halo term. Not for wikipedia Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:26, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwellian calendar[edit]

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

No way this satisfies the usual inclusion criterion of WP:N. Mentioned in a couple blogs. WilyD 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:N and WP:MADEUP andy (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletember per lack of notability. Clearly, this is written by someone who is not the inventor of the calendar, but this is not the first proposal to divide the 52 weeks of the year into 13 months of four weeks each. I guess under the new calendar, today would be "Ember the 2nd", unless, of course, it isn't. In the meantime, people will have to plan their vacations the old fashioned way. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cute idea, but not notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. dramatic (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait, on second thought SPEEDY DELETE this madeup garbage. Snow is falling anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 03:38, 7 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 G3 hbdragon88 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrekWars[edit]

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

Probably hoax WilyD 12:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I first found this, it seems like WP:CRYSTAL i.e. fan speculation. Anyway, delete. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out the salt shaker The article has been created, AFDd, speedy deleted, and recreated. The creator's username suggests that he's here to defend this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... inclined to say "Speedy Delete" based on blatant misinformation, but with Star Wars and Star Trek cross-overs being a thing of fandom, I guess it could be seen as mildly plausible. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A successful AFD opens the door to G4s or salts. First AfD was closed as G4, but clearly was inelidgible. WilyD 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy and protect: Ryan4314 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as either a hoax or "something made up in school one day". 23skidoo (talk) 17:23, 5 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 deleted by User:Lectonar as patent nonsense. (G1) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goble[edit]

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

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense or at the very least utterly non-notable. No relevant ghits for the term "goble" in association with either "climbing" or "embellish", both of which are part of the definition of this word. andy (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Back Bitch Robot[edit]

Baby Back Bitch Robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Youtube video series with no apparent notability outside this area. CultureDrone (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a list of characters in that universe as this is a reasonable search term. Merge a reduced amount of verifiable plot info where appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe speedy 8 Google hits, orphaned, no bluelinks, potential COI issues. The linked youtube vids have less than 200 views (even my stupid vids have several thousand views). Can't be that notable. – sgeureka t•c 14:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They can't even do that nice a robot. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The absolute nadir of non-notable web content. So atrociously lame even youtube won't watch it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schutzwald[edit]

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to a list of characters in that universe as this is a reasonable search term. Merge a reduced amount of verifiable plot info where appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we did with all the other Super Robots articles (more than 60). No notability. -- nips (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you think it not suitable even for a redirect? care to explain why? DGG (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as inappropriate nomination. This is a potentially mergable or at least redirectable article, and no argument is given why it should not be merged or rdirected. As those are preferred and customary alternatives of fictional game elements, they should be tried in the usual place on an article talk page, not here. Bringing t hem here should be accompanied by an argument for why they should not be even redirected. DGG (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:N and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All content must be sourced; inclusion in a list doesn't remove that requirement. Article can now be found in [28]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the GNG. RMHED (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - no WP:WAF material to merge, but a possible search term. Marasmusine (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Merge/Redirect, as in keep essential info. Laurent paris (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect: no reliable third party sources exist on this topic and so it inherently fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect: Per all my other "Super Robot War" entries, how many of these noms are there lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 06:09, 8 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 Super Robot Wars. Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlent[edit]

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to a list of characters in that universe as this is a reasonable search term. Merge a reduced amount of verifiable plot info where appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as inappropriate nomination. This is a potentially mergable or at least redirectable article, and no argument is given why it should not be merged or rdirected. As those are preferred and customary alternatives of fictional game elements, they should be tried in the usual place on an article talk page, not here. Bringing t hem here should be accompanied by an argument for why they should not be even redirected. DGG (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the fact that this is a playable character in a single Gameboy game and if you search for this character in google you won't find something? Are you aware that the game itself hasn't be reviewed by any gaming site? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SADpg[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Unverifiable and has a promotional taste. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as pure spam. Google hits are almost entirely for a model of hygrometer, and the other hits aren't for this. Mangoe (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) — Blatant yucky-tasting meat. MuZemike (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete advertising for a thoroughly non-notable piece of software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant advertising for nonnotable software. FlyingToaster 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese Army Martyrs during Nahr el Bared Operation[edit]

List of Lebanese Army Martyrs during Nahr el Bared Operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an example of overlistification; a list of every casualty of a particular conflict, most of whom would be considered non-notable? The title, in addition, is blatantly POV (although assuming good faith it may just have been titled such due to the title of the reference). Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as unacceptably POV title. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOTDIR and POV issues.--Boffob (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have retitled the page to List of Lebanese Army soldiers killed during Nahr el Bared Operation to avoid WP:NPOV violation. JulesH (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial and while the title has been improved, the article is still strongly POV. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Point of view notwithstanding, "Wikipedia is not a memorial." That's one of the core rules of what Wikipedia is not, and although it may seem harsh or insensitive, it is meant to apply universally, regardless of where the victims were from, regardless of how they died. It's a bar to lists of persons killed in a battle, whether in 2006 or 1866; persons who were killed by a bomb or by an earthquake; the wealthy or the poor; persons who were on "our side" or "their side". That's just the way it is.Mandsford (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford above. And honestly, this article is so far out in left field that if I saw it on the recent changes list, I would have looked at it thinking it was a vandal screwing around creating ridiculous pages. Trusilver 00:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese Army Martyrs during War 2006[edit]

List of Lebanese Army Martyrs during War 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an example of overlistification; a list of every casualty of a particular conflict, most of whom would be considered non-notable? The title, in addition, is blatantly POV (although assuming good faith it may just have been titled such due to the title of the reference). Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as unacceptably POV title. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unacceptably POV title" isn't (as far as I know) within the CSD criteria, and such a comment suggests a pagemove would be more useful than a deletion. I know I want this removed, but I want this removed through proper procedure.13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOTDIR and POV issues.--Boffob (talk)
  • Comment I have retitled the page to List of Lebanese Army soldiers killed during 2006 war to avoid WP:NPOV violation. I'm not sure what the war referred to is most commonly known as, but I suspect that there would be a better title than this if the article is kept. JulesH (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial and while the title has been improved, the article is still strongly POV. Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Point of view or not, the main thing is that "Wikipedia is not a memorial." Lists of heroes or victims of an armed conflict or an accident or a natural disaster are barred. Whether one agrees with the rule or not, it's one of the chief things listed in "What Wikipedia is not". I think it's a good policy, the rain which falls on rich and poor alike. That's just the way it is. Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Yet another listcrufty POV memorial article. Nothing to see here, move along. Trusilver 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Mother's Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A Mother's Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I tagged this article for WP:CSD#A7 because of its non-notability. There is no proofs of notability and even the film has not been created. Another editor contested the CSD tag because it doesn't fall into A7 category. So here it is. I put the article in this debate for deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Running this thing through IMDB produces no hits, whether by actors or titles. One would expect some evidence of existence for a 2009 release. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to this and other news items, shooting on the film isn't scheduled to begin until next February. The article therefore fails WP:NFF at this time, though it may be recreated when the process is farther along. Deor (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the editor who removed the speedy from this article. I concur with the nom that the film should be deleted. Even though a Google News search for sources returns some results, including this article, there's not enough information and sources to pass WP:NFF. Allow recreation in the future when there are enough sources to confirm notability. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is likely enough to pass WP:GNG and thus WP:NFF with Sunstar, PEP, {PEP translated}, Journal, et. al. But there is no harm in waiting for more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Khalid Zia Kahloon[edit]

Ch. Khalid Zia Kahloon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uncertain notability. No references supplied. None of the companies this person has been involved with has (so far) apparently deserved their own WP article (except for the Pakistan Peoples Party), none of the other members of the 'Narowal District Association' elected seem to have a WP entry. Whilst no doubt prominent on a local level, I'm not sure anything immediately indicates justification for an article (hence why I've dropped it here) CultureDrone (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and - based on the authors name, a possible COI CultureDrone (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article with no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If the Kahloon Group is notable, he is as its chairman and a poliitcal figure. I think the significance is more than local. The argument that none of the others have an entry is circular--if we remove each article as written on that basis, none will ever have an entry. One of them at least seems to be a member of the parliament, if I get the abbreviations right, & therefore notable,Riffat Javed Kahlon. someone who knows how to work with material from this area needs to work on referencing this. DGG (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Khalid Zia Kahloon" gets no news archive hits, unreferenced and likely to remain so a BLP nightmare. RMHED (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no documented notability per google. Manitobamountie (talk) 23:30, 5 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 Close already csd'd as G4 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrekWars[edit]

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

Apparently a crossover of Star Wars and Star Trek. Possible fan speculation Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Community[edit]

Armed Forces Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable sns websites Christ Thomas (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blue Shirt[edit]

Mr. Blue Shirt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly a vanity article, as this appears to be about an amature film. The article does not assert the subject's notability (except to say that "these films are quite the talk of the town sometimes"), links only to a myspace page, and has no notable hits on a Google search. Nburden (T) 07:48, 5 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo the beginning[edit]

Halo the beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed multiple times by recently registered, seemingly single-purpose accounts. Reasoning for prod: No sources, no notability, no links, WP is not a crystal ball. DARTH PANDAduel 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Article is almost a speedy as blatant nonsense. --Crusio (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per crystalballery and what I strongly believe is hoaxery, as I could not find anything verifiable about this. MuZemike (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, all details in the article are uncertain. (edit conflict) Icewedge (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and PROD removals. カラム 06:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete'. Without any external sources -- including the work itself -- backing up the statements in article, the best guarantee of accuracy we can offer readers is the word of an anonymously, collectively edited wiki. That honestly isn't enough. --Kizor 07:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of informative Marvel titles[edit]

List of informative Marvel titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another totally pointless list. Its subject matter is extremely esoteric, of interest to only a handful of people and utterly non-notable. It is also inherently original research (how similar is "similar")? Reyk YO! 05:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I generally don't like lists, but I think quite a few people would find this one interesting. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid and pointless list. Do as per usual.JJJ999 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is not meant as a subjective list. As the first line states, it's a set of Marvel titles about background information of the universe. Poor choice of title, but definitely not indiscriminate. If it's keepable after renaming, I don't know yet... - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no source for notability of the list. Leave this kind of article up to the Marvel Database--Boffob (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reasonable list rarely has just a single combined source for it discussing said list. Take any featured list as example. - Mgm|(talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI agree this probably shouldn't be a mainspace article, but that does look like a good guide to resources.Userfy?

Strong Delete - This is original research. We don't need recommended read lists, keep that for marvel.wikia.com --Teancum (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hard Rock Cafes[edit]

List of Hard Rock Cafes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory of restaurant locations, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO! 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is sourced by Hard Rock's website, which is where people should go for this information. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. It is listed elsewhere, which is definitely where it belongs. – Alex43223 T | C | E 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as per all useless lists.JJJ999 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clearly just a directory, and if it is a copy of the Hard Rock website, it is probably a copyright violation as well.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This project aims to be an encyclopedia, not a commercial directory of piss poor restaurants. JBsupreme (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIR. —97198 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just my two cents. This is useful information that someone could search for. The Hard Rock Cafe is exceptionally notable, in my view, being quite uniquely marketed (and capitalised), and integrated into the music scene. This list could grow beyond what is available on the Hard Rock website (for example, by listing closed restaurants). - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The info is on Hard Rock's website anyway. That's where I'd look for this kind of stuff...--Boffob (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the history of the franchise is somewhat interesting, the nominator is right on in describing this list as falling squarely under WP:NOTDIR. The parent article notes that there are 143 restaurants in 36 countries around the world, and I don't see this as much different than attempting to list all of the McDonalds or KFC restaurants the world around. Yes, I know, Hard Rock Cafe is not McDonalds or KFC; I can wash my hands at the latter two places without having to tip somebody. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, judging from the fact that other store directory lists have been shot down before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. Schuym1 (talk) 19:53, 5 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. G4, recreated after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus the Ant. The previous AFD had consensus this should not be recreated until the book was actually published. Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Angus the Ant Series[edit]

The Angus the Ant Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

De-prodded without explanation. Unable to find references for this unreleased book. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No source and is written with weasel words. Also needs wikifying --Cs california (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. COI is probably present as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proceeds to talk aobut this, and then publishes the story. I think by doing that, he's published his work under GFDL - thus invalidating any hopes for a concrete copy. Aside from that, major crystalballery in the predictions that this will even be published, as it's not even submitted for publication review. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet unreleased book series with no suggestion of notability and couldn't find any refs--Jac16888 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another longer version of this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete- per above reasoningJJJ999 (talk) 06:54, 5 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 Metaltech: Earthsiege. MBisanz talk 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HERCULAN[edit]

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

I am completing an unfinished nomination by User:Remurmur. I'm not sure why they thought it should be deleted, but I think it should be deleted because it is an unsourced article about a fictional robot in a computer game that does not assert or demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Reyk YO! 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is terrible. There are no sources, the article is one sentence long, and no notability has been demonstrated.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders. MBisanz talk 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with 200 career passing touchdowns[edit]

List of National Football League players with 200 career passing touchdowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:NOT#STATS. There is nothing, not one single bit of information, that this article has that is not already contained in the already-existing, and much more complete, List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders. 2008Olympianchitchat 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is about a milestone that one just randomly picks the top 25--Yankees10 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens, a list that is actually useful. Keep it.JJJ999 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of National Football League receiving touchdowns leaders. MBisanz talk 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with 100 career receiving touchdowns[edit]

List of National Football League players with 100 career receiving touchdowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:NOT#STATS. There is nothing, not one single bit of information, that this article has that is not already contained in the already-existing, and much more complete, List of National Football League receiving touchdowns leaders. 2008Olympianchitchat 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - I'm not sure WP:NOT#STATS absolutely excludes a list of this type, but I'm equally sure a list of seven people, without further explanation as to why it should be a separate list, is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For now, redicrect to [[List of National Football League receiving touchdowns leaders, and maybe in 10-20 years when the list is a little longer, it can be eligible for its own list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is about a milestone that one just randomly picks the top 25--Yankees10 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's not "random," that list is determined by the total number of receiving touchdowns. And this list is by definition the top seven of that list.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Below you argued to merge in the same type situation. --2008Olympianchitchat 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above reasoning. One of the few lists that is useful.JJJ999 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of National Football League receiving yards leaders. MBisanz talk 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with 1,000 career receptions[edit]

List of National Football League players with 1,000 career receptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:NOT#STATS. There is nothing, not one single bit of information, that this article has that is not already contained in the already-existing, and much more complete, List of National Football League receiving yards leaders. 2008Olympianchitchat 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is about a milestone that one just randomly picks the top 50--Yankees10 04:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per above reasoning. One of the few lists that is useful.JJJ999 (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the list is so small, and all of the information is contained in the article mentioned. – Alex43223 T | C | E 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant and less informative than List of National Football League receiving yards leaders. A redirect could be made.--Boffob (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect While a list of players with x receptions is not the same as a list of players with x receiving yards, that there are only four entries, and that it is easily sortable in the latter article should be sufficient. I'd suggest adding a statement in the lead of the latter article pointing to the four players with 1000 career receptions. Resolute 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first line of the MOS pertaining to trivia is: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.". And that about does it for me. Trusilver 00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Moretti[edit]

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

Procedural AfD. While I'm not convinced that this subject is notable, I found just enough marginal evidence to turn down a speedy delete request and bring it to AfD instead. Trusilver 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge – To Crutch (film). The only information out on Mr. Moretti is with regards to the film Crutch (film). I see nothing wrong at this point by including within that article. ShoesssS Talk 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crutch (film) was Prod'd on 26 November and had prod removed without comment by an IP. It may end up at AfD, too. Rklear (talk) 06:11, 5 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, StarM 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actors in major indie films are notable by themselves. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be copy-pasted from here, so maybe a re-write is in order? However, according to WP:ENTERTAINER it says having a significant role in multiple notable films. Though he had a significant role in Crutch (according to our own article on Crutch, it said he wrote it, does that count for notability?) I would say the movie is only slightly notable and he hasn't had any major roles in any other films. So delete. Rtyq2 (talk) 04:45, 5 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Duffbeerforme. Where is the evidence of significant roles in noteworthy productions? JBsupreme (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas: Rise of the Lich King[edit]

Arthas: Rise of the Lich King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so doing it the slow way… Non-existent book.  – iridescent 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason for having it deleted. It is a book set for release in the future, but there is nothing guaranteeing it will be released or any other events such as this. How does it differ very much between a video game or movie being released in the future as a page on Wikipedia? For instance, why is it allowed there be a page for StarCraft 2 or The Hobbit (2011 film), but not one such as this? Kanaru (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two you mention have 35 and 42 citations to reliable sources to indicate their notability and the fact of their production – and not just the end product – is itself notable by Wikipedia standards. This article's "references" are five blog links and an Amazon entry. – iridescent 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the reference to BlizzPlanet's article. However, I fail to see how the references to Christie Golden's own blog (the author of the book) is not a reliable source. Besides, the information from the BlizzPlanet articles are from their visit to BlizzCon 2008 (a Blizzard convention earlier this year). Kanaru (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're using "reliable" in an odd way here. Basically, we need something independent of the author in order to prove that the book is important. Of course the author is going to write about it, but only important books get other people writing (professionally) about them. JulesH (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since it has an ISBN, publisher, and some news I think it is ligament. --Cs california (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pending publication, in short, to be published. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:NB. Of the 4 sources, 3 are blog entries from the books author. Only 1 is independent, and it's just an interview with her (not really about the book). TJ Spyke 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep. It seems to just get over the line...JJJ999 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From Wikipedia:Notability (books): "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than WP:Notability (books), typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. Such cases should still have multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, including the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." This book does not meet these criteria, therefore it should be deleted. And no, blogs are not reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NB. Wait until it's released, because there's not enough anticipation for an article now.--Boffob (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Kraftlos. Having an ISBN doesn't guarantee that the book will ever be published. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alexnia (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I wouldn't call this a hoax, I'm a bit puzzled why they'd hold of releasing an already-written book "sometime within 2 years" as the article puts it. We need to wait until it's released or at least has some mainstream press reviews and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI, the publishing industry is exceedingly slow. About a year is the average time it takes from the date the publisher agrees with the author to publish it until it reaches bookshops. 2 years wouldn't be exceptionally slow, particularly if this is a series book and they want to space it out with others in the series. JulesH (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Tomkiss[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cited to prove notability Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't think it is necessary to do that as it is obvious you want it deleted from your nomination. Tavix (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:18, 30 November 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • VComment A translation of the article in the Hungarian WP, but i have no way to judge the notability--it would depend probably on the notability of the review he was editor of, but that doesn't seem to have an article here or there. The same person entered the article on both the same day, so they havent had a chance to judge it either. DGG (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we already have a consensus here on what needs to happen. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso (software)[edit]

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

Contested prod; this article is about a subject which does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Alas, my poor knowledge regarding software and poorer German makes me feel that AfD is more appropriate than nominating it for speedy deletion myself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails to establish notability. ninety:one 23:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kalypso framework is used in an european wide project for flood damage prevention established by the European Union (see Interreg II link link). There are not that much open source applications on the field of hydraulic computation and GIS processing available. If someone wants to have informations of hydraulic open source software he can find a description and additional links over the wikipedia pages. Normally all this hydraulic software costs a lot of money. So the fact that this software is avalable as open source is a notable reason (from my point of view). User:Tschang 11:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC) — Tschang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like the first of its kind. It needs to be categorized but dont know where.--Cs california (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of National Football League rushing yards leaders. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with 10,000 career rushing yards[edit]

List of National Football League players with 10,000 career rushing yards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:NOT#STATS. There is nothing, not one single bit of information, that this article has that is not already contained in the already-existing, and much more complete, List of National Football League rushing yards leaders. 2008Olympianchitchat 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one is about a milestone that one just randomly picks the top 25--Yankees10 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per above reasoning. One of the few lists that is useful.JJJ999 (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people not understand that this is a milestone the other list just randomly decides to pick the top 25. It would be like having a 3000 hit list with having other randomn players on the list with 2900 hits, thats why I say merge--Yankees10 15:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a list of miscellaneous facts its a milestone and should be here as much as a an article like List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples for example should.--Yankees10 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Trusilver 02:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that that is a milestone and so is this, so it should be kept--Yankees10 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbuster[edit]

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

Meaningful content can be merged to orgone. The "device" itself has not received notability aside from trivial mention in a Kate Bush song, a reference in a Terry Gilliam movie, and in orgone true-believer's self-published fantasies. A google search reveals a lot of woo-woos building these devices, but no real reliable sources are forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect after delete to Orgone. No suitably sourced material on this page to merge, and contains WP:OR, so the page could just be deleted and then the redirect placed. Maybe dab with the more famous Kate Bush song? Verbal chat 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - im the article creator, and to tell you the truth I created this article over 2 years ago. I don't rememeber if I had any better sources than the ones on this page now; i have not edited it for such a long time and I dont feel motivated to do any research. I have no objections or aguments against deleting this article based on the nominators reasoning re: lack of WP:RS and WP:V Smith Jones (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This particular expression of Reichian nonsense is notable enough for seperate consideration. DGG (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an assertion fo notability r quies adequate sourcing. I hoep you understand outr concerns. There is no source here, only a link to a uTube video, which is inacceptsable. Smith Jones (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Reichian device is notable enough to have a recognized museum devoted to it and similar works by the same Mr.Reich. Whether you agree with it's effects or not, it's claims are supported by a real brick and mortar place and organisation. It's not a made-up fantasy sword from a forgettable game, this is device that is historical enough to consider keeping. It is also controversial and noteworthy on it's government action merits alone. JER (talk) 21:16, 4 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 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Orgone, omitting the obvious WP:OR and sourcing the little bit that is left (delete would be fine if I/anybody do/es not find any sources before this discussion closes). This application can be treated perfectly adequately at the parent concept. Spot-checking the archives did not reveal a better version, though there was some mention of a Rolf Alexander. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether it's real or not, this device is well known enough to have appeared in the song and movie, and as such it stands up independent of the main article on the orgone theory. It is also described in Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies book IIRC. An unreferenced but improveable article on a valid subject: this nomination strikes me as an ultimatum to improve it or else, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fads discusses orgone, orgone accumulators, and Reich a fair bit, but I only find cloudbusters in an endnote. Science: good, bad, and bogus by the same author also treats Reich and orgone, but not cloudbusters or rainmakers. This to me indicates that the hierarchy of prominence for WP:SPINOUT would go: orgone --> orgone accumulators and orgone-based devices --> cloudbusters. Or, since the applications only make sense in terms of orgone and that page is only 20 kB, we can treat everything in the one place where it makes the most sense. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see some sources though. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:12, 7 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Mill Inn & Spa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Old Mill Inn & Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Left this for a good long time to be cleaned up. Do not believe there is any notability here. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Weak keep - someone with better google-fu than I found what appears to be decent sources.--Boffob (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find anything to make me feel this should stay. Paste Talk 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Fritzpoll. Enigma message 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to poke around, but I have to believe that sources can be found. The building is historically significant - designated as a heritage site - and the restaurant was originally opened in 1914. Mlaffs (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Just now I have added five references and expanded the stub. There is enough there for the general notability guideline, including articles about the building in the Toronto Star, the National Post, and Flare magazine. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, I concur that sufficient sources have been added for historical notability of the site, and I ask the closing admin to weigh my nominating statement accordingly. I still think further discussion is merited and useful, so will not withdraw the nom Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd like to see a more specific source on the history of the mill but I'm convinced that the history of the place combined with sources now provided give this a pass for a start for the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:22, 3 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 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article now looks reasonably well sourced. JulesH (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Old Mill is a notable historic building in Toronto. The article could use work, of course. Here's a reference for some of the history of the site: [29]. Also, it's better known without the "inn & spa". Suggest that the article be retitled and Old Mill Inn & Spa be redirected to it. TheFeds 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Vastly improved as compared to time of AfD Nomination. Has a Historical Site designation as well as several items mentioned to maintain Notability. All supported by Cites. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the building is a Toronto Heritage Property. (And we need to make this red link a blue link and put buildings into that category, but I'm getting ahead of myself.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Catholic Church (Williston, Florida)[edit]

Holy Family Catholic Church (Williston, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An article on a church created from primary sources. Nothing is given to indicate notability and nothing appears to be available. Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge basic information into Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Augustine. Too much non-notable trivial information to justify a separate article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the diocese Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Augustine with no merge needed. Most individual churches are non-notable, and this article has no independent sources. No merger is needed because the article about the diocese does not detail the individual parishes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is no real claim to notability here, and churches and other religious congregations have not been considered inherently notable in deletion discussions during the time I have been participating at AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article incorporates material from Catholic Encyclopedia and therefore meets the notability needs. Fg2 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is this reference? My understanding is that published material that references every single book/school/business/church in an area doesn't count as notability. If it's something more than a directory listing it might count, but I'd like to see what it is first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no material this would include from the Catholic Encyclopedia - that was last updated in 1922, 46 years before this was founded. Maybe the editor means the New Catholic Encyclopedia, which is still under copyright (and not cited). I can't see what in this article might be from the newer book however. GRBerry 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, there are no reference works, old or new, cited in this article at all, just the church's own web site and the diocese's web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Williston, Florida. This is usually the best solution for churches of merely local significance. This will make a start to a new section "churches", but the present article will need to be heavily pruned, omitting tragedies and the list of clergy. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 5 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 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that established churches and schools warrant their own articles. See WP:IHN. 2008Olympianchitchat 08:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete How do you determined "established"? There's no proof of notability here, and while some churches (for example, those on the NRHP) are plainly notable, there's nothing remarkable about this one. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read WP:IHN. I don't have a problem with all churches of major denominations and all public schools having an article.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:RS. Also the I think argument is probably a new name for the WP:ILIKEIT logic. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 10 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. This is a very messy AFD, so I had to evaluate each and every discussion. With the keepers, it's seems just because they created the internet mine, therefore Notability is inherited, but on the contrary it isn't thus I discounted those. "Also seems notable to me" isn't a reason to keep any article. The few remainding discussion is about the sourcing. Looking at the sourcing, the first link is a reliable source, but to the video not the company. The second source is a promotional website, therefore not reliable, also and has nothing to do with the company. The third source is YouTube, not reliable, and the fourth source was a interview with the founders of the video in a local entertament magazine, nothing with the company as well and not really "significant coverage".

Finding Consensus in AFD is by policy based reasoning, and the keep/merges doesn't evaluate the sourcing enough while the delete side does it, and those were rebutted wrong. The company "itsself" never had the reliable sourcing, and none can't be found, therfore the article needs to be deleted. But in the future the article can be recreated with reliable sources dealing with the company. A redirect won't hurt as well. Secret account 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownmark Films[edit]

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

Notability not established. Suggest merging article with parent production company Special Entertainment. SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:18, 20 November 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, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs more than the one article on the creator of What What in the Butt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are noteworthy external links about the company and several internal links as well. Shatner1 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This production company has been written about in several traditional mediums, and has created a viral video which is itself considered notable by wikipedia. Merging with the other article seems odd because I'm not sure how notable the other company is compared to this one. 76.230.248.133 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you add those sources, then?SERSeanCrane (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a little more information to the article, although I feel like notability was already established before the article was put up for deletion. The article is concise, noteworthy, and has a lot of internal links, so I'm not sure why it's being singled out. Shatner1 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we don't know that one company is the "parent" of the other. apparently this company makes videos for/with samwell. they have a popular utube channel. the article does not seem blatently self-promotional. just a simple chunk of wikiinfo about who who behind samwell and his vids. merging would make this info less clear, harder to dig for. just my 2 centimes.. 32.145.41.229 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 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 09:45, 30 November 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 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three re-listings? Wouldn't it make more sense to just close this as no consensus? Resolute 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur with this assessment. No consensus would really be the most appropriate avenue at this time. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think plenty have weighed in to reach some sort of consensus by now (8 December). SERSeanCrane (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. I can't really see this passing WP:CORP. Company with one popular-on-youtube video and a small handful of other related but less-successful youtube videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added some more information to the article. Three re-listings seems like overkill. How long does an article stay up for deletion? It's been listed for a few weeks. Shatner1 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure imdb entries suffice for establishing notability. I may be wrong, though...anyone?SERSeanCrane (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, the article references a supposed YouTube "partnership," as well as a non-notable internet tabloid as the source of its notability. The parent company, Special Entertainment, references the tabloid as its major independent source as well. Maybe they should both be afd'd. SERSeanCrane (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also: the referenced tabloid is no longer operating. (see mkeonline.com)
    • Comment. SUPPOSED YouTube Partnership? The company is listed as a Partner on YouTube's site. Furthermore, anyone with ads on their channel is a YouTube Partner and all of the company's videos have ads. Shatner1 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this partnership constitute notability? From what you've described, seemingly, anyone can become a partner. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't constitute notability, but it adds to notability. To become a Partner with YouTube you have to have multiple videos with an unusually large number of views, and you must be accepted into the YouTube Partnership Program after review from a rather strict application process. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore. Why do you deem MKE Magazine a non-notable internet tabloid? It's a print (printed on paper!) magazine that was put out by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the largest newspaper in Wisconsin.
    • Also: Plenty of noteworthy publications are no longer operating. The article is still available on the internet and will remain there indefinitely.
    • Comment Gosh, I hope inclusion in IMDB doesn't establish notability. That would be like every U.S. lawyer being notable because they're all listed in Martindale-Hubbell, or every person with a landline phone being notable because they're all listed in the phone book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't establish notability, though it might verify such an assertion if otherwise sourced. No matter though, as I have replaced the IMDB reference with a more suitable one and moved IMDB moved down to external links. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While What What (In the Butt) was an instant classic, and probably merits coverage, this production company is WP:ONEVENT at best. No significant third party coverage of the company itself. Bongomatic 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From WP:Corp - ...attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many non-local places that have mentioned the company, but the MKE article happens to be the most in-depth. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then why haven't these been included in the article? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into parent company Special Entertainment. As stated above, article is not WP:ONEVENT, and just doesn't appear to me to establish notability for a seperate article. – Alex43223 T | C | E 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant, sourced information in to the parent article, Special Entertainment. I can't find any reliable, third-party, sources that directly support standalone notability per WP:CORP. While they may be the distribution company for Hamlet A.D.D., it's only through the parent company, and notability is not inherited.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been further sourced and meets the requiremnents of WP:GNG. Further, if the productions are notable, the producing company has that same notability if they have coverage in reliable sources, as does Brownmark. If there had been no articles about the production company, I'd be saying delete or merge, but since that is not the case, its now a keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the minimum criteria for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. — BQZip01 — talk 07:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Special Entertainment. Precious Roy (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any reason to delete this. The references establish notability. Merging would be inappropriate as it appears that the subsidiary has greater notability than the parent. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The chief claim to notability for this business is having created an Internet meme video that also has its own article. The subject seems to be adequately covered either there or in the article about the parent business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — (edit conflict) Notability is not inherited. I contend that What What (In the Butt) is notable and can possibly be reliably sourced as such. However, the company is not reliably sourced, nor could I find any in a cursory Google search. Hence, a lack of notability with the company, not the video. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what would make a production company notable if they did not produce notable products? Per WP:CORP and the coverage in reliable sources as provided in this article ensure that notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was invited to participate here by User:SERSeanCrane to attempt to get a consensus on the article, I'm not sure if that's borderline canvassing or not. Anyway, I can find nothing on google news that talks about the film company, nor can I find much definite information about the company. Where is the location? The article claims Milwaulkee but I can't find any address on the website or on the internet. The article also says that the studios were created by Special Entertainment, but the citation doesn't hint about the creation at all. Perhaps Special Entertainment bought them? Anyhow, the article is very poorly cited and misleading. "Brownmark Films" seems to be less of a company and more of an advertising phrase used in lieu of the producerss names. How many employees work at this company? By my understanding this "company" is little more than the name of a youtube channel and a signature for the producers of the videos. What, What in the Butt is definitly a notable song, but the company that created it is not. The company is squished between the famous song they created and the notability of their parent company, Special Entertainment and there's not enough coverage showing that the company has any notability apart from those two entities. Themfromspace (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An address for Brownmark Films can be found HERE. However, WP:CORP does not mandate a set address or a minimum number of employees or even that the "company" be more than just a name. Brownmark Films meets the criteria because of substantial coverage in reliable sources inpendent of the subject. And actually, Browmark has developed a much greater and sourcable notability than the parent company. Their continued productions, and the coverage of this pushes them past WP:ONEEVENT. Small they may be, but notable they most certainly are. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not suggesting that reverse merge... not at this time. Was simply addressing the suggestions that the more notable company be merged to the less notable. One AfD at a time... one AfD at a time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to canvassing. I've been told I could get my "pee-wee schwacked" if I don't address the issue. As User talk:BQZip01 pointed out here[[30]] I sent out requests to various users that had previously contributed to recent afd media-related discussions. I was not seeking a vote, simply consensus, which I pointed out in the requests I left with editors. Furthermore, prior to this canvassing allegation, I had a nice exchange with MichaelQSchmidt thanking him for contributing and, as you've seen here, he's probably the best proponent of the article in the debate. And that's that. I'm glad I did what I did because it stirred up this afd to an actual debate. Keep it up! SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Nutshell" of WP:Canvas is "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." You did keep the number of notifications small, you were neutral in your request for input, and received this input from editors that both agreed and diagreed with the deletion nomination. So, you did not violate the behavioral guideline... but BQ is correct in his friendly advice, as perception is everything on Wikipedia. I can appreciate your wishing to get this AfD over once and for all, one way or the other. Indeed, that was what MBisanz had in mind by the relisting... wanting to finally reach a consensus. Similar goals... different means. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable to me. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC). [reply]
  • Do not delete (keep or merge) - the company seems notable, the fact that it's an internet company doesn't make it automatically NN as some seem to believe. I don't oppose a merger however, because this and Special Entertainment seem to be highly related, but if someone knowledgeable in the field can expand both articles to clearly convey difference, a merger won't be necessary. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to viral video and keep article history or very weak keep. If after a redirect the editors want to undo the redirect and redirect the viral video to here that's fine too. The video is probably more notable than the company now but that is likely to change in the future. If they have even a modicum of success with their 2009 project, they will be considered notable and I'd vote a straight-up keep. But that's then and this is now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems notable to me. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Miami Vice (Season 1). MBisanz talk 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great McCarthy[edit]

The Great McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Composed of plot summary and trivia. No reliable sources cited. No evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Note: User has moved the article. I am therefore adding:[reply]

McWomble (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- unsourced plot summary is one of the great plagues of Wikipedia at the moment. THere is no assertion of notability for this article. Reyk YO! 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Miami Vice episodes and/or Miami Vice (Season 1) appropriately. This is a pretty common situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the LoE/season article and leave the trim&merger to interested parties. The order of article creation is to look for sources and write an article on a notable subject, not dump plot on wikipedia and leave the harder cleanup work (figuring out notability, sourcing and mergers) for others. – sgeureka t•c 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the worst this would be redirected or merged to the list of episodes, so there is no possible reason to to a full deletion--at least none has been specified. As none of the arguments given are reasons to delete rather than merge or redirect, there's no valid nomination. I see no evidence anyone has even tried to look for sources, and there must have been reviews. The remedy for articles like this is to improve them. DGG (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The Great McCarthyto the list of episodes (and merge whatever turns out to be verifiable and useful). *Delete The Great McCarthy (MV) because the modifier is unwarranted.- Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: is this a notable episode? Opposed merge/redirect, as merging to "List of Miami Vice episodes" would mess up the said article's format. That last bit was for you DGG mate ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The Great McCarthy (MV) back to The Great McCarthy, after deleting the redirect at The Great McCarthy, to preserve edit history and to correct the improper title (even if a disambiguator were necessary, it should be spelled out, not abbreviated). Then redirect The Great McCarthy to List of Miami Vice episodes Miami Vice (Season 1) and allow interested parties to do any merging. DHowell (talk) 21:52, 9 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Pasadena Rugby Tournament[edit]

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

Came across this while working through speedy deletions. Declined the A7 speedy because it's about a sporting event rather than a group, but a gsearch hasn't turned up evidence of notability. Article creator contested the speedy with "It is one of the largest non-collegiate sporting events of the year in Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley.", so I'm taking straight to AfD instead of prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 20 November 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) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 30 November 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 03:24, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwax_media[edit]

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

The article originally read like an advertisement without corroborating, reliable sources. I discussed the issues with the author on Talk:Hotwax_media , but am now requesting further discussion. It also seems to be a non-notable company under WP:NN with virtually no Google hits other than the company's main page. Initially filed for Speedy Delete under WP:G11. Macrowiz (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google returns 13,200 search results when I search for "Hotwax media" in quotation marks. Does anyone know the names of any computer programming magazines or other notable websites that could be searched for topics on this? If its that popular, there should be an article about it somewhere. Dream Focus (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I Google searched "hot wax media" (with quotes) with a space between the "hot" & "wax", so discount this specific part of my note above. --Macrowiz (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps the article should not be about hotwax, instead, about Apache OFBiz. If you Google "hotwax media" -hotwaxmedia.com -wiki -blog -linkedin (which removes self published, wikipedia, blog and linkedin results), 79 matches are found, mostly self published pages, speaking engagements and website pages created by hotwax. I don't see any indication of notability for hotwax. However, on the main page of http://ofbiz.apache.org/ there's plenty of major 3rd party coverage. - DustyRain (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't see any indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be google relevant? Here are two articles that I have found: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ofbiz-apachecon-us-join-forces/story.aspx?guid={1BE59ABE-6FD1-4D80-8BA9-015EC202EA5D}&dist=msr_19 and http://www.us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/sponsors/sponsor. Again, I believe this to be a notable company that deserves an article written about it. Dcunplugged (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)DCUnplugged[reply]

Those articles aren't about this company. I think they might be worth including to establish that the company is a platinum sponsor of something or has been interviewed about OfBiz, but I don't think either article offers much to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Only found two 1 source s, as shown here [31]. Need a tad more to claim Notability ShoesssS Talk 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 2nd link of the source above returns a 404 - DustyRain (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - LOL- I cahnged to one source :-). ShoesssS Talk 14:57, 4 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:38, 30 November 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 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven school Skittles incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New Haven school Skittles incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was previously nominated for deletion in the heat of events, resulting in a no consensus. I, like many of the editors who offered an opinion in that AfD, do not feel that this event is of substantial notability for Wikipedia, primarily regarding WP:NOTNEWS. Grsz11 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is just news. It's now the media-rich future and every incident like this generates 15 minutes of fame for someone. JJL (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite gaining some media coverage, it essentially is an article about a news event. We don't create articles for lots of events that are covered in several newspapers etc. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy, and stories about schools overreacting to something are a dime a dozen. Resolute 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the issue of whether this is only a news story ( albeit one which was picked up by the national and international media ) hinges on whether there exist any analysis pieces written about it after the breaking-news coverage of mid-March '08 died down, or whether anybody used it as an example in a book. There are a number of journals like The Chronicle of Higher Education and some specialized magazines for school administrators which we could look at. So far I can find a short opinion piece in National Review from that April, which may count towards showing the incident was of interest after the initial flurry.[32] Otherwise, this is well-written, can it be transwiki'ed to Wikinews or merged to an article about the New Haven schools or Skittles candy? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- There's plenty there to show lasting notability. I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it belongs be on a news site, not here. – Alex43223 T | C | E 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- There is enough here of value, and I am swayed by the arguments in the previous AfD which are compelling. Nothing said here refutes the arguments in the last AfD, and I don't feel things should just keep being nominated until the desired result is achieved. It was only March when the last AfD was started, and frankly I'm astonished it wasn't closed as keep.JJJ999 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news. This is a passing news event. Nothing to see here, move along. RayAYang (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#NEWS says: "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. [...] While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews Based on the above comment, there doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic content/lasting effects from this event. No lasting changes in the laws of what schools can forbid or any trials of kids suing their school for what they did. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. A sad tale of the consequences of health fascism: but there are some living person biography issues here too. Bad enough that a high school student is disciplined for the heinous crime of selling a bag of candy to another inmate: but it doesn't put him on the same shelf as Aristotle, or the incident on the same footing as the Abraham Lincoln assassination or even the Boston Molasses Disaster. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based upon the evidence presented by Squidfryerchef that there is discussion regarding this incident in at least one notable journal after-the-fact. The fact the incident also garnered international attention and brought up the issue of appropriate food in school can't be ignored as this may well be supported by other Wikipedia articles. If there are BLP issues they can be addressed in the article, although BLP does not come into play if an article is sourced by non-trivial references and contains correct information that was widely reported. I have to object, with respect, to Smerdis of Tlön's comparing of this article to longstanding events from decades ago. First, it's just a mirror of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument we aren't supposed to use, plus it's not fair to compare an incident like this which only happpened a few months ago to events that have gone into historical record over a period of decades and centuries. 23skidoo (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When you're ever jailed for breathing, remember good ole days when a kid could eat candy and walk away with it. The time pattern of the media coverage is exactly what is expected of a "harmless" administrative abuse case without a pending court drama: a week of tongue-and-cheek circulation, then it's forgotten and left to float in left-wing blogs. It's not a solid argument for deletion. NVO (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pe the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay WP:NOTNEWS which preceded it. This incident got news coverage for 3 days the past march. This is an encyclopedia, not a weekly summary of water-cooler stories. There are similar idiotic cases of "Zero tolerance" every week in the U.S. This might find a home there as a selective merge to a section on examples cited by the media. Edison (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS. These type of happenings have no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Rainbow per above and per reasons in previous debate. Not notable then, not notable now. The renomination is appreciated. Mandsford (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article may have had a slim chance of notability in March if it had led on to other events of similar nature, or prompted an anti-candy-discrimination law. I haven't seen or found any evidence that it led to even a change in the school's rules, let alone that of the district. As of now, it doesn't appear to be an event that will be remembered, noted in history or even the short-term future. While it is referenced in reliable sources, many international newspapers pick up stories like this as light-hearted humour, or a 'Look how crazy this school/country/world is' piece. While it is an interesting, slightly humorous yet slightly worrying story about the ever expanding bureaucracy, this is a minor news story. \ / (⁂) 08:38, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Carola[edit]

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

Non-notable tagged since October 2007. I cant find any notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:21, 25 November 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, 30 November 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 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know where the article on his label was? I distinctly remember it getting deleted, but I've been known to dream things. That would handle his case as a producer, but what about remixing or any of the other things he is claimed to have done? - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon yoga[edit]

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

Non-notable yoga style. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:41, 5 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. G4, recreation of previously AFDed material without addressing issues Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 2010[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Madden NFL 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not enough is known about this game to justify a page at this time. Mblumber (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn[edit]

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

Consists of a dicdef and incidental list of episodes that have used the word. Doesn't seem expandable beyond its current, trivia-laden state. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—Although it may not be the best article, it is certainly too notable to be deleted, and is not only a better article than, but also more notable than almost every stub. Petero9 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think this goes beyond a dictionary definition as an integral part of today's gaming culture as far as language is concerned. It also has sufficient sources establishing notability on its own. MuZemike (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- but someone needs to put their hand up to fix this mess.JJJ999 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have WP:ICU and WP:ARS. Finding someone to fix this shouldn't be too hard. I'm not doing it - so I'll abstain - I don't know the first thing about the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is more than a dictionary definition. 'Pwnage' is a concept that must have extensive coverage somewhere. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with MuZemike's argument. This article is sufficiently well sourced to convince me of notbaility. Reyk YO! 11:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leetspeak#Owned_and_pwned which already covers the concept in more-than-sufficient depth. JulesH (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of theBathrobe Cabal, deleting this article would crush our master plan of bringing it to featured status. Kidding aside though, the "word" is an irritating yet prolific internet meme, far to prolific to consider deletion. Trusilver 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is insane! Not only does it link to a commonly used userbox, it also it worth keeping in Wikipedia. I want the deletion nomination taken down IMMEDIATLEY! K50 DUDETALK TO ME!LOOK AT ME!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RTL Games[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, appears to be a company that doesn't meet WP:CORP. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to meet the non-trivial media coverage guidelines either. A handful of bit pieces seems pretty slim. The company should have a Wikipedia page if it's already notable, but it just doesn't seem to be there yet. WP isn't a PR tool. I didn't speedy it under A7 because I'm not 100%, but I look forward to hearing what the closing admin decides. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. A game company with a single game is generally not-notable. The sliver of notability here seems to be that she was told her idea was rubbish on TV but she went ahead and did it anyway. Cool, but that's just not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - of the links provide above, only the BBC News article is of interest, the remainder being press releases. Further coverage like that may swing a keep from me, although perhaps under an alternate title depending on the focus of the coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 20:06, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSQ Magazine[edit]

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

Searches on variations of the magazine's full name, publishing company and founders names show no coverage -- significant or otherwise -- of this local publication. Flowanda | Talk 05:54, 30 November 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) 00:59, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Bo[edit]

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

non-notable neologism Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be an attack on this Traston Davis, whoever he is. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find much usage of the phrase, let alone coverage of it. I've removed the potential attack section for BLP reasons. Hut 8.5 19:24, 30 November 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) 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that I would have heard of the expression if it was real. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:33, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanhome[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. A good Alexa rank and having lots of members does not show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure of whether this article should be kept or deleted. Alexa rank does not show notability per WP:WEB, as stated in the nomination, nor does a large membership. However, the website does seem to be notable on other grounds, based on the article. I did, however, go through the article adding some "citation needed" tags, as adding more references (or any third-party references really) would help to ascertain whether or not this is a notable subject. As it stands, both references are on the websites of Scout and FanHome. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:39, 3 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) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. No reliable sources, and even if there were there's no notability present anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 5 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. Mgm|(talk) 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (psychological)[edit]

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

Pseudoscientific duplicate of energy (esotericism). All content here is already included at the other article. This is not a term rigorously used in psychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While clearly pseudoscience, that isn't enough for it to be deleted. I don't think the article is completely a duplicate of Energy (esotericism), but rather should be linked to in the section on parapsychology. What I'd do is merge the section on parapsychology into Energy (psychological), link to Energy (psychological) as the main article for Parapsychology on the Energy (esotericism) article, and then expand it. FlyingToaster 19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Care. SBHarris 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real enough concept in both /Reichian and other theories--the article could be considerably explanded.DGG (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG is a decent editor, I agree with him.MaxPont (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crappy, duplicate article. But voting keep so SA will stop using AFD to make his point. Move on. -Atmoz (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be a valid non-redundantredundant article to be written at this title, but the current content will serve to inhibit rather than promote its creation. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:28, 4 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) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue's News[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Nobody in the last AFD gave a good reason for keeping the article. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 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) 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the nominator is correct about the lack of sources, and the keep arguments from the last AfD were nothing more than "I like it" or "it's useful". Reyk YO! 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here that establishes notability. Likelihood of 3rd party sources seems very low. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criteria A7; web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 19:59, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Rust[edit]

David J. Rust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I mentioned in the prod, none of the things mentioned in the article are a (clear) sign of notability.

And that's about it, it seems. --Conti|✉ 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Herb Garden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. John's Herb Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN commercial attraction. Virtual orphan. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep - this article is still quite terse, but the garden forms part of the American Horticultural Society's Reciprocal Program for Arboreta. Thus although it is a commercial concern, it also plays a documented role in American plant conservation. (Note: I am not affiliated with the garden in any way; I am just interested in reasonably comprehensive articles on botanical gardens and arboreta.) Cheers, Daderot (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, fails WP:ORG. No substantial coverage in third-party sources. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:24, 3 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) 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To judge by this, all that participation in the AHS Reciprocal Admissions Program amounts to is that St. John's has agreed to give members of the other participating gardens a 15% discount on purchases, not that the garden "plays a documented role in American plant conservation." Notability, as usual, requires evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and I'm not finding any in a Google search (including Books, Scholar, and News). If sources establishing notability can be provided, I'll reconsider my opinion. Deor (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; hmm, I am not seeing any good sources which is a pity since we need more coverage of such topics. Smile a While (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squaremeat[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC's band section. They have no notable members, haven't been nominated for a major award, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 22:21, 30 November 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) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication 3[edit]

Dedication 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NALBUMS states that, in general, mixtapes are not notable. There is nothing to suggest this one is - delete, per WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 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) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mixtapes have been a huge part of the Lil Wayne story. Currently this article contains links to MTV mentions and a NYT review that is much more meaty than I presumed from Flowanda's comment above. I have no doubt that more good sources exist and will exist. Notable. 86.44.24.31 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammafesto[edit]

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

This article is about a neologism. There is no evidence that the word is in widespread use, or that it has otherwise achieved notability. The term receives zero Google-hits. The term does not describe a concept that appears to be notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:38, 30 November 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) 00:44, 5 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. Withdrawing nomination as new references added now satisfy WP:NOTE. MrNerdHair (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Snowballing (sexual practice)[edit]

Snowballing (sexual practice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The current popular culture references section does not satisfy notability guidelines. I'm rather pessimistic about the chances of finding reliable sources discussing this in depth, so I'm placing it on AfD. If you can find independent, reliable sources for this, good for you, you've saved an article. But otherwise, we need to get rid of this, as I'm guessing that it's a neologism too.

I'm not against covering sexual topics, even ones that people find offensive, on Wikipedia, but if we can't even follow our own guidelines in doing so, we're no better than the Urban Dictionary. MrNerdHair (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Whoops, it appears there's been an AfD discussion on this article already. I should have checked for that before starting another one, sorry. However, while the previous discussion settles the issue of the term being a neologism (it's not), it doesn't discuss adherence to notability guidelines. I'm still claiming that none of the existing popular culture references satisfy WP:NOTE as they don't "address the subject directly in detail." Perhaps this should be moved to Wiktionary? MrNerdHair (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The previous AFD has a comment that says: "Enough notability thanks to the movie, plus external links and enough of a definition." Where did the external links disappear to? I can't find them with WikiBlame, but I might be doing it wrong...- Mgm|(talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep- let's give some time for improvement.JJJ999 (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added five sources that discuss the practice, including one that specifically mentions the film Clerks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I see that some of my sources are mentioned above. Still, it's better to have them in the article than just here at the AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:56, 7 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. (author request) Neither of the sources back up the article and the person requesting deletion made the only substantial edits. Author also admitted using unverifiable and unreliable primary sources. Mgm|(talk) 00:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fetene Dichma[edit]

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

We created the business portions of this article based on online magazine articles, records of fashion shows, and records freely available Public Records. However, most of the personal information was gathered from people who said they knew Mr. Dichma in the past or knew of his parents (hearsay). We have attempted to collect a concensus between our sources, yet for months we have been unable to. Once Mr. Dichma saw the article about him, has asked us to remove it because much of it is not accurate. Mr. Dichma also asked that websites such as Deletionpedia not be allowed to copy the deleted pages. Zhegaflorida (talk) 00:15, 5 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. Merges were considered. However, there is no material worth merging into the album article, and searches for the individual songs are unlikely. A delete does not prevent an article being created later with the same name. SilkTork *YES! 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every track from Synchestra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

    These are all non-notable tracks from a barely notable album, Devin Townsend's Synchestra. There are no sources cited, and the articles consist almost entirely of very long, unsourced quotes from Townsend, with a little bit of original research thrown in. They do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability of individual songs. A merge is not appropriate since there is no usable content in the articles. —Heavyboat (Talk) 03:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No sources ==> no article. A dummy merge (replace unencyclopedic content with a redirect) in case by some chance any of this might be useful in the future would also be an option. All articles were started for the spinout from the album and appear to have mostly trivial revision histories, but it would not surprise me if there exist more notable songs that might be created at some of these titles. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the lot, none pass notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Vampira (song) which appears to be a single and has more information than all the others and tag it for cleanup. Delete the others. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, it was never released as a single. Townsend just shot a low-budget video for it, which was only released through his website. That's enough to go in the album article, since there aren't any sources that discuss the song independent of the album. —Heavyboat (Talk) 14:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge anything useful with the article on the album. There are pretty cut-and-dried notability requirements for indiviudal song articles, and unless these recordings have attained historical import, have been profiled in major media, have been widely released as singles, or have otherwise been hits, I don't see a need to have an article on every song. 23skidoo (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_5&oldid=1116879477"