Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Levi Whitten-Connolly, Lord Whitten-Connolly[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Teams Music[edit]

Record label that appears to fail the notability guideline for companies. After researching, I did not discover any reliable sources containing any information about the subject, nor did I find any sources at all that support the claims made in the article. Additionally, the user who created the article appears to have created another article on a record label, Da Kingdom Records, and after being deleted, recreated the page multiple times. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —– Alex43223^{T | C | E} 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can confirm they exist. But there appears to be no articles written about them. The only band on the label that has a wiki article is Gingerjake which lists Peter Chen as a manager who appears to be partner in the company basd on this profile. None of this is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Bittinger[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. The article was speedily deleted earlier today, but the subject restarted his article soon after. Google returns a minimal amount of hits (like less than 90). CyberGhostface (talk) 23:24, 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]
Keep. The article has enough references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has two references from suburban newspapers and external links to websites.--Grahame (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage from news media (the fact they're "suburban newspapers" is irrelevant as Wikipedia does not make a quantifiable judgement on acceptable printed news media). The article needs to be policed for WP:BLP (such as the claim he's a Scientologist -- needs to be source, along with the claim that he's a best-selling author). But the basic info regarding his profession and notability is covered by the sources (external links lists are mostly irrelevant these days under the current interpretations of Wiki's sourcing policy), though more are desired. 23skidoo (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That he is not notable as an author is shown by his widest-held book being held in a total of 2 WorldCat libraries, and there being no actual reviews to cite. One is the local library, and a book held there is essentially the same as a local newspaper article--the reason that newspaper articles such as these do not demonstrate notability is that they are essentially public relations coverage, indiscriminately given to all local authors. They are simply not reliable as sources for notability for careers such as this. I would need very good evidence that his are among Amazon's best selling books. DGG (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick check at Amazon shows this author to be less than notable and the article appears to be nothing but self-promotion. Eeekster (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:59, 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 Zoids:_Genesis#Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Raptor[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge see my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio Ptera - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I see no attempt at all to do it--this is not the place. ditto form the following articles. If there's a reason against merging, it has not been given, so to bring apparently mergable articles here is an abuse of process.. and I am still waiting for the nominator to explain the final sentence he uses in his nominations. To make repeated nominations in idiosyncratic language and refuse to explain what is meant to repeated questions is not helpful. It's worse than IDONTLIKETHEM, its BECAUSE I SAID SO AND YOU DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. DGG (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok calm down DDG. "Abuse of process" please. This is patently unnotable crufty trivia and should be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 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 Zoids:_Genesis#Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Ptera[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect all articles like this here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Does have significant amount of real world info, despite what the nominator says. Nom made no effort to find sources as per WP:AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no sources cited at the article, it would help your case if you could either add them or provide links here. With over 200 of these things, it hard to imagine the individuals having notability independent of the broader subject.Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 22:55, 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 Zoids: Chaotic Century. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helic Republic[edit]

This fictional locations does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids: Chaotic Century. Does not establish notability outside of series. Mostly plot summary. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doc Strange and my comment on Guylos Empire. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suggest possibly create a disambiguation page instead with the link to Zoids: Chaotic Century and to Greece as this is a potential misspelled search term for Hellenic Republic which redirects to Greece. 23skidoo (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect When merged, a section of an article does not need to have RWC, or we could never write about plot at all. DGG (talk) 04:04, 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 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community equity[edit]

"Created to support the Community Equity Open Source project". Blatant original research / use of Wikipedia as a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the image have fair use or other licensing details, this whole thing might be a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any blatant copyvio, but Delete anyway, as there is an obvious conflict of interest, as this [1] ref indicates that the article's only major contributor works for Sun Microsystems and is heavily involved in this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a how-to guide about how 'we' can do something. And the images used are almost certainly copyvios.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and wiki isn't a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strangest spam I've yet encountered. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise, the most spam I have seen so far. Major COI with the writer. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 11:04, 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 redirect to Zoids: Chaotic Century. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guylos Empire[edit]

This fictional locations does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids: Chaotic Century. Does not establish notability outside of series. Mostly plot summary. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doc Strange. No notability outside a fictional universe doesn't mean it's not notable inside it and fails to notice it makes a good redirect target. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Being a likely search term is not a reason to preserve the history of bad content, redirects can be created after deletion. Jay32183 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as usual. Not all merged sections of an article need rwc. DGG (talk) 04:06, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Customise Parts[edit]

This list of trivial fictional weapons does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entire lead section is real world information and the nominator did not show any reasonable attempt at finding sources as required by WP:AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 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 Zoids: Genesis. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lanstag[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN obviously didn't read the article. Zoids are characters, not weapons. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids: Genesis. Even when no one bothers to cut down and merge a reduced amount of plot information to a character list, the name still remains a valid search term, so a redirect would be in order.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Being a likely search term is not a reason to preserve the history of bad content; redirects can be creates after deletion. Whether the subject is a character or a weapon is irrelevant to this discussion, but being familiar with this fictional work, I think weapon is more accurate. Jay32183 (talk) 23:19, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Testament[edit]

Redundant and unnecessary content fork. Speedied and prodded once. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily, per original speedy rationale which has not changed: "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: redundant with other articles". Ros0709 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV presentation of religious material available in a less contentious presentation elsewhere on Wikipedia. (Amusingly mis-spelled in places, too, but that's not a reason for deletion.) AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The naming of this concept is by itself original research. Plus, we have adequate articles on just about everything this article talks about. Islamic holy books, which would be a far better title for this article, already exists, and Hatashe (talk · contribs) should give a thought about expanding it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR or random link collection if not G1 or A1 – and I'm sure we can WP:SNOW it. 9Nak (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The content is contained in the articles listed on the page; unlikely anyone would be looking for this except for the author. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 08:28, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ktjames[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. I couldn't find much to support his claims, or anything about him really on the internet. Nothing showed up on Google for him. "Kari Shaka Thompson" only returns Wikipedia, and I searched for "Kari Shaka Thompson" and "Kari Thompson" along with "At World's End" to see if there was any truth to his claim that he had a starring role in the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but nothing on that end either. CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just checked the article, and apparently he changed his name as well. I entered that through Google as well, but still came up with nothing.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:AB, and WP:BIO. Graymornings (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author keeps moving article around. Right now, the title is Kory James. • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this gets deleted, User:Ktjames should also be deleted as a duplicate. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: not notable, advertisement, purely promotional autobiography written by the subject. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD should also apply to Kory James. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OR. Also delete other articles created by this user on the same topic. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 08:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable (probable hoax) per WP:V. This is a teenager with a couple of MySpace pages. Without WP:RS, nothing in the article can be supported. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 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 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Robertson[edit]

This article is not about the article title. Instead, it is about a theory in astrophysics that the subject has co-written. The author of this article has a troubled relationship with the community (see the user's talk page). Richard Cavell (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None actual biographical information or sources independent from the subject. He does seem to exist[2] so if anyone feels like it, we could redirect Stanley Robinson to MECOs. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanley Robertson. I don't doubt that he exists. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, his actual name is Stanley L. Robertson, and one is much more likely to find information under the full professional name. I don't care the least about the relationships with the WP community in this context. I don't care that much about the present quality of the article. I care about the notability of the subject, and that is to be judged by his published work. He is the author of 9 scientific papers in the ADS database. [3]. But using Scopus to eliminate name ambiguities, I find 8 papers in Astrophysics from him at Department of Physics, Southwestern Oklahoma State University--the most cited one has 19 citations. I also find 7 earlier papers from him in chemical physics at University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, with very low citations. I assume they are the same person. In any case, this is not enough to be notable. DGG (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object which is notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG's research. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google Scholar search does not turn up much in terms of citation impact either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:41, 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 Speedy Delete by Ohnoitsjamie. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation (Band)[edit]

I am proposing this article be deleted because it appears to fail the notability standard defined in Wikipedia:Notability (music). According to the article the musical ensemble in question has yet to even release an album; this appears to be a vanity article. When/If the group achieves notability the article can be re-created. Naufana : talk 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Nothing but a member list and discography (note that the few bluelinks are actually other people). No actual content to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huf Haus[edit]

Completely non-notable and generally un-necessary as an article. Commercial. Technosenior (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I'm the article creator). This article meets WP:COMPANY since the company has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, including The Times, Daily Telegraph, International Herald Tribune and Channel 4 television. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The similar article in German Wikipedia passed successful a deleting discussion there because of the several, most British (!), architecturally prices [4] e. g. 2001 „Best House of the Year“ (Royal Institute of Architecture, London), and 2004 (earlier also 2003, 2002, 2000) „The National HomeBuilder Design Awards“. Whats true: The article could be more encyclopedia stile. Some more facts of the company like founded in 1912, 434 employees in 2007, turnover 84 Mio. EUR (2007), Homepage, unique wood-glas construction based on American Timber framing, individual floor plans (within a prefabricated house!), Bauhaus tradition, delivered around the world including Russia and China, an independent members club in Britain, available as a Zero-energy building, and all kinds of Low-energy house, normal site construction time five weeks also outside Germany, guaranteed prices, basement construction, furnishings, horticulture, financing also available, ... Tasma3197 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basically per Tasma3197, has won several architectural prices. Article could use work, in particular the cost of the houses listed should probably be removed unless there is some encyclopaedic fact about them that I don't see (WP:NOTCATALOG). The company however seems notable to me, in addition to the sources already in the article de:Huf Haus has three more: [5] [6] [7]. --Amalthea
Comment - The article probably could be improved by using some of the material from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Suntag ☼ 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability obvious from the sources that were in the article before it was nominated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article had references establishing notability prior to the nomination. It was clearly notable and referenced then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources shows that it passes WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:12, 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 speedy delete. G2, test page Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Tucker[edit]

This does not fall under any CSD. However, it ought to be deleted as the subject matter is not notable enough for inclusion. The subject appears to be a personality created by a person within a computer game. There is no indication that the fictional personality has any relevance outside the author's installation of the computer game, or that it has achieved notability. The achievements described for this fictional character appear only to have been achieved by the author of the article in the context of the computer game. Richard Cavell (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fictional character created by a computer gamer. No notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find any independent coverage in reliable sources that establishes why this character is notable. Wiw8 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I Googled but found nothing but the wikipedia article itself. This does seem odd. Someone just uploading total nonsense. Dream Focus (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 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 02:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mr. Men Show (UK Version)[edit]

This is almost an exact duplicate of The Mr. Men Show. I have no idea of the reasoning for the fork, since the show is the same in the USA as it is in the UK, with the only differences being voice actors and titles. The original The Mr. Men Show did indicate the differences, and I see no reason why it cannot continue to do so. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just going to prod this. A complete duplication without any indication why a separate article is needed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication. Wiw8 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dont even bother merging, it's mentioned on the parent article. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as differences between US and UK versions of the mr men show have since been erased from the parent article. Fruit.bmp (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course the UK version is the original version, so if there was a split it should really take the primary namespace, but since theres not enough here to justify two articles it should be deleted the original article should be repaired. Artw (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luminus (comics)[edit]

A non-notable minor villain. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Significant recurring character. The article requires references, and should be templated as such. Artw (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should probably be renamed though, since this DCAU character does not have a comics counterpart. Artw (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He has only had two major appearances and one minor appearance. Even if he was a major character, the article still needs sources that shows why the character is independently notable. If I put an unreferenced template on it, the article would most likely sit around forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a "keep" vote if someone puts some references in. Also I agree with Artw about a name change, can that be done whilst at AFD? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two major appearances is enough. For one, we could merge. DGG (talk) 04:09, 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 speedy delete. G3, WP:NFT Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netzophrenia[edit]

Unsourced nonsense. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious nonsense. Consider speedy as hoax/vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and/or possible joke article. Wiw8 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 23:14, 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compaq Presario[edit]

This page sound like an advertisement or a catalogue. It only include a list of model numbers. This type of content is very unencyclopedic and it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Fangfufu (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very major and long-running product line from an extremely notable company. Sources all over the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to satisfy the criteria for inclusion, perhaps the article could do with a bit of improvement but that isn't a reason for deleting it. Wiw8 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Most computer lines have their own articles as they're individually notable. This one's poorly written, sure, but it is a valid topic for which many, many sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has to be a notable topic. The Presario brand is famous. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major product line from a top computer manufacturer. Obvious keep. Jfire (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Line of well-known computers, easy to finds scads of substantive articles in reliable/independent sources. This is far preferable to stub articles on each slightly different model number within the line. It can be improved by referencing and noting developments over the years. Edison (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Presario is a well-known brand. Definitely no reason to delete, just improve. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 05:03, 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 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David LaBrava[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources and added them...you want to withdraw the deletion? Silverseren^C 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. They don't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind then... Silver seren^C 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I acknowledge that this guy has done next to nothing, but I'm always keen on keeping articles about living people, in case they get expanded in the future, and are useful for cross-referencing purposes, sorry mate ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright bloody hell guys, steady on, point taken, "you disagree" lol! I didn't mean "wait to see if his notability increased", I meant; somebody may expand the article in the future, even if he is a minor role actor. Mind, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if this article is deleted, it's not in my usual field of interest. Right, I'm off to create a List of pokemon characters that may like Star Wars ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable actor. A Google News Archive search returns no results. The sources added by Seren are not reliable sources. An IMDb link and a link to the homepage of a movie this individual had a role hardly shows notability. In fact, the IMDb link shows he's fairly new to the acting business. He's only been in 2 episodes of Sons of Anarchy and probably played only a minor role. Ryan's comments are completely wrong. There are plenty of biographies of non-notable living people in CAT:CSD and the majority gets deleted. This individual may someday be notable but that's crystal balling. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keeping information just in case someone gets notable is the function of a directory. IMdB is a directory. DGG (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appearances in two episodes of a TV series and arole in a movie that never got made is not something that is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 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. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the Cat's Away (cartoon short)[edit]

Non-notable Mickey Mouse short. A Google search for "When the cat's away""Mickey mouse"[8] returns only 1,030 results, the vast majority of which are from comprehensive websites like imdb or The Big Cartoon Database, blogs, or things unrelated to this film, and as such it appears to fail WP:NF. Unscented (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mickey Mouse? Walt Disney? Non-notable? I don't think so. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist.[9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those all seem to just be very brief mentions or entries in comprehensive animation encyclopedias.--Unscented (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might get expanded one day, what we have in the mean while I deem not to be harmful to the encyclopaedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one of the google book sources mention audience response. Together with the fact that Disney is well covered in paper sources, it's very likely to be expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is notable as an rare example of a Mickey Mouse cartoon where the characters are depicted as mice, and not regular-person sized. It is also due to be expanded, and the summary and info needs to be saved in some form. SWatsi (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Disney productions are notable, and early productions such as this in particular are covered in multiple sources as noted above. 23skidoo (talk) 18:57, 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 keep. The two guidelines being cited support the coexistence of such lists with categories. The people who voted to delete did not cite policy at all. Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin[edit]

A list of lists. This is surely what categories exist for? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Lists of lists are surely acceptable in Wikipedia. Also, lists are different from categories, which can be beneficial (see WP:LIST). However, the individual list entries cry out overcategorization for some reason, but this is not the AFD in which to discuss this. MuZemike (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have many lists of lists articles. The category cannot provide the grouping that this article does. And even if they duplicate, the WP:CLN guideline preaches peaceful coexistence. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this article to easily combine lists of British people by their respective national origin. The lists listed on this article are important, however, if they were all included on Lists of British people, it would become very clutterd. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigational list. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a depository of lists. Put things into categories if you want navigation tools doktorb _words^deeds 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Doktorbuk above - Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. While some lists are great, I think this one crosses the line into pointless minutiae.Paul75 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical: El desafio (Mexico)[edit]

Unsourced. Not sure if this is a real movie. Cssiitcic (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't cite any sources and is non-notable. Tarheel95 (Tar-Talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. The soundtrack is available on Amazon, indicating that it is indeed a real film and the article can probably be sourced. It also has an entry on IMDb. It also has a listing on Allmovie, although the listing has no content. A Google search turns up a number of legit-looking material, including a trailer for the film. So, a legit article about a legit film that can most likely be sourced. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the article before voting. This article is NOT about the Argentine spin-off film, it's about a Mexican version that doesn't exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed my !vote to delete. Although I did check the article before voting, I wasn't aware that this was a country-specific film. The nominator didn't indicate that there was an article at High School Musical: El Desafio, Argentina, so how was I to know? The nom merely said they weren't sure if this was even a real movie, so I did some title searches to see if it was. At any rate, the High School Musical: El Desafio, Argentina article should proably be moved to just High School Musical: El Desafio, since in the search results I got "Argentina" does not appear to be part of the title, and the disambiguation page can be nixed as the Mexican version appears to be a hoax. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete deliberate hoax. Real article is at High School Musical: El Desafio, Argentina. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is just a bit more information at the newer article, including the worldwide sales gross (3 million more than Argentina alone). I suggest a merge of what little additional informations there are to the older article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete newer article and rename old article I see that this is not a deliberate hoax, but simply an English translation of the same article on Wiki Spanish. I have just moved the additional pertinent informations from the new article to the old one... adding cast, worldwide gross, and additional links. I strongly suggest a renaming of the old to remove the word "(Argentina)" to simply High School Musical: El desafío, as the greater gross receipts indicate a worldwide Spanish release and that is not relegated to only Argentina. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 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 as blatant vandalism. ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Mungo's School for the mentally ill[edit]

I believe this article is a possible hoax (maybe even an attack article on similarly named schools). After much Google searching, all I've been able to come up with is a St. Mungo's Academy in Glasgow, a St. Mungo's High School in Falkirk, and a St. Mungo's Primary School (and of course the fictional hospital). If there is such a school, I see verifiability issues due to the lack of information found. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G3) by another editor as I was creating this AfD. However, I'm doubtful that it meets the criteria for blatant vandalism, so I continued to create the discussion. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Head is supposed to be 'Mr Charles Von Dingleberry', I'd doubt anyone would find it. I've removed the links in Stoke-on-Trent and on the Template for Staffordshire schools too. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's based on Thistley Hough High School - even the Ofsted number is copied. Case for speedy deletion? Peridon (talk) 19:10, 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 (G12/G11) by Gwen Gale. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International schools in japan[edit]

Blatant advertising. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G11. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G12 - a blatant copyright violation of [10] and so tagged. CSD G11 would probably apply as well. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. Copyright violation. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, delete this now. --Numyht (talk) 19:27, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian garces[edit]

Apparent hoax? After translating the tiny article from spanish, I googled for the name and can't find anything for this supposed leader in the Ecuadorian revolution (see Ecuadorian War of Independence). I am guessing that this is the name of the author (username begins with Adrian), who is perhaps pretty young judging by the spanish spelling mistakes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless information can be verified. I was similarly unable to locate any information on this supposed revolutionary leader. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't be that famous if he has zero internet presence. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ain't about Simon Bolivar. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Themfromspace (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival[edit]

Apparently non-notable film festival. A Google news archive search turned up nothing of substance, just trivial references, "the festival is occuring"-type announcements, and press releases. There have been complaints against the festival, but I would argue that not even the complaining makes it notable. Precious Roy (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two references in the article are very in-depth and substantial, if negative (WP:N makes no requirement that coverage must be positive, but independent of the subject). That there are many press releases about this festival on a g-news search is strictly a red herring as that doesn't negate the in-depth coverage that does exist. --Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously a notable festival. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep. The NYIIFF has been around for 15 years and has received LOTS of extensive and in-depth coverage in reliable sources that easily exceed WP:N / WP:GNG requirements. Los Angeles Times, New York Cool, LA's the Place, LA Splash, Show Business Weekly, Princess.com, Fest 21, New York Press, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the LA Times, I don't see substantial coverage from notable (and reliable) sources. The NY Press may be notable publication but it's one of the, as I called them in my nomination, "'the festival is occuring'-type announcements" and utterly trivial. The Show Business Weekly "article" seems borderline. Precious Roy (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though available, as you yourself have granted above, substantial coverage from notable sources is not a mandate. The primary criteria from WP:CORP indicate that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability'". That has been done by the offereing of BOTH substantial and less-than-substantial sources... as well as Imagine News, MovieGoat, The Reeler, andIndie Wire, found in a 3 minute search. With respects, it would be rare to find a writeup on a film festival in the Washington Post just as you would never find an article on Obama at The Reeler. If you have problems with these multiple sources, that discussion belongs over at the RSN, but the fact that it has the coverage it does in multiple sources independent of the subject more than qualifies this festival under WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although its reputation in the film world is controversial, it is a notable event. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has to be notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:21, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Rouse[edit]

Unreferenced article about a non notable evangelist. I find no evidence to support this article remaining. Paste ^Talk 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Paste ^Talk 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the original nomination, however I am also nominating the following related pages because Alexander Marshall is another evangelist of similar vein, again copied over from Brethrenpedia and without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.:

   :Alexander Marshall, Gospel Hall Pioneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :and duplicated article - Alexander Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With apologies if this treads on toes, however I think one AfD wil do for both. Springnuts (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT – This is not treading on toes – this against procedure. First, you submit an additional article 4 days after the original nomination was posted. Remember, a AFD is usually only posted for 5 days. Hence, you are only giving the community 1 day to respond. NO! Second, it is about a separate individual. As it is about a separate individual – a separate article and the only tie in is that it mentions J.J. Rouse, how do you come to the conclusion that they should be reviewed in the same AFD? Also, have you considered the earlier opinion expressed, before you submitted this piece? Do you judge their responses for both articles? Or just the first? ShoesssS ^Talk 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made that point rather more gently below, and Springnuts has agreed that the additional nomination should be withdrawn, so there's no need to fly off the handle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Typical Monday response, on my end, not yours. I am sorry. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an evangelist "notable"? This particular evangelist helped to establish Gospel Hall assemblies in Canada. I'm not trying to be contrary... but what criteria are you looking for? Does he need to have established churches in a larger denomination? Sayworth

Delete - I read this a couple times and do not see how the subject comes close to meeting the basic criteria of notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I found some information that Mr. Rouse was responsible with the “…earliest assembly in Alberta” as shown here, [11], which would establish Notability. Does the article need a complete rewrite yes. However, I would hate to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

Reply- Are you sure that's the same person? The wiki article says he was from Ontario, while your links says Edmonton. I'm no expert on Canadian Geography, but I believe those two places are pretty far apart. I'm also not seeing anything else to connect the two articles --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Finding any thing to connect to the way the article is written now would be monumental. Regarding J.J. Rouse, the article only says that he was born in Ontario in 1885, nothing about where he preached. In my cite, location Edmonton, is for 1905 just about the right time that Mr. Rouse would be starting his ministry. Given the fact of their unusual reference to name J.J., I am pretty sure they are the same. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's another source, and this suggests that the subject may have been notable as a writer. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now -- This article is probably as yet only half written, so that it is difficult to judge its value. There is too much detail in this article for it to be invented. It should be tagged as incomplete and as lacking sources. The article is (if anything too detailed for the brief biographic articles usual in WP, but that is no reason to delete it. Full names should be gien if possible, also date of death. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article is a straight lift from Brethrenpedia ([12]) which has different standards for inclusion. If he is notable the article can be re-created with proper sources. Springnuts (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a "lift" from Brethrenpedia... but I am the one who wrote it over there. The source of the material is a book on the life of J.J. Rouse that I don't have in my posession at the moment. I had planned on completing the article while I had the book... but have not got it completed yet. It's true, the way it's written might be more suitable for Brethrenpedia, but I also hoped that others might eventually help with cleaning it up, and adding what they know about this man. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the book about Rouse was published by Pickering and Inglis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayworth (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the book mentioned in this article, J. J. Rouse’s Pioneer Work in Canada, is the one I used to start writing the entry on J.J. Rouse. It was about a year ago that I wrote it over at Brethrenpedia... haven't had time to go back to it yet.

Response - One book - that you do not have - is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's nothing personal - just the standard of notability Wikipedia asks for. Springnuts (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Significance of A.Marshall and J.J.Rouse There is a controversy on the origins of the Gospel Hall Brethren. Some in the movement claim that these people who resemble the Plymouth Brethren in so many ways, actually had nothing to do with them. I do not believe this is true. I think it's possible that the original Scotish Brethren might have started up separately, without any contact with any Plymouth Brethren influences. However, when one goes into who some of these early Scotish Brethren associated with, one quickly sees that there was a connection. Alexander Marshall was definitly in the circles of the Scotish Brethren of the Gospel Hall Brethren, yet in his biography, he was clearly also in the circles of other Plymouth Brethren. The article on Alexander Marshall is only a stub at this point. Again, hopefully someone will be able to complete it. He started many of the brethren assemblies in Ontario and elsewhere in North America. Rouse was connected with him. Rouse was also a Pioneer, in that he began the work that started some of the assemblies. Yes, he was from Ontario... but these men, once out as evangelists, typically travelled far and wide. The reference to Rouse forming the earliest assembly in Alberta, is about the same J.J. Rouse. Some of the events at the beginning of Rouse's time with the Brethren, is not at all similar to how the Gospel Hall Brethren operate in current times. For those who might be studying this sect, this provides an interesting perspective. I apologize that I have not completed the article, or given the source. I will eventually give the source, once I get my hands on the old book again.

Sayworth (talk) 19:39, 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, Black Kite 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he's done enough that he ought to be included. The links from Shoessss sway me. (And keep the other two articles as well). - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep of the additional articles nominated by Springnuts. They weren't included here until four days after this AfD was started so can't reasonably be considered as part of the same discussion. They should be nominated separately if thought to require deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to procedural keep of the Alexander Marshall article(s)(it is one article only, albeit duplicated) - I had hoped they might be discussed together but that has not happened. Springnuts (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, it's a poorly written article. I would prefer it to be more scholarly and relevant. For lack of time, I'm unable to complete or fix it at the moment. I personally hope someone who is more of a historian is able to complete it, and make it more relevant and notable -- hopefully someone without the bias I have referred to here and elsewhere. If, the article is NOT deleted do these comments here become part of the discussion page of the actual article? I don't know how this works, but I think it could be beneficial to keep the comments intact, and accessible from the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayworth (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion will be preserved with a link from the article talk page if it is kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 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 Speedy delete G12. Black Kite 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Fund[edit]

Does this organization meet the notability criteria? My search on google news didn't reveal many reliable sources writing about it, and those that I did find didn't seem to confirm the group's importance- in fact, they seemed to be about several different organizations that have the same name. The article itself also lacks independent sources, so I can't confirm notability that way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The bulk of the article is a direct copyvio of [13] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 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 (A3/A7). Black Kite 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know your secret[edit]

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; gsearch not turning up notability (or even existence.) Prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No info on notability or even existence. Graymornings (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Doesn't seem to exist, and even if it did it wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers[edit]

A duplicate of Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China (currently on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China, created by a probably sockpuppet of blocked user Kikbguy (case here). Consists of almost the exact same text and information as the other AfD'ed article, only with a single sentence and ref about military spending added; this extra information doesn't increase the notability or verifiability of the claims in this article, but only increases the amount of unpublished synthesis; like the original article, this is an arbitrary cross-categorization and collection of statistics with no assertion of a relationship between them. Article was declined for speedy until other AfD is closed, and prod was removed. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. AfD could possibly be simply combined with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (That AfD is already getting swamped and hard to follow, so I figured it would help to keep things separate. Hut 8.5 has suggested to me (here) that we just speedy this article as soon as the other AfD is successfully closed, but in the meantime I figured I should open this AfD as well). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attempt to circumvent the AfD process. Also, reasons for deleting other article all apply here. Ray (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep and Note to Moderator Politizer and Zimzalabim have been trying to delete all of my articles because I refuse to accept their views that this article should be deleted. Zimzalabim has already abused his administrative priviliedges and had me banned under false pretenses. Politizer has a history of trying to kill wikipedia entries that he has not written. Both of them have been trying to discredit me, delete my articles, censor my comments, and block me from using wikipedia. They certainly have a conflict of interest with my articles at this point because any article I write they have and will continue to try and delete. Don't delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.9.7 (talk • contribs)
  - NOTE: The above editor is the article creator and an admitted sock puppet of Kikbguy, reported here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Update Politizer and Zimbalabim are now deleting all the "See Also" sections of my work. Don't take my word for it, check their edit logs to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.184.6.10 (talk • contribs)
  - Comment I am deleting the sections; ZimZalaBim is uninvolved. And I am not deleting sections from "your" work, I am deleting your edits to other peoples' work. You are repeatedly going to other articles and adding links this article, which is poorly written and is up for deletion. Continued addition of these links will be seen as vandalism. And again, please keep the discussion here centered on the matter at hand; if you have a problem with my actions at other articles, you can discuss it somewhere else, not here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep only one version, no duplicates and comment: Alternative data sources will be welcome. The sipri.org data has apparent math issues: the purchasing power of money in Russia is well below UK or France (i.e. all basic commodities cost more), yet for some reasons its PPP ranking is above these countries. NVO (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This was created by a sockpuppet as a duplicate of another article. There's not possible argument for keeping it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet. I'm the editor of the stub and (Politizer, Zimzalabim, and VirtualSteve) have had me blocked for "sockpuppetry" which is code for using a proxy to argue a time sensitive deletion of my article stub when they wrongfully block my original account for arguing with them. These three editors/administrators have grossly abused their power using vandalism, false accusations, deleting my posts, and downright propaganda to have me blocked, this article stub deleted, and to delete all "see also" links going to the article stub so that this information does not get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.124.103 (talk • contribs) — 128.230.124.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Too narrow and poorly defined topic for an encyclopedia. As with Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China, delete. Kikbguy, if you ever want to turn this article into anything encyclopedic, please don't repeatedly re-create it under various titles; instead, copy it into your user space and work on it there. And if you disagree with the block that has been imposed upon you, don't avoid it using sockpuppet accounts or IP addresses (this may result in your block being extended, up to an including an indefinite length); rather, challenge it on your talk page using the {{unblock|reason for unblocking}} template, or just wait until it expires. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rework of Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China, for all the reasons listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China. Jll (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research based around a questionable correlation. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salvage information into relevant articles, synthesis and original research Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockferry - Deluxe Edition[edit]

The information in this article already exists in the Rockferry article. It is redundant and unnecessary for it to have its own article, the deluxe edition in and of itself is not notable outside of the context of the original album, and this article adds no new information which needs to be merged. Scapler (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable album, but no reason to have a seperate article on various different editions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any information not already in Rockferry should be moved there. Precious Roy (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGAF[edit]

The website doesn't seem to have much notability other than the fact that its just a forum with a fanatical userbase. The site doesn't rank that highly in Alexa compared to more professional English sites like 1UP, IGN, and GameSpot. So I don't know why this article this even exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, supposed references are all either brief mentions, blog-type stuff, or both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In most circumstances I would agree that forums are not notable, and in fact I almost nominated this myself a few months back. But then I did some research and found some decent sources, including those from G4,[14] The Escapist, [15] and a very substantial article from 1UP.com [16]. The article details the impact the site has on the gaming industry and includes interviews with several developers and designers talking about the site, including David Jaffe, Todd Howard and Soren Johnson among others. Maybe two of those references are from smaller blog-style sites, but I'd say that three substantial sources from reputable industry outlets would meet the first criterion of WP:WEB, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of the mentions are indeed trivial, but the substantial article from 1up.com that Gene93k posted was enough assert notability. Themfromspace (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the 1UP article says, the userbase isn't merely "fanatical" but actually includes industry insiders. And while Alexa ratings aren't really part of WP:WEB, in this case the relatively low rating can be explained by the fact that the board being so industry focused. The larger gaming sites the nominator is comparing neogaf to are aimed at a general public interested in the games themselves, while the neogaf discussions often revolve around the industry behind the games, a more narrow field of interest. Titney (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom brings absolutely nothing new to the table that hasn't been thwarted in the last AFD discussion, and throws in an irrelevant WP:NOTBIGENOUGH rationale for good measure. SashaNein (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of decent sources and nothing has changed since the last AFD that would result in a deletion this time around. Kagetto (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notwithstanding the previous AFDs (just focusing on this one), it certainly seems like notability has now been established well enough for inclusion. Keep in mind that alexa is not a good sole indicator of inclusion or lack thereof. MuZemike (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's not forget that Denis Dyack, founder of Silicon Knights and creator of Too Human, stated in an article about how NeoGAF is the worst kind of forum. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:45, 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 Speedy close. Don't do this, please. The IWF is a clearly notable organisation, and regardless of how you feel about the current issue, this is not the way to go about protesting about it.Black Kite 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Watch Foundation[edit]

Promotional, Waste of Space, Putting censorship controversy aside it lacks grounds for inclusion «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nomination borders WP:POINT. D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 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 merge to The Wedding (band). MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding (album)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. roux 14:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, yup, you're right, and WP:MUSIC also says that articles with "little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". So you could be bold and do that instead of bringing it to AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:20, 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, Sandstein 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze. The content is encyclopedic, and the rest of the world is probably unconcerned with whether it is placed in a stand-alone article or in the band's article. If anyone out there believes this is of critical importance, then go ahead, be bold, and do it. Otherwise, this is the wrong venue to be discussing this; this is for deletion discussion, not merger discussions. Procedural Keep. Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: little more than a track listing WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 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 redirect to facility management. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace consulting[edit]

This appears to be part of an emerging linkfarm nest connected with the speedied Alexi Marmot Associates created by User:Oseland. I'm not insisting on outright deletion, maybe it is salvageable. Please also review the the self-referencing Post occupancy evaluation by the same user. - NVO (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how this article can be salvaged. Workplace Consulting is a recognised discipline within the UK and an omission from Wikipedia. Oseland (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have teaken the refreences out to Alexi Marmot Associates on the Workplace consulting and Post occupancy evaluation articles. As above POE is a clear omission from Wikipedia. Please delete the offending lines rather than the articles. I have seen articles on other archtectural practices so assumed some reference was okay. Oseland (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is evidently notable and even the nominator considers that it may be salvaged. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = The article could do with some cleanup, but is relatively sound and referenced. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Delete = After further consideration (and looking through the walled garden) I've determined that the useful information in this article is covered - and covered better - in the article on facility management. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 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, Sandstein 16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a part of a walled garden of articles designed to promote consulting businesses; workplace strategies seems to be another. The text seems to belabor the obvious in prose that's heavy with buzzwords and glittering generalities, without adding concrete information: Workplace Consulting is the process of understanding the current and future requirements of an organisation, through consultation and analysis, in order to introduce a new workstyle or create a new workplace. In particular, workplace consultants may be engaged when an organisation is considering implementing "new ways of working", sometimes referred to as flexible or agile working. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:17, 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 keep. Suggest that Beatty Point be merged into this article or nominated separately (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braddock's Bay[edit]

This is a non-notable bay. Nothing of importance has happened here, and the most interesting thing according to the article is "bird watching." --Seascic ^T/_C 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Keep and rename to Braddock Bay. According to the Google hits I perused it actually is an important wildlife habitat even though the article doesn't mention it yet (which might explain why it's a good place for bird watching). Here's some references:

http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/sig_hab/GreatLakes/Braddock_Bay_Salmon_Creek.pdf This source specifically calls the place "One of the largest coastal wetland ecosystems in New York State." and mentions the date it was designed along with a list of the wildlife that has its home there.
http://nyfalls.com/lakes/ontario-braddockbay.html (not sure if this is fully reliable), but it looks like a good source for tidbits of information, it even has GPS coordinates for the park's entrance.
http://a0920405.uscgaux.info/ There is a US Coast Guard Auxiliary in the area.

That's what I found in the first few hits. It looks there's more info to be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Braddock Bay or Braddock Bay State Park (per List of New York state parks). I'm not familiar with the US parks system, but assume that the state parks, being state-registered wildlife reserves, are all sufficiently notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The co-nomination of Beatty Point was added on 4 December, two days after the original nomination and subsequent to all the above comments; it is unlikely, therefore, to get proper consideration in this AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 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, Sandstein 16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Beatty Point into Braddock Bay as part of a notable park. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verifiable geographical location. Naming is an issue for the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all state parks in the US are notable.Not all are wildlife reserves, but they are notable anyway as major geographic features. DGG (talk) 04:15, 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 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 Birnie Court (Red Road)[edit]

Was nominated for prod, but tag was removed. Not sure if it falls under any speedy deletion criteria, so I'm nominating it for AfD. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Hermione1980 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-contradictory stub, redundant to main article Red Road (flats). Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this page it's 4th highest with 5 other buildings. Unless something can be said about the architecture itself, the 'record' is not enough to establish notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 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 List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Alexandra_Burke with no predudice against reversion if there's a consensus for it (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Burke[edit]

Finalists in reality shows are not generally considered notable until they have done something outside the show. However, Burke's case is not as clear-cut, as she has now taken part in two series. However, I still feel that she is not, at this time, notable enough to warrant an article. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for being on two seasons of a major TV series, as well as singing a UK #1 single (in collaboration with 11 other people, but still...) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra is hot fave to win at the bookies and is most likely to win, making her very notable and most likely have a second number-one single. The final 3 usually get recording contracts anyway which means she will become a professional singer. So whats the point of deleting my hard work to make a really good and well organized wikipage to have it come back on in a few months time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codywarren08 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins, or if she gets herself a recording contract, I support an article. Until then, there should not be one. If the article is deleted, it can easily be restored if she becomes notable. Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- we do not have articles on people who will become notable. If you believe that she is notable, you're going to have to demonstrate that she is notable now. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but come on, we're talking less than a week here. It's not often I'll defend an article as harmless, but there's no damage in waiting 5 more days until the finale airs. The article also has its greatest informational value at this point, as surely people will be looking her up over the next few days, as there's plenty of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Alexandra_Burke, and this page used to redirect to it. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) per WP:MUSIC. Dalejenkins | 17:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy revert to redirect, to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Alexandra_Burke. If she wins or otherwise gains independent notability, then - and only then - will a separate article be warranted - WP:BIO1E. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per Ros0709. Silver seren^C 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Article may be premature, but so too is this AfD. In just five days we'll know who wins the show, and then we'll be in a much better position to say whether or not she is notable. Might as well wait until then. PC78 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Revisit the idea of deletion in six months though, she might take the typical "post X-Factor" journey into obscurity/suicide ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy reinstate the redirect. If she doesn't end up notable, we don't need to take any further action. If she does undoing a redirect is much easier than requesting undeletion. (By the way, based on George Sampson winning of BGT, I'd say running through a show the second time could give her a good chance...) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think tht this page may as well stay because at the moment it looks likely that her notablitity will increase very soon anyway. If she fails to win the X Factor or at least not come runner up, then delete. At the moment there is no reason to delete this piece when it might end up being meaningful very soon anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleofark (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In terms of column inches, this lady far exceeds the criteria to keep. She is notable, sadly, especially if we insist on keeping articles relating to non-notable wrestlers and some such. Brooklyn Brawler, I am looking at you -me_mi_mo (me_mi_mo)
—Preceding comment was added by 78.16.57.31 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —SMALL JIM 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: not notable (unless she wins of course). JamesBurns (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polona Juh[edit]

Subject not notable. Looks autobiographical. Graymornings (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a leading lady in films that have been reviewed in Variety, and was the star of Beneath Her Window. [17]. The article needs polishing, but she's notable enough of an actress to merit an article. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My god, that article is hideous. I fixed it a little bit, added a source. I believe she's notable...the article just need a bit of work. Maybe take a sledgehammer and bash it a few times. That should work. Silver seren^C 21:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, she has a other language Wikipedia page as well...that's Slovenian, right? Silver seren^C 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're kidding, right? This isn't some high school actress, we're talking about one of a country's leading actresses here. She was the lead in this movie, for instance: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389281/ . Sure, it's easier to find sources for the prom queen of the 1987 Miniscule High, Nowhere, Ohio prom, but that shouldn't be the reason to delete articles about prominent foreign actors. I realise I'm gonna be told WP:OTHERSTUFF, but the notability of the subject of this article transcends a hell of a lot of other articles that we have on this wiki. (god, we need a project:slovenia...) TomorrowTime (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per above comments. Give this article a break, it's only been created yesterday by a completely new user. @TomorrowTime: WikiProject Slovenia exists, it's only that us Slovenians work mainly in our language Wikipedia. --Yerpo (talk) 07:24, 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 speedy delete. Hermione1980 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) speedy delete, see longer explanation below. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing To A Different Beat[edit]

Disputed PROD: "no evidence this album exists, but I may have missed something. If it does exist then keep the article, the singer is more than notable. It was supposed to be released "in early 2008" according to some sources." If reliable sources indicate this album exists, the article should be updated and this AFD speedy-closed as "keep." Note: Coincidently, the original author is blocked until January. Note: I will put a note on the talk page of the artist, Talk:Michelle McManus. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-create a properly-sourced article after the album is released per me, the nominator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the searches done above, I also checked amazon.co.uk, which has no mention of the album. Accordingly, I agree that it does not exist.

I am closing this AfD and speedy deleting the article under criterion G3: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior." Based on another admin's block of Spainton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is now abundantly clear that his edits have been of disruptive nature. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 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 speedy delete. Hermione1980 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, see longer explanation below. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Beat[edit]

Disputed PROD. PROD reason was: "no evidence this album exists, but I may have missed something. If it does exist then keep the article, the singer is more than notable. It was supposed to be released "in early 2008" according to some sources." PROD removed by the original editor, who coincidently is blocked until early January. I am requesting that this be deleted without prejudice for re-creation of a sourced article about this song. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Update: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will post an announcement of this on Talk:Michelle McManus in the hopes of finding sources.

delete without prejudice for re-creation of a properly sourced article indicating song's existence. - per me, the nominator. My hope is that this song has been released and I can request speedy-close/keep. However, an internet search didn't come up with anything. Help me out here folks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and based on my Googling turning up nothing. Happy to change my !vote if this turns out not to be simply more Nimbley trollery, but I'm sceptical... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes. First, I'm the admin who declined to speedy delete this article under criterion G5: while Spainton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suspected of being a sockpuppet, he is not a sock of a banned user. However, the suspicion that he's a sock of a blocked user does call into question the good faith with which this article was created.

In addition to the searches done above, I also checked amazon.co.uk, which has no mention of the single. Accordingly, I agree that it does not exist.

I am closing this AfD and speedy deleting the article under criterion G3: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior." Based on another admin's block of Spainton, it is now abundantly clear that his edits have been of disruptive nature. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 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. Hermione1980 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Jay Raj[edit]

Who is the subject? I don't think that he is notable enough. Alexius08 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting per CSD A7. Hermione1980 16:39, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy Freeman[edit]

Non-notable actress fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have had very few TV/film roles, fails notability criteria. Graymornings (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bunch of sources that provide notability. Silver seren^C 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She had three major notable roles. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SC167 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SC167 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable actress with notable role on notable TV show. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been interviewed by both ACED Magazine and BuddyTV (linked too in article) and also by thetvaddict.com. Icewedge (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle festival[edit]

Unsourced and without sufficient context. The text only mentions a region, but not a specific location. No time of year is given, which seems crucial for an annual event. No assertion, let alone documentation of notability (while I expect that one or several such festivals actually do exist, they could very well be minor events of only local relevance). The original purpose of the article apparently was as a link container for travel business linkspam, and nothing other than basic wikifikation has been added to it since then. --Latebird (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe Googling suggests that this is reasonably well known event. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Annual traditional cultural festivals are notable if verifiable, which with a little googling, this is. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sources seem to agree on location and time of year and to show that this is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not that I would mind if anyone made sure that the existing article actually supported their keep arguments... --Latebird (talk) 08:42, 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 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardo's[edit]

It's a function hall. Much like many thousands of similar structures. The sources provided don't appear to show that this function hall has any particular notability; the cited newspaper article turns out to be merely an announcement of an event being held there. In my opinion, this is not a notable subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources establishing notability. The sources in the article - and those I could find online - are either primary or mention it tangentially and don't give 'significant coverage' per the definition in WP:V. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is certainly a landmark in the area, but it really is only of local interest, and far, far down the list when it comes to prominent landmarks in the Greater Boston area. RGTraynor 06:28, 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 Project Runway (season 4). MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Lewis[edit]

In the past, the community has decided that appearing on a reality show did not, in itself, indicate that a person was notable. This person appears to be known only for her appearance on Project Runway, and the article lacks reliable independent sources showing that she is significant beyond that appearance. Do we think she is a notable person? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One reality show appearance does not constitute notability. Graymornings (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But news appearances do. XP Sources added. Better? Silver seren^C 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But it was a close one, if this was nominated a year from now, with no improvement having been made (i.e. size), I'd say delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appriopriate season for Project Runway. The articles in the external links section provide several reliable sources, but there's really nothing that discusses much unrelated to the show. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Project Runway (season 4). She hasn't done anything notable outside of the show. Even in the New York Magazine article, which is fairly recent, it focuses more on the PR work than anything else. Her costume designs aren't really notable at this point in time. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:55, 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. I'm deleting this because the other page Levski in Europe is complete (this one isn't). Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The European Games of PFC Levski Sofia[edit]

Not worthy of a separate article BanRay 13:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BanRay 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Giant Snowman 13:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bazov has merged it into the main article so delete and BanRay I think you were a bit harsh on Bazov, he probably didn't understand what you were doing. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for GFDL reasons, deleting is not possible after a merge. TerriersFan (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Policy does not allow deleting history of merged material. -0Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why merge when all that information is already in the main article? I don't get it. Shouldn't you just delete this? Govvy (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the merge was carried out after the AfD was started so effectively we are endorsing a bold action. Because the content started its life here, this page cannot be deleted unless you are also going to remove the merged material from the main article and I see no desire for that. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content was initially added to the main article and only then split off into a separate one. Delete by the nominator. BanRay 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oops, quite correct, the main article material was created first. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst their history may not be as illustrious as, say Liverpool F.C. in Europe, there's still some interest in this subject (for example, reaching the Cup Winners Cup quarter-final twice, their narrow defeat to Benfica in '65 etc). If the information in the table on the main team page was prosified, there could be some good encyclopaedic material there. Bettia (rawr!) 10:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of this article has also created the page Levski in Europe. Dancarney (talk) 14:40, 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 speedy delete, blanked by creator. ... discospinster _talk 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falk Herwig[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. Could not find any significant news articles or press on Herwig. Graymornings (talk) 12:12, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Will Suit Them[edit]

No evidence that this book is notbale. It got two newspaper mentions (in the same paper, on the same day, about 2 weeks ago on 23-Nov-2008) [18] [19], and a briefer mention in The Australian back on 1-Nov-2008 [20] but my opinion is that being merely being reviewed in one or two newspaper reviews does not make a book notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google search revealing WP:RS coverage of said book from multiple news sources including News.com.au, The Australian, and ABC, published by Allen & Unwin. As noteable as any other book article on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Passes criterion 1 of WP:NB. Has been covered in the major publications and media in Australia. Considering that it was released not so long ago, perhaps more such reviews/coverage could be obtained in the future. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Agree with Timeshift. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The book is marginally notable given it was published by Allen & Unwin, a major publisher, but I'm not absolutely certain that it warrants a Wiki article. Orderinchaos 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per below. Delete for the moment. The book has not yet established notability. --Surturz (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in your opinion does establish book noteability? Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The book reveals some significant information previously unknown 2) the authorised or auto- biography of a notable person 3) a bestseller 4) study of the book is part of a curriculum (ordinary textbooks excepted) 5) the book is banned/censored 6) holy book of a notable religion. Feel free to convince me, though... why is this book in particular better than other similar books on the Howard era? --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books which are basically extended and somewhat researched (the level of research varies) opinion pieces or commentaries are published all the time, and by/through reputable publishers. Some of them make for good reading. But to deserve an article on Wikipedia there must be something more. Broken Lives by Estelle Blackburn for instance resulted in public attention to two old criminal cases which were subsequently overturned. The Latham Diaries and Costello's memoirs had media impact. The Education of a Young Liberal by John Hyde Page was influential, as was Keith Windschuttle's book questioning Aboriginal history (which really, btw, needs to be separated out from History wars) and Geoffrey Blainey's All for Australia. However I can think of several works reviewing politics of recent years which simply, yeah, I mean, they were decent reads whether one agreed with them or not, but they were just non-happeners, nobody outside either the latte set or the conservative fringe gave a stuff. Many of them really just existed to give obscure academics or journalists some level of respectability by having a published work. Some even got a one page book review in an academic journal, or written about in one of the arts sections of the dailies. But I'd argue against their notability on the basis that Wikipedia would almost be embarking on a promotional endeavour to cover them, as nobody outside a limited audience would know or have cause to know about them. Orderinchaos 08:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the book narrowly meets one of the notability criteria for books, having been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial independent coverage (the Herald Sun review, and the discussion on Radio National). Two mentions, both fairly brief but both critical commentary rather than plot summaries, both in reliable secondary sources. The (needlessly opaque) Radio National story is perhaps the more important as it debates the themes the book presents rather than simply reviewing it, but neither piece is the kind of in-depth examination that would absolutely guarantee notability. Still, on balance there could be just enough here to retain the article. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You're right to raise critical commentary - WP:NB says of works which cite a book, "Some... should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." But I don't see anything remotely like that in this case. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'd interpret this as being coverage which discusses the themes or the writing, rather than simply restating the plot. So if the principal purpose of the coverage is to review the book or its ideas rather than repeat its contents page, it may rate as critical commentary. The Herald Sun article, for example, outlines the "plot" but goes on to discuss the opacity of the language and the relative depth of the book's examination of Howard-era political landscape. The Sociology article also gives a "plot summary" but goes on to discuss the validity of the plot arguments in Australian society. I'd qualify this by noting that the critical commentary in each case is brief, and these are the only two such sources I could find (the other links mentioned above are mirrors of the Herald Sun) or publisher's blurbs. So - we need multiple sources citing critical commentary, and we have two sources with limited critical commentary. I'd therefore say it meets WP:NB, but only by the narrowest of margins. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing references as to notability[edit]

I am disputing the references given as evidence of the book's notability:

1. John Howard's time as Prime Minister not forgotten - this is a book review (evidenced by the price tag at the bottom), and does not establish notability
2. Dr Matt Sharpe on why The Howard Years is compulsive viewing - this has nothing to do with the book. It is actually about The Howard Years TV show.
3. Lives real and imagined - another book review. Not even of the book on its own.
4. Radio National show - authors publicising the book, disallowed under WP:NB (The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.)

(I'm not 100% convinced that these references even count as reliable sources)

I have yet to see any reference that makes this book stand out from the crowd. The coverage is the same as you would expect for any book that was recently published ie. a few book reviews and a few interviews with the author(s).

Things I'd like to see:

one of the subjects in the book interviewed about the book content (e.g. "Mr Howard, what is your response to allegations in the book The times will suit them that...")
A notable person quoting the book as an influence
Evidence of a journalist doing some research based on the book's content ie. it provoked a news story

--Surturz (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little mystifed - only one of those four references is used in the article. I agree the others are unsuitable or compeltely unrelated, but I'm not sure why they've been mentioned. The one that is used(the Herald Sun article) is coverage in a reliable secondary source, though its comprehensiveness is discussed above.

Re the things you'd like to see - I agree it would be great if Howard had been interviewed about the book and commented on it, but a personal opinion by a book's subject is not essential to establish that book's notability. A notable person quoting the book as an influence - an independent academic is quoted here - how notable he is is debatable, but this at least partly satisfies the request. Evidence of a news story about the book - the "Counterpoint" article linked above is a story on a news program - Counterpoint is a national current affairs program hosted by SMH columnist Michael Duffy and former journalist Paul Comrie-Thompson. In general, while the things you'd like to see would certainly help establish notability, they aren't requirements of the notability guideline.

Lest it appear I'm a cheerleader for the book, I'd add I'm only weakly in favour of keeping the article. The sources are a bit thin, the book has won no awards and it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking in any meaningful way. Its therefore a judgement call whether it meets the guidelines - I'd say weak keep, others may legitimately say delete. The only point I'd make is we need to assess the article on its actual content and using the criteria in the current guidelines. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to check the article itself! I was using the references in the above discussion. the counterpoint radio show would appear to meet the first criteria for WP:NB, just, so I'll change my vote to weak keep. "The reactions are to die for, Paul." lol --Surturz (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is very difficult to tell the notability of a new non-fiction relatively academic book, unless it becomes an immediate best seller or is published by a very notable author. it takes a few months for reviews to appear in most media, it takes at least a year or so before it is found in most of the libraries that will eventually own it. It takes a few years before it can really be expected to have an influence. The authors are medium-important political philosophers, possibly worthy of Wikipedia articles, but certainly not famous For a book of clearly immediate political interest, I would expect much fuller coverage in australian newspaper sources. . Until then there is no basis for an article, and an attempt to have one for such a title strikes me as promotional, an attempt to use Wikipedia to establish its importance. But I do not understand the argument that a book review is not evidence for notability--two more like that & I'd say keep. DGG (talk) 04:55, 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. John254 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria treben[edit]

Subject not notable. Article sounds somewhat like an advertisement. Graymornings (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Treben is one of the most famous natural medicine healers of the Twnetieth century. She has helped thousands of people with her personal advice and with the books she has written. She is known throughout the world and is a regular reference for anybody seeking an alternative health solution to their condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources for this article seem to be self-published, which violates WP:SPS. If there are reliable sources for this article, please include them. These might include newspaper articles, books, or web sites that reference your subject. You can refer to WP:SOURCES if you're not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Graymornings (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has sold over 8 million copies of her book in 24 languages. (Do you know that a best seller usually only sells a few thousand copies!!) Here's the ISBN for her book: ISBN 13: 978-3-85068-124-7^[1] Please take into account that if 8 million people have spent money on buying her book then millions more people would expect to have a referece for her in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per Graymornings. The article needs other sources, not a self-published one. Dekisugi (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme some time till Wednesday. There are plenty of third party sources - not only from the pseudo-healers realm (all positive) but from mainstream academia too (all dismissive, to put it mildly). The lady definitely had an impact in her trade. NVO (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. The new articles about the subject show her notability, but it needs more improvement. Dekisugi (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Now where's that Wiki "rule" about articles about people that aren't properly capitalized?--Boffob (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep a google news search seems to find some suitable references. once the article is rewritten based on them it should be fine. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepFair enough it is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I specialize in the history of Medicine and especially in the transition period XVIth to XIXth century between traditional and allopathic medicine. I saw that Wikipedia was lacking a lot of information on famous herbalists so wanted to contribute something. This is just a start. I will enhance and update it. How do you change the title?? I have been trawling all editing notes but cannot find how to change Treben to capital T. Thanks. philippe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOVE explained on usertalk. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The style of writing is a bit awkward.....and it needs more links. But we don't need to delete it. Maybe a cleanup or two would be good.♣Princess Clown♥ 16:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have updated the content and the references. Can someone please help me change treben in the title to have a capital T. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.171.133 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are usually moved after deletion discussions are over to avoid links failing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the article to avoid diverting the debate over this point. The redirect should hopefully fix the links problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per availability of reliable sources. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can change the article's title by moving the page (click move link at top of article), but you should wait until this AfD discussion is complete so links aren't stuffed up. - Allied45 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the books are probably sufficient as published works, along with the article about her. It would be good to try to find a contemporary book review or two; I think that would settle the matter. DGG (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have included a book review to complete the references.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banpresto Original Mecha[edit]

A unreferenced list of playable and non playable characters of Super Robot Wars. Banpresto Originals was deleted and it was written that "This doesn't seem to be an official term used to differentiate this series from the rest of the Super Robot Wars series". Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banpresto Originals. Moreover, all article characters were deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources for notability. Super Robot Wars has its own Wiki anyway. I'm really tired of this.--Boffob (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Graymornings (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They both violate WP:NOT for being directories of fictional, game guide content, and WP:SOURCE for lack of sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:31, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, only source is subject's MySpace page. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael jaquins[edit]

This person may not be as 'famed' as the article claims, to the point where the article may be considered a hoax. The article appears to be written by its subject, creating a conflict of interest. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete based upon CSD A7. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 10:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable, probably autobiographical. Graymornings (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A7. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:49, 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 Deleted clear advertising multiple copies both salted Gnan garra 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promote africa and Promoteafrica[edit]

Even though this organization exists for a purportedly noble cause, this article reads as an advertisement. In particular, it does not draw from secondary sources. The two nominated articles are identical except for the presence or absence of a space in the title. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. (So tagged.) Text like "Imagine how much value will come out of your contribution..." has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, and this article would have to be more or less completely rewritten to have any chance at a neutral POV. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:27, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marine-Estuarine-Environmental Sciences (MEES) Graduate Program, University System of Maryland[edit]

Contested prod. An article on a non notable post graduate program. The article offers no independent sources and there appear to be them. Wikipedia is not a webhost, prospectus nor advertising site. Nuttah (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability. I don't think any programs deserve their own articles unless they pass WP:N. Nominator is right, Wiki is NOT for advertisement.--Boffob (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nothing notable about this program. if we keep this it creates a dangerous precedent for various degree programs to have articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 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 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Armstrong band[edit]

Contested prod. An article on a non notable covers band which makes no claim to meeting WP:BAND. A search returns no reliable sources Nuttah (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable covers band, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Poss conflict of interest from the creator too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN covers band. Before I RTFA, I thought this might have something to do with Tim Armstrong, the singer for Rancid, but this is a different NN Tim Armstrong. Article does not establish notability and fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more sourcing, and I think that the best references will be found offline (I'm in the wrong part of the country for that). Longevity and recording output both point to notability (info needed on which labels etc.) Multiple references for them playing originals as well as covers. dramatic (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable covers band, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonow[edit]

This article may exist primarily to promote a particular company. The company may also not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article looks self-created and seems to be an advertisement. Graymornings (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — blatant advertisement. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the edit [21]. Now this is seriously 100% pure unfettered spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam. MuZemike (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated or speedy this almost entirely promotional article.Synchronism (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely unsourced and promotional. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 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 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison C. Davies[edit]

Non-notable actor. The majority of the "independent" and "short" films cannot be verified, the role of "Nerdy Boy" in the unreleased Frankie Muniz film, My Sexiest, is far down the credit list, and the only other film role that can be verified is also far down the credit list. When you eliminate the extraneous uses of his name, his self-promotional YouTube videos and the Wikipedia article, it leaves 24 Google hits, some of which aren't this person. Oh, and did I mention that he created his own article? His notability has not been established. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Conflict of Interest is also apparent.Boston (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears autobiographical and non-notable. Graymornings (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respects to Mr. Davies, his career has not even closed on the general notability guidelines. 2 films? No television? Local theater? No press? Not even trivial mentions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 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 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti/Ashtangi[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Album track only, never released as a single. Article has been flagged for lack of references for over a year with no improvement, suggesting none are to be found Paul75 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ray of Light; after trawling through many unreliable sources, I could find only one possibly reliable source that discussed the song - [22]. Somno (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards nor notable covers, lacks any WP:RS so nothing to merge. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS, no evidence of independent notability.--Boffob (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep writen in eastern foreigner language and performed by very popular singer is sufficient to make it notable. This song along Ray of Light also pushed Mahatma Yoga to the masses in ocident.--Ciao 90 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established for this track, as per WP:SONG. JamesBurns (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation management[edit]

This article may constitute a failed attempt to promote a particular product/website (there is no {{reflist}} to generate the intended hyperlink). The article is written in corporate newspeak, making it inaccessible to a lay audience and not able to be generalised for the purposes of a general-interest encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - I agree with your description of this article, but it does seem to be a legitimate field [23] that can also be studied at university [24]. Somno (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article establishes notability and makes sense now so changed !vote to "keep". Thanks Arsenikk. Somno (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established and some sort of spammy Conflict of Interest is also apparent.Boston (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the books on this term that I linked to above - they don't establish notability? Somno (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I have taken two university courses in innovation management, so there is little doubt as to that the topic exists and is notable. I agree that the article is not particularly well written, and I have attempted a copyedit to try to make it a bit more comprehensive, but due to lack of time I can't go around searching for references. I don't have much faith in the current reference, since it is merely advertisement for a company (though it doesn't seem to be directly incorrect). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum I have expanded the article, and added references to three published books, all among the vast collection of material available on innovation management. I hope this sets aside any doubt as to the titanic selection of material available on the subject at hand, and thus underlines the topics application to both WP:N and WP:R. I believe all the nominators rationales have been seen to, and I hope there is understanding that poor quality of prose cannot be used as a valid argument for deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am leaning towards !voting keep, but now the article has been rewritten, I don't understand much of it (e.g. "Innovation management seeks to foster a repetitive process of response to opportunity"). I would attempt to fix this myself, but I think I'd just confuse the topic even more. Is it possible for you to rewrite the article to be more accessible to a general audience? Apologies if I'm asking too much. Somno (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried rewriting the article again (same content, different wording). Hope this is a lot more comprehendable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. Innovation management focuses on the process of innovation, and is normally adapted by manager, and can be applied to both product and organizational innovation. In other words, if you can't find what you're looking for, you aren't looking in the right place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An essentially empty article. DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is rewritten and I removed the first questionable source. There is no doubt "Innovation management" is a notable subject, and it seems to me this is the one thing that really counts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a notable topic. Arsenikk has improved it and now it is a well-referenced article which meets the notability criteria. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A subject with three textbooks referenced currently. II | (t - c) 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promise to Try[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Never released as a single, album track only. Unreferenced. Paul75 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the reasons Paul said; this isn't even marginally notable.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards nor notable covers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:08, 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 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melton Morrison[edit]

Autobiography of non-notable actor. No IMDB entry. No valid references. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fixed the minor formatting issue preventing the references from showing up on the article, and some of them are indeed valid as being from news outlets. But even then, this actor is only mentioned in Ref #1, and only in passing as being one of the stars of one of the plays. None of the remaining references even mention his name, they're about the plays themselves. And since notability isn't inherited, there's nothing proving this person meets notability requirements. Raven1977 (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- role^player 00:55, 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 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Till Death Do Us Part (song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Album track only, never released as a single. Unreferenced and OR. Paul75 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Like A Prayer album track with no notability. Delete.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 06:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards nor notable covers, lacks any WP:RS so nothing to merge. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:07, 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 True Blue (album). MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Party (song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. US Promo release only. Never charted. Unreferenced Paul75 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It was released; since it's by a major artist or precedent is to keep songs like this, which I think makes some sense. I might be swayed.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 06:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, since notability criteria for songs states that most songs (if they're not charting singles) don't need a separate article but can be redirected to the article for the album or singer. This isn't a single, so it didn't chart, so it should be deleted. I wouldn't object to a redirect to True Blue (album) as a compromise however. Raven1977 (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards nor notable covers, lacks any WP:RS so nothing to merge. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I distinctly remember this song charting on Top 40 listings around that time - see WP:MUSIC for criteria. Yeah, it says probably notable for this criterion, but is this good enough for consensus? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It was a middling radio hit (and certainly here in the UK people wondered why it was never made a single), but that's probably not enough to warrant distinct article status. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable track, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. JamesBurns (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to True Blue (album). MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Makes the World Go 'Round (1986 song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Song is an album track only, has never been released as a single and has only ever been performed once. What scant (unreferenced) information there is can easily be included in the parent album's article Paul75 (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7. Enigma ^message 07:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMD (rapper)[edit]

Notability. Author keeps deleting speedy tags, and deleted prod tag. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Shows no notability of artist. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 06:38, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thalaivan Irrukiran[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), as shooting has not yet begun. Sources in article are mostly about the stars, with the film being a passing mention. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFF. There is virtually no news coverage other than casting, that too significantly hyped because of tying up two major actors. Other than that, the article blathers on about some last failed project of the director/actor. Not notable yet. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to Cleanup With respects, it is precisely that continued and extensive "hype" per WP:GNG that qualifies this film through WP:NFF. It would be preferred that the article be sourced per WP:ATD rather than deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is casting being considered a sufficient criterion for WP:NFF? GNG in minimum requirement any type of article, but to establish notability of a film it must pass criteria listed in NFF. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Considering the fertility of Indian Cinema, this film may be finished by Christmas and released by New Year's. Let it return then. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article is very recent. Give it some time to improve. Laurent paris (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant content to director's page, per WP:NFF. His last film was also weeks away from shooting and was described in AfD as "a sure thing", only to completely and utterly fail to enter production. Anything that is notable as of today is only notable in the context of the director's career; until filming begins, notability specific enough for an independent article cannot be said to have been reached. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 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 keep. (Non-admin closure) ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Match[edit]

This was a boxing match this past night that has no real lasting value. While it involved notable fighters, it in and of itself was rather unremarkable: it was not even for a title.

Keeping a boxing match like this would be like keeping an article for the 2007 Indianapolis-New England regular season NFL game - yeah the teams were good but the game had no lasting value. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 05:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN due to clear consensus. I think its a good idea for someone to use this AfD as a start to a general notability consensus for Boxing Matches.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote for it to NOT BE DELETED, since the fight has its own name 'The Dream Match' and gathered the second biggest revenue in history, it has the right to remain in the Wikipedia. It's like a boring Super Bowl, it has the right to be remembered for what it was, not for how interesting it was.--Gussisaurio (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was given a name by its promoters just like every other fight of the last 5 years. The revenue stuff is speculation. It was nothing like a super bowl; it wasn't for a championship.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another boxing match, and no real indication that this one was any more special than most. Reso lute 06:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, we should use the title and expand the article's scope, i.e. instead of just covering one fight, this should be covering the entire card à la The Rumble in the Jungle. The event in its entirety has gathered enough media coverage to both suply references and assert notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a boxing match, which is notable event. ApprenticeFan (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This match is between two prolific athletes, both already in the peak of their careers, hence the notability. Akira Tomosuke (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just don't get it. However, perhaps if the article were better constructed and organised I might. I wouldn't consider every single individual sports event as notable. In fact if that were the case it would take away from the real notable events, thus lowering their value. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 10:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep For crying out loud, you can keep all the Superbowl articles, this one is actually an important event in boxing history, and also for the Philippines. The article needs to exist so the reference can be kept for 90+ million Filipinos and millions of Mexicans as well. Revenue stuff is not just speculation, please check the news reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.205.149 (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the demise of De La Hoya is quite important outside his (or Manny's) bio. It may not last in memories as long as The Rumble in the Jungle or Barrera versus Morales trilogy, but we cannot assert it right now, so if in doubt - keep. NVO (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big Keep. Second largest gate revenue in boxing history. TheCoffee (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCoffee, but needs major cleanup. –Howard the Duck 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this match is already history. it will probably mark the end of de la hoya's career. it also shows the continued rise of the mexicutioner manny pacquiao. he was the underdog in this match. boxing experts said he had no chance against de la hoya, but he completely annihilated him and proved them wrong. the dream match is also significant for filipinos. pacquiao represents all of the filipinos. keep this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.57.10 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of boxing history. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikinews article: Boxing: Pacquiao stuns De La Hoya with eighth round TKO - AnakngAraw (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also citing Wikipedia's Portal:Current events/2008 December 6 - AnakngAraw (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its oscar de la hoyas last fight and they are 2 boxers who will go down as legends. big fights all have their own page and this one has a guy fighting 2 divisions higher than he has done before and beating the biggest name in boxing right now. its a modern day david v golliath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana-rock89 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As pathetic as the article is written, It is by far the most anticipated boxing match of the year, thus it should stay. Rvk41 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — While boxing matches are not inherently notable, this, being one of the most hyped fights this decade, is. There are plenty of reliable sources that can easily establish notability of this fight. MuZemike (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - However, it does need major cleanup like moving the title to "Pacquiao versus de la Hoya 2008" and editing sections to avoid peacock and weasel terms. Starczamora (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is nice to have. This would be the end of Oscar de la Hoya so that is why it can be important. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - While it could use some cleanup, it must be kept. 2nd biggest revenue in boxing history? The most anticipated fight of the year? The possible end of De La Hoya's career? The millions of Fillippinos and Mexicans who stood my their fellow countrymen? I think I've made my point. It may have ben a mismatch, but but it was "David vs Goliath" here, Pacquiao defied the odds, and proved all the skeptics wrong. He overcame, if you will. It's an event that will live on in boxing history forever. There you have it. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.149.252 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable fight between two highly notable boxers. But as suggested by others, it should be moved to "Pacquiao versus de la Hoya 2008" or similar, and cleaned-up. "The Dream Match" is a highly uninformative title, and will only be applicable until the next "dream match". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - One of the most notable fights this years, probably Oscar De La Hoya's last fight. Pacquiao is no small time boxer. Also, this was one of the biggest Boxing gates ever. So keep, although it definitely needs to be improved, the title needs to be changed etc. as mentioned above. Correctus (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added already the per-round details so it has some semblance of what it is. I agree with others that the thread title needs to be changed. And for those who voted keep (especially the newbies), you can help more if you'd clean up the article too. –Howard the Duck 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this to De La Hoya-Pacquiao boxing match. Just a heads up. –Howard the Duck 12:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on notability. Currently all major WWE PPVs have their own articles. Even a football referee has his own. Heck even 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game -- a non-championship match, like this one, has one. We'd have to put this into perspective, especially this was especially notable to three countries, unlike in the case of the footy ref or the NCAA football game which are notable (barely on the referee's case) in their respective countries. So if that Irish ref has an article, I can't even comprehend why this is on AFD, and move this discussion to be closed ASAP, especially with overwhelming keeps. –Howard the Duck 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for moving It could be move to Pacquiao-De La Hoya boxing match per using request move for the agreement to moving the new article title. ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially now that it has been moved to a more encyclopedic name and it seems to have been much improved since it was first proposed for deletion. It seems a notable event at the conjunction of two notable careers with the added notability that it was a matter of Philippine national pride (not something you'd get from a staged WWE match, which, as noted above, seem nonetheless to pass other people's idea of notability) KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports said[25] in the fight that Manny Pacquiao battered Oscar De La Hoya "into retirement." The Associated Press also had a headline regarding the fight, "De La Hoya beaten into retirement?" (via the Winnipeg Sun[26] and called De La Hoya the "biggest box office attraction in the sport." Chris Mannix of Sports Illustrated wrote[27] "The end has come for De La Hoya" and "So this is it. This is how it ends for Oscar De La Hoya." and "He has to retire." And the fight had the second largest gate revenue in boxing history[28], as has been noted by others. --Pixelface (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is an important match. See Pixelface's comments above. Could use some cleanup. Calebrw (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn due to clear consensus. I think its a good idea for someone to use this AfD as a start to a general notability consensus for Boxing Matches.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This match WILL have a lasting impact. Hachiko (talk) 10:18, 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 Kept. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roja Ramani[edit]

Article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N. I would like further opinions regarding this. Also, as per the text present in the Career section, it is clear the creator of this article is also the subject of this article, and therefore is prone to WP:COI(note the use of first-person word I in the last sentence in the Career section). — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a well-known actress. I don't know about the 20 Malayalam movies mentioned in the article but the Chembarathy role is quite famous. The "I" has appeared there because the writer copy-pasted it from http://www.rediff.com/entertai/2000/dec/07ramani.htm (the second link in the references).

A bit off-topic - in Malayalam she appeared under the name Shobhana (was therefore often called Chembarathy Shobhana). Imdb wrongly attributes this role to another, better known, Shobhana. Tintin 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tintin. Notable actress of yesteryears. Salih (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:51, 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 05:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable child artiste in Telugu movies. --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable actress. IMDB link CS2020 (talk) 05:25, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HFO Industries[edit]

Nn-notable company Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a speedy deletion category for this, A7. I have added that tag to the article. Somno (talk) 05:21, 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 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EEmap[edit]

Site does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Article is written entirely from the primary source. Few wiki links (tagged since last year). Pcap ping 10:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article certainly needs work, the site does appear to pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB, as its content has been distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, in this case, Google Earth and Google Maps.--Unscented (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding from the blog entry [29], which is not affiliated with Google, is that EEmap is a site that allows users to store Chinese annotations over Google's map. But this content is stored on EEmap's site, and not distributed by Google. So I don't see how point 3 of WP:WEB applies. EEmap is just a derivative of Google maps, but it does not seem endorsed or its content distributed by Google in any way. Pcap ping 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikimapia and Placeopedia is not stored on Google site.In a sense, EEmap is a chinese another type of Wikimapia--Sinvcom (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they do have an overlay hosted on Google Maps's site, but it's non-functional (for me anyway) [30]. Google Maps has this disclaimer: "The content overlaid onto this map is provided by a third party, and Google is not responsible for it". YMMV if that qualifies it for 3. Pcap ping 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The Mapplet [31] only is a Google maps Mashup.--Sinvcom (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does YMMV mean?
    - YMMV. Point 3 of WP:WEB has an exception for trivial distribution. An non-working Google Maps overlay that is not endorsed by Google probably qualifies as trivial. Pcap ping 08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the full text of the "trivial distribution" exception says: Trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.). While Google Maps does have a general disclaimer attached to the overlay, they're still distributing it, and they aren't a site like YouTube or MySpace where anyone can upload whatever content they like. It's certainly a borderline situation, but personally, I think it passes.--Unscented (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - okay, no reliable sources are given, so I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:35, 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 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The EEmap site appear to pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB,I think EEmap is the first and best Chinese Google Maps mashup.--Unlinux (talk) 11:17, 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 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soramimi[edit]

This article has gone a year without any credible sources and isn't very encyclopediac anyway. Looks like Japanese pop-culture-cruft. RobertM525 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone had too much time on their hands. Indeed, not encyclopedic, no sources, just OR and trivia. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary a cut down version of the page (defintion plus some examples) 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is famous from a popular feature started in 1992 on this TV variety program. Choose any from this page and watch. But if you cannot speak Japanese, it's difficult to understand the funniness of it. The word 'Soramimi' is a noun form of hear things. Oda Mari (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!! A form of a mondegreen where a phrase in another language is intrepreted as words in ones own language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxstaa (talk • contribs) 22:56, 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 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Wikipedia, people. Notability outside of Japanese culture is not established, period. JuJube (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not established. JamesBurns (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Notability doesn't have to be established outside of a particular area. If something is notable, even locally notable, then it is notable. That said, this is likely more appropriate for Wiktionary unless more sources can be found. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary and delete from Wikipedia. No need for an encyclopedia article. As Oda Mari noted, it's just the Japanese term for "hearing things" as in "I must be hearing things." A comedian uses it as the title of a segment of a television show. Some English speakers use the term as a borrowing from the television show. That doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. The examples belong in a blog. Fg2 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely because this is the English wikipedia, and coverage of other cultures is not just suitable but necessary. This is apparently a genre of joke, and considered a notable genre there, and therefore worth an article. As for examples, I think the number is modest, just bout right to make the point--about half were clear enough for even a non Japanese-speaker american like me to smile. This is the sort of subject which cannot be clearly described without some examples. DGG (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources may be difficult to deal with as they are likely to be in Japanese. But being popular enough to generate a recurring segment in a comedy show is evidence that the subject is likely notable and kept per WP:BIAS. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very popular mode of humor in Japanese culture. Someone who can access Japanese academic articles should check to see if there are actually articles on this comedy style. Has potential for expansion with regard to the origin of the practice and comparing it to other forms of humor and to similar practices in other cultures. --Polaron | Talk 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but rename Soramimi hour and copyedit like Headlines (The Tonight Show). Or merge into Tamori Club. Oda Mari (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I prefer deletion, if it is kept, it should be renamed as Oda Mari proposed. Better than keeping as a standalone article, even with the suggested new title, is to merge it as Oda Mari also proposed. Fg2 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive. --Criffer —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caddillac Tah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NM, non-notable person with lack of third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cumulus Clouds on prior AfD. While G-hits aren't 100% reliable, the ones I did find confirm that he's done fairly notable things, including singing with Ashanti (see google search). Master&Expert (Talk) 22:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working with a notable artist doesn't make him notable. DiverseMentality 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 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) 00:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles 18th Edition, "Ain't It Funny" by "Jennifer Lopez featuring Ja Rule and Caddillac Tah" got to number 4 in the UK singles chart in 2002 - does this count as Tah having had a Top 10 hit on a major chart? If so, surely he easily passes WP:MUSIC requirements? And if not, why not, given that he was specifically named in the artist listing on the cover? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nomainator on this. Working with a notable artist does not make that artist notable WP:NM. JamesBurns (talk) 06:24, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:32, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 05:45, 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.

Can't believe i am editing this for the first time since 2008! Am I the only one who heard his song in 9 years?! by mistake of course

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D2 (clothing)[edit]

I believe the company fails notability - it is a retail company with a website, and I cannot find anything that could be added to the article without it turning into an advert. Putney Bridge (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company appears to have gained a reasonable amount of news coverage, notably this article and this article providing significant coverage of the subject, which just about justifies inclusion. – Toon ^(talk) 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Google search reveals almost nothing and so I was inclined to a delete until I read the two articles kindly found by Toon they seem to confer some notability especially in Scotland. Paste (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- news sources do cover the company so notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 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 speedy delete, A7; notability not even asserted. While the article was admittedly a masterpiece, when the issue is one of notability it doesn't matter. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy 96 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchengine[edit]

Promotional. No claims of notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean? What makes other web applications "notable"? Do I need to include mashable, ZDNet or PRWeek articles to justify our legitimacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchengine (talk • contribs) 05:05, 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 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Pryor Roundtree[edit]

This article doesn't meet notability requirements for albums. I can't find any sources as to charting, or any coverage at all about the album, in order to give it more than a track list. Given that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", I tried a redirect to the artist's article, Richie Rich (rapper), but that was reverted. So I'm bringing it here for further discussion as to whether it is notable enough for an article. Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating two additional albums by the same artist, for the same reasons of lacking notability and no sources found to provide notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Right Simply Put It Those Albums Did'nt Chart Man Those Albums Werent Popular Richie Rich Isnt That Popular Anymore

Ok

Well Heres Some Links Man from very reliable sources

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Richie+Rich+(2)

http://www.discogs.com/release/1007292

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/artist.jhtml

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/richie_rich/albums.jhtml?albumId=736461

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/736461/album.jhtml

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/albums.jhtml

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/239017/album.jhtml

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:acfwxqykldae

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dvftxqukldae

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0jfyxq80ldje

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hcfoxqraldje —Preceding unsigned comment added by The4's (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still no reliable sources aside from discographies. Note to sole keep vote, your sentences are not titles or proper nouns, and therefore do not require capitals at the beginning of each word. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet notability requirements, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maal[edit]

according to multiple WP:RS, "Maal literally mean Property". Not a mythical creature, as this Article purports. Unless there is a translation error, I believe this Article should be Deleted Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added 2nd similar RS to nomination. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and only seems to translate as "property" as per above. Perhaps this is from some sort of LARP? Doesn't even give a context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as joke, WP:BJAODN. This is a complete hoax. The word মাল (Maal) literally means "Property" in Bengali language. This qualifies as hoax, and should be promptly speedied. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah! Thank you, I was hoping on some input from that part of the world ;). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:51, 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 - meets WP:PROF ~ my error. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Halavais[edit]

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF. Has published multiple research papers that are widely cited, has authored/edited at least two known books, was present at Wikimania 06. Clearly well known in his area of research. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, research and via news, with many interviews, etc. --Buridan (talk) 14:14, 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 Filipino martial arts. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino ninja[edit]

This stub fails WP:NOTE and could possibly be a hoax as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and possibly CSD G3 (Vandalism) or CSD G1 (nonsense). It is such a mess, and I doubt that we can ever improve it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. I think we should assume good will here, however, as an attempt has been made to provide a reference. ([32]). While the existance of these warriors, aka "the Kublan", is dubious you'll find some discussion of them here: ([33]).- Boston (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Kublan seems to exist. However, there are no online citations to back them up. Google Scholar didn't give any and a Philippine only google search provided few false positives. A promising result was obtained in Google books where [34] and [35] provided some snippets of data but the books themselves are not available for view. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ninja. Right now it's a one-line article with one unformatted reference. Searches for "kublan" along with "ninja", "martial arts", etc, show there's something out there. When there's enough sourced material for a full article it can be broken out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Redirect target While it is quite flattering to include them in the ninja article, I think that it would be as inaccurate as merging Samurai and Knight (both are orthodox warriors of different cultures while Ninja and Kublan are unorthodox fighters). Judging from the scant data, we only know that the Kublan employ camoflague and ambush tactics and the similarity with Ninjas ends there. Should this be merged/redirected, I suggest that the target be Filipino martial arts instead.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino martial arts works. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Filipino martial arts, per Lenticel. Starczamora (talk) 17:06, 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 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Carson[edit]

Likely non-notable company founder. Company does exist, however. Opening for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Can we speedy this? I see no claim of notability. Boston (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like nominating articles A7 unless it's a truly obvious case of something not being notable; however, I think it could have been PRODed and deleted. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially for failing WP:BIO. He is mentioned in the local media multiple times as part of city administration. But a single governmental job post can't be considered as sufficient criteria for inclusion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is non-notable. As aforementioned, does fail WP:BIO. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:43, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of pearls[edit]

I believe that this article is unsuitable for inclusion. It is unclear to me for what purpose this article exists. This article may exist to promote the website www.galleryofpearls.com. It may otherwise be an essay, or someone's opinion, that has not achieved widespread acceptance. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rambling essay, possible ad, no evidence of notability for the phrase. JJL (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been established. Can we speedy this as spam? Boston (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to an extent with Boston above - article does not have enough context o justify inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:54, 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 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Marie[edit]

Fails WP:PORNBIO with only a nomination with an ensemble of 10 actors. Twice deleted for not showing notability, including as Lexi Marie. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t02:48z 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominated for a borderline notable award along with a number of others, nothing particularly notable about this person. Recently speedied per WP:A7. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:PORNBIO; serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards. The AVN award is one of those in Category:Adult movie awards. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. Lexie Marie's 2009 AVN nomination satisfies the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Editors at the Porn Project are discussing whether group nominations like her's should count, but until a new consensus emerges, we go with the one we have. As for previous deletions, new facts override old findings. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. David in DC (talk) 18:53, 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 Redirect to Professional wrestling holds#Elevated double chickenwing. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double chicken wing[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable wrestling move. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, their iss know sorces. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t02:54z
- Redirect per Spyke and vampire, tho that also doesn't have any sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t16:33z
Redirect to Professional wrestling holds#Elevated double chickenwing. It's a notable wrestling move, just not enough to warrant a seperate article. TJ Spyke 03:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Professional wrestling holds#Elevated double chickenwing. It doesn't need its own article, but it would be a valid redirect. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nikki♥311 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, either to the pro wrestling article mentioned above or possibly to Collegiate wrestling, where it is also used to pin an opponent. In either case, it doesn't warrant its own article. MuZemike (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on redirect aye matthew ✡ 23:50, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Brown (Australian footballer)[edit]

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: contrary to claims being made in AFDs and PRODs, WP:ATHLETE is not gospel, just an additional criteria, that does not override the Basic notability criteria of A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is a concerted effort by a few editors to wipe out all of the 2008 AFL Draft player articles, regardless of their possibilities, without allowing any time to provide references. This was AFD'd only 33 minutes after I tagged it as {{unreferenced}}. This is about the 6th AFD that's come up tonight, plus a bunch more PRODs. I wish I could have spent tonight improving articles, but I'm too busy voting here. For those not aware of the AFL, it has a very "closed-door" team squad makeup - the draft is the only way for new, young players to be added to their 38 man senior squads, and each team only selected between 3 and 8 players in the draft. It's not like they have squads of 100, or they'll be getting another 10 new guys next month - this is it until next year. This guy was pick 15 - ie first round. I've added a couple of refs to this article. Also, be wary of ghits counts on this one - there is another Mitchell Brown who was drafted last year in the AFL, and both seem to also use Mitch Brown a lot too. The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and I disagree with User:The-Pope - in my view WP:ATHLETE trumps basic notability criteria if that criteria are being applied to that person's sporting career - refs in the paper to sporting achievements need to be subject to the lens of WP:Athlete. --Matilda ^talk 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level. Harro5 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matilda. McWomble (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we've had all these arguments before, both ways. My only concern is that the title ought to be Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To clarify, the assertion put forward by Matilda (who appears to have retired from Wikipedia in the past few days) that WP:ATHLETE trumps basic notability criteria has been disagreed by others in other AFDs (see here for example) in the past week. From the many similar AFDs to this one that have been closed in the past few days, it's generally come down to the quality and quantity of reliable sources provided that has tipped the scale to keep or delete. Of the three articles referenced, one could be argued is not independant (published by the AFL website, who are sort of, indirectly, his employers or at least the license issuer/controlling organisation of his employers, but it is signifant coverage of him being a surprise early pick. The second reference is clearly significant coverage, independant and a secondary source. The third is borderline on significant coverage, but again is independant and a secondary source. So, it's up to others to decide if this is enough for a stub article? And off topic from the notability discussion, see Talk:Mitchell_Brown_(Australian_footballer) for my views on Richard's page name suggestion. The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree on renaming the article Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). They are footballers, not football players. WP:AFL tends to use (Australian footballer) unless it clashes with an Australian 'soccer' or rugby union/league player in which case more disambiguation is required and (Australian rules footballer) is used. Jevansen (talk) 23:54, 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 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shakar[edit]

American actor with no notable roles. The clearly auto-generated three-sentence stub claims he appeared in 24 films, but counts appearances on television shows. No sources other than IMDB, nor even the slightest claim of notability: essentially, a re-purposed IMDB entry of no encyclopaedic value. CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the following Google News search shows, [36], Mr. Shakar has recieved coverage from verifiable - creditable - 3rd party sources. If an article can be made to fall within the general bounds of inclusion under Notability, with a little rewrite and the adding of sources, it is not a reason to delete. 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Most of those hits mention him as part of the cast of some play. They don't actually cover him in the sense that he himself gets discussed in detail. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 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]

Comment: He played a fairly major role in the 1977 film Saturday Night Fever. Karpouzi (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no substantial coverage in 3rd-party sources. L0b0t (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:40, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the guidelines, multiple "lessor" mentions are acceptable if substantive ones are not available, as long as they are not simply trivial. The multiple reliable sources at Google News may not be substantive, but they are not merely trivial. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those even rise to level of "lesser coverage" they are just playbills that list this fellow as being in the cast. L0b0t (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the guide-lines I'm reading say ...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Lessor mentions, I can imagine, would be perfectly adequate for sourcing facts for people whose notability has already been established, but I fail to see how they in any way, shape or form illustrate or are evidence of any sort of wider acclaim in the first place. Nor can I understand how the addition of yet another user-edited page and an obviously auto-generated CV page can count as 'reliable sources': rather, it seems a desperate attempt to 'rescue' a minor-actor's-CV-passing-as-a-biography that should never been auto-generated to begin with.

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some amateurish re-creation of IMDB: there should be some reason for this article other than a very short CV. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As an encyclopedia there are many areas for inclusion. One of the ones at Wikipedia is Entertainer where it states: “… Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions”. Though Shahar has not starred in his numerous roles, he has played significant parts in the films – TV and theater productions he has appeared in. Thus is eligible for inclusion under Entertainer. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant role in Saturday Night Fever and other roles warrant inclusion, in my opinion.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But who can blame CalendarWatcher for nominating, this article's tiny, could easily be expanded. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No blame assigned :-). This is what AFD is for. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's just that I saw a suggestion that a nominator be reprimanded for "abuse" of the AFD process here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:11, 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 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hunt[edit]

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His track record to date is playing in the TAC Cup, which is not notable, and being listed in the draft as a potential AFL player. He may go onto play in the AFL, but that success - and notability - at this stage simply isn't guaranteed. A significant number of these draft picks don't progress to become AFL footballers and at this stage there's no reason to treat this subject any differently. Murtoa (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reasons as we've already argued fifty times before. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And the reality is those arguments have failed in several cases with this year's draft. Murtoa (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability are pure crystal-ball gazing. Rather than making blanket claims about conclusions, WP:AFL would be better served bringing their notability guidelines with other professional sports and WP:ATHLETE. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Motlop[edit]

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are correct - being drafted does not make him notable. It's the 10 or so articles about him that make him notable. Did you do the good faith check for references (as suggested in WP:BEFORE) before listing here? This article was tagged as unreferenced for less than 8 hours (overnight in Aust) before being listed here. How about giving us a chance to reference it before we have to waste time here? The-Pope (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Time spent claiming multiple sources exist would be better spent adding them to the article.Yobmod (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - note that I have recently expanded and updated the article with some references. The-Pope (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject has done anything of note yet other than having spent some time training with notable footballers. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. If the creators of these articles were to wait until the subject actually met the widely accepted notability guidelines before creating such articles, perhaps we would not all be here "wasting our time" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:40, 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 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Tiller[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If and when he makes his AFL appearances, he will be deserving of an article, but at present he's just one of a large grab bag of potential stars, and the footy field in Australia is littered with large numbers of cast-offs who didn't make the grade from previous grab bags. And practically none of the discards will ever being deserving of notability status in these pages. Not wishing bad luck on the lad, but he's not notable yet. Murtoa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On precedent. Similar arguments occurred last year and the year before after the draft, and each time the result was keep.Aspirex (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability guidelines. Arguing about notability is pointless if non-trivial sources do not exist. How is precedent different from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?Yobmod (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - along with the rest of these articles. Please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some have already been deleted (and some kept), so that approach won't work in this instance. Murtoa (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability are pure crystal-ball gazing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys O'Keeffe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete In my view he fails by quite a wide margin. For goodness sakes, he's barely played at second tier SANFL level let alone AFL. The article even hints at this - being in the "best six players" for North Adelaide U17's - that's at 4th tier level at best. And 65th pick among AFL wannabes? Who knows, he may end up being the next Wayne Carey, and when he is, there'll be a nice big wiki article with heaps of decent references! But until then... Murtoa (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On precedent. Similar arguments occurred last year and the year before after the draft, and each time the result was keep.Aspirex (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability guidelines. Arguing about notability is pointless if non-trivial sources do not exist. How is precedent different from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?Yobmod (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Carlton next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's crop are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability are hazy and tangential. He may be more notable in the future? So what, my next door neighbor might be too, but I haven't made an article about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Trusilver 17:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please nominate all these AFL draftees together in future. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That misses the point. Some, like Jack Watts (footballer) are notable; most aren't, so a broad brush approach doesn't work. Murtoa (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE - not at professional level. May one day be notable enough for inclusion, but not today. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:58, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gillies (Australian footballer)[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my own personal feeling is that Australian rules football is popular enough in this part of the world that a 33rd draft pick is still notable. The media will commentate on players who are less notable than this guy. He's being paid a good wage to be a fulltime football player, so he is a professional. It is likely that he will spend a year or two in the seconds before getting into the AFL. (and I think that a VFL player is notable). - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ATHLETE VFL players (and those in other leagues below AFL post-1990) are not generally notable and there would be plenty of 33rd draft picks in the AFL who have quickly faded into obscurity. Let's wait to see if he actually plays a single game in the AFL before we declare his notability. Having played in an under 18 competition doesn't confer notability. Neither does being in a group of players who may or may not in future play at AFL level.Murtoa (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete. If being selective of the draft makes him notable, then add the sources to prove it - then he would even pass WP:GNG.Yobmod (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have learned through experience that mass noms are highly likely to be thrown out on procedural grounds. Individual nominations are the only sensible alternative, annoying as they are. Reyk _YO! 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The other alternative would have been to either group them (early picks/late picks or with refs/without refs), or nominate 3 or 4 only, see what the outcomes are, then nominate or keep the others based on the outcomes of those intial few. But we're almost through this batch of 16... I'm sure if they want to look hard enough they can find some more.The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice to read someone else who understands AfD's work best as singular nominations (especially where there are several initial creators) --VS ^talk 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question addressed to those who know the sport--on the average, as a general rule, of the people in this position, how many of them will actually play a league game? If almost all of them do, then there is an argument for making the articles. Otherwise, I'm somewhat dubious, and we'd need to look at special cases if thre's anything particular to be said. DGG (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer From 2007, 7 of the picks 30-39 have played. From 2006 it's all 10. From 2005 it's 9 of the picks in the 30s. In 2004 it was all 10. Some of these have only played 1 or 2 games, some have since been delisted, and some were father-son rule selections (not really 30ish picks, but pre-draft picks that "cost" a pick in the 30s). The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 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 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Crabtree[edit]

I created this article about a local news woman in Florida working for Central Florida News 13 as I felt it would be a good idea. However, I'm now beggining to think that this article does not need to be on Wikipedia due to the fact that Crabtree is only local and not national. What do you think?

Before I end what I have to say, I feel the below article on a local weather anchor in Chicago which I also created an article about faces the same issues that Melissa Crabtree faces:

Mike Caplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's okay to have articles about very local personalities but it's essential to provide three independent indications of notability. In this case it will generally mean three non-Central Florida News 13 mentions, but a news story from that source saying (for example) that some mayor or organization gave her an award would probably be acceptable too. As this article is now it should almost certainly be deleted, but if improved along the lines I suggest it should probably stay. I suggest you do a web search of her name and see what comes up. Boston (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get the figure three from, Boston? WP:N says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" but I don't recall coming across three as a benchmark before. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think I imagined it. Maybe it's a relic of memory from previous policy? At any rate, thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy. Boston (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome. Though there are enough policies, guidelines, essays, statements of precedent etc. that it could well say that somewhere too. Anyway, Boston's central point is sound: the article has a place if we can find some significant mentions in independent sources; otherwise, it's currently delete-worthy. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local news staff are not notable usually. It takes an award, or something similar. As I understand the numerical benchmark, it's ordinarily two, not three--multiple being interpreted very loosely. Personally, I think it depends not on the number, but rather what is said in the article, beyond the toutine coverage can be assumed to be PR. Anyway, its irrreevant here, because the number for this article is zero. DGG (talk) 05:23, 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. There have been numerous sources that prove the groups exist and have data published about them, but the trivial intersection issue was not addressed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian British[edit]

No assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one, Delete the other; or maybe the other way around. If the only standard was whether the articles prove that the topic is "notable", then I suppose we could apply some arbitrary definition of how many people gotta be in a group to be notable. I've decided that it has to be "at least 7,000" and I'm afraid that the Croatians have only 6,992 according to their article, so they just miss out. However, most topics are potentially notable, and the question then comes down to whether an article meets Wikipedia standards for content, sourcing, etc.; at the moment, the "British Serbs" article shows that there is a substantial community that has a presence in the United Kingdom, while the Croatian British article is the census-data-in-a-can piece that has nothing to say. The British Serbs article should be kept. If the other article can be beefed up, then I might be inclined to say keep for that as well. At the moment, however, no. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Macedonians one? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Weak delete" on that one. Although it might be brought up to code, its source seems to be limited to www.macedonians.co.uk, which is more of what we call in the U.S. a "community calendar" -- picnics, parties, meet Ms. Soandso. Although it has a "news section", the news isn't about Macedonians in Britain; it appears to be what's going on "back home". Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Macedonians in Britain and Croatian British, Keep British Serbs. The usual barrage of searches "Fooian (s/community/people/etc.) in (the United Kingdom/etc.)" brings up a number of reliable sources for Serbs [37][38][39][40], but none for the other two, just a few forum posts, blogs, and the like, so I don't see any possibility that they could be beefed up. cab (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles can always be improved and added to in the future. If you insist on deleting pages because they are "uninformative" then there are many other groups in Britian such as Bulgarians, Vincentians etc. PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that the articles are "uninformative". I said that I don't think they are notable. And the fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that these should. Articles should be considered on their individual merits. Besides, quite a few similar articles have been deleted recently, such as Indonesian British and several others here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How notable is notable? 1000 people, 2000 people, 3000 people? If there is enough information on the topic the notability is easily questioned. PMK1 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I should have said that I don't think that the articles assert notability. I don't think there's a magic size at which groups become notable, but there needs to be some proof that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order for it to be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Croats diaspora is about 4.000.000 people all over the world. You can find Croats in England in 15th century [41] and several articles like [42]. The articles can always be improved and added to in the future, I agree with PKM1. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we can say that of any article on Wikipedia -- that it can be improved. But since intersection articles aren't "inherently notable" nor "absolutely prohibited", each one is judged on its own merits. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Croatians.com be considered a reliable source, exactly? It appears to fall squarely in the category of WP:SELFPUB: written by a guy who published everything he's ever written [43] through Ragusan Publishers, a company he owns himself, and who devotes an alarming portion of his written output to claiming that Croatians performed amazing feats which mainstream historians have traditionally attributed to people from other ethnic groups. As for the essay by Darko Zubrinic on CroationHistory.com: it seems he's a professor of mathematics [44] writing non-peer reviewed essays about the history of his own ethnic group in his spare time. Again, not WP:RS. cab (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep - Improve, don't delete articles on these ethnic groups. The articles are not equivalent in completeness and should not have been lumped together in the same proposal just because they're all Slavic ethnic groups; the second contains notable individuals and the third contains a great deal of contextual information. Constant proposal of deletion rather than improvement is becoming disruptive to our project. Articles cover notable subjects and some include a great deal of historical information, notable individuals, and other important information. Further, the three articles are in different states of completeness, and it is illogical to propose them together as a group, lumping them all in a single proposal apparently because they are all Slavic ethnic groups. Improve, don't delete, and direct your energies toward improving, not eliminating, our content. The fixation on attempting to eliminate entire articles on particular ethnic groups is draining on our resources as a project. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see now that the British Serbs article can probably be improved. In fact, I've added some references to that article that were suggested here. However, I don't think the same can be said of the Croatian and Macedonian articles, which no one has suggested any sources for which establish notability and meet WP:RS. Improvement is only possible if you can assert notability. The "great deal of contextual information" was added in the course of this discussion and was completely unreferenced, and, as such, I've removed it until references can be supplied. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At list two I found in WP Maksim Mrvica and Davor Šuker (all search results hits from Google are connected to the soccer match England vs. Croatia). --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying that there are references in those articles that can be used to assert the notability of the articles under consideration here? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 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 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Valid topic. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot "improve not delete" articles on topics lacking reliable sources. Do you know of any such sources (i.e. ones which are non-trivial and non-self-published) for the "Croatian British" or Macedonians in Britain articles? cab (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:NOR bollocks will be kept since 99.9% of Wikipedians believe in Banal Nationalism. Thus JFTR: Delete. Fossa _?! 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Firefox extensions. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FireGPG[edit]

Article about a Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. A {{prod}} was removed by creator without comment. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Firefox extensions. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Politizer, not notable enough for its own article. Scapler (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: Notabilty: article about FireGPG in linux.com and Article from IBM Rational Application Security Insider. --Jmundo (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both links are rather trivial coverage; I concur that the software probably isn't notable enough. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two links are just an example found in my search. More online coverage: from New Freedom and another tec blog. Also the FireGP is debated in many tec forums like this one.--Jmundo (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blogs and discussion boards are not reliable sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I used the blogs and discussion boards to establish notability, one of the main reasons for deleting this article.--Jmundo (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The primary criterion of notability is non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. A newspaper blog cites FireGPG. --Jmundo (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It gets a sentence. "Significant coverage" this is not. Ray (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Politizer. If we have to resort to blogs to establish "notability," then there probably isn't any. Ray (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting questions: Why this article was choosen for deletion? Are we going to start deleting all the Firefox extensions articles? The majority of them are stubs, don't have any third party references beside the official mozilla website and the majority are tag as unreferenced. Can somebody explain why this Firefox extension is less notable than the rest? Are we going to apply the same policies to the rest of the articles in the list or are we going be cherry picking?--Jmundo (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Send me the links to other extensions that don't assert notability, and I'm happy to address them. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I submitted an incomplete list to your talk page.--Jmundo (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or the shorter version, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts". I am sure you have read: Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument--Jmundo (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Meliá[edit]

Finished unfinished nom for OneCyclone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain basis for nomination. Boston (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a major go at revamping this, so hopefully the nominator's concerns are allayed now. Gr1st (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a blatant advertisement before you had a go at it. If anyone seconds a removal of the deletion nomination, I'm happy to let it pass. --OneCyclone (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gr1st (talk · contribs)'s changes show the article's notability. There are plenty of reliable sources for this to pass WP:CORP, and the article is no longer an advert. Nice job! Cunard (talk) 07:15, 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 Speedy deleted as copyvio from http://www.tajhotels.com/abouttaj/companyinformation/HistoryOfTaj.htm .

The history of the Taj Hotel[edit]

I'm suggesting this page be merged with Taj Hotel, but would like community consensus before doing so. I don't know if I'm supposed to post a merge suggestion here or elsewhere. My apologies in advance for that.~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 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 keep per withdrawal of nomination with no "delete" opinions registered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KY 915[edit]

While I am sure that Kentucky Route 915 is a fine place to travel, live, and such, but it is just one more road in the US. I don't think Wikipedia needs an article for each interesting road in the world. I don't feel strongly about this, so this is a "weak delete". sinneed (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to common outcomes, Gene93K. State highways are, indeed, specifically OK in the US, and Provincial highways in Canada. I would like the withdraw the article from consideration for deletion.sinneed (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I'm no road expert, but this road is part of U.S. Route 27 a country highway, which makes itself a state highway, surely a state highway is notable and as part of a country highway it compounds the notability. Also it isn't about whether wikipedia needs an article about roads, its about including roads notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Kentucky Route 915. State highways are notable for inclusion per established consensus noted at WP:OUTCOMES. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakugan Battle Brawlers: The New Generation[edit]

This article may be too speculative for inclusion in wikipedia. I cannot find any evidence of a new generation on the Bakugan website. A Google search reveals one link - [45] - which is a post from a forum. The New Generation may represent wishful thinking, or fan fiction. In any case, it is unverifiable.

The article's author has also added some info to the Bakugan Battle Brawlers article. If the closing admin decides to delete, I suggest that the addition to the main BBB article also be undone. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. If a second series can be verified, it should be merged into Bakugan Battle Brawlers per WP:MOS-AM. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can now confirm that this is somebody's fanfic. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fanfic, unsourced, unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the article refers to that specific fanfic, for one there's the difference between new and next generation and it's not all too uncommon for fanfiction writers to take the name or even the plot of a new season and make up their own stories. Example? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To change the subject there also also sites mentioning an unrelated new season of Bakugan under a different name BAKUGAN: NEW VESTROIA and barring an elaborate hoax the sources for this one are more numerous and appear to be more reliable than sources for the fan fic in question. [[46]] [[47]]. The google serach in question was [[48]] if someone wants to look at the rest of the sources. In short if any are of the two are real it is more likely new vestoria. --76.71.208.23 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible drug use[edit]

Completing nomination for IP. Reason on edit summary was:

Delete or Merge with harm reduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.235.113 (talk) 19:05, December 2, 2008 (UTC)

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a well written article on a sensible subject with good references to reliable sources. It's too in-depth to merge to the more general harm reduction article. JulesH (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have to say this is one of the better articles I have seen on AfD. This seems a clearly notable topic with references from reliable sources. I would argue it needs a little Wikification and cleanup, but the article is a quality article about an important and notable topic. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is basically about one paper and that's it. There is no significance outside of the summary of the Gould paper. If not, then merge to Harm Reduction it could be cited and condensed to one reference in the larger article. I'm sorry, but suggesting trip guides for psychedelics and making obvious statements about how it is hard to use illegal drugs reposnsibly because they are illegal does not an article make.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems pretty unencyclopedic to me. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tagged this article for cleanup. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 'responsible drug use' is not the same topic as 'harm minimisation'. The article needs a good edit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are citable sources. Responsible and illegal are two different things, and it is certainly possible for people to do responsible things which are illegal-- this happens all the time with bad laws (example: fugitive slave laws). More to the point, during alcohol prohibition when many aspects of manufacturing and sale of certain alcohol products was illegal in the US, it was still just as possible to be a responsible user of alcohol, as it is now. Nor is illegal psychoactive or narcotic drug-use automatically always "recreational," except by somebody's very poor definition. S B H arris 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harm reduction Reading the article makes it clear that it is not really a separate topic. The first section is about a particular not notable book chapter, and the others are miscellaneous information that belongs in the main article if it isn't already there. DGG (talk) 05:18, 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 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Abdallah[edit]

Article is not built from independent, reliable sources (WP:V), and does not explain how it meets the notability guidelines (WP:Bio) - level of activity is not an indication of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is very POV. No assertion of notability, nor evidence of notability can be found. Number of websites owned or managed is not an indication of notability. Delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a possibility for an adequate article here. DGG (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't meet the GNG and this is an inadequately referenced BLP. RMHED (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a lot of work, but there is enough there to eventually improve it.2008Olympian^chitchat 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that he's done enough to be worthy of inclusion. So far as sourcing and verifiability is concerned, this article needs work, not deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issues with WP:BIO, also, if we keep, we should do some serious cleanup about the spamminess. Ray (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see a grand total of 15 references, with at least half of them not related to him. How are they not reliable? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave Me in Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Repost, but may not qualify for a G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Leave Me in Love). Album has no professional reviews, only sources are a fansite and last.fm, both very unreliable. Dierks is notable without a doubt, but there's nothing about this album. Seriously. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted this album has no good sources, it is very rare and was only released to a small market. It needs to be given a chance though. I know it exists because I have the songs and the lyrics are correct. If any one in the Wikipedia community owns this album, I hope they come forward. Publichall (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was given a chance last time around and it still got deleted. Do you really think we should keep it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm sure it exists, there's really nothing I can do to prove it right now. I have a copy of the article saved if you think this article needs to be deleted until more sources can be found. Publichall (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 02:57, 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 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common man[edit]

No content, no references, just a dicdef & list `'Míkka >t 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page, it seems that it is already is one.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very common day-to-day search term. Needs rework though. Trivial mention of multiple personalities associated with the term should be removed. Possible remedies could be a disambiguation page as suggested above or perhaps a redirect to the direct usage: The Common Man. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:46, 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) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but it needs an experienced editor to completely rewrite it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:LeaveSleaves. Needs work, but it is encyclopedic. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 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 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wyatt[edit]

fails WP:CREATIVE. simply being a radio presenter is not necessarily notable. Very limited third party coverage in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's shared three regional Emmies, was sports chief at SBS (Australia), and has done plenty of other things to sneak over the line. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mostly clears WP:CREATIVE. Has received recognition for his work, his programs in Australia are unique in their kind for focusing on American sports, has been sports chief of a major national network. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no evidence that Wyatt headed the Melbourne sports bureau or headed SBS sports. I've found no evidence that he was more than just a sports reporter. [49] [50]. Even his own website makes no mention of him heading sports at SBS.Michellecrisp (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is notable enough for me, and article doesn't set off any BLP alarm bells or anything. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:21, 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 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudolf's Wasteland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudolf's Wasteland

This article describes a future product that is not yet complete. It is unclear whether the product is a computer game, a demo, or a social networking utility. It is unclear whether it will be commercial or free. The product does not appear to have acquired notability. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until this game(?) is live, this page is just unsubstantiated promotional material at best and vaporware at worst. There is a brief section on this project on Rudolf's page. Anarchangel23 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because whether released or not no notability has been established. Boston (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. With the notability of Rudolph himself established, it's reasonable to cite him on his future plans in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone sure this is the same guy? I haven't looked close but immediate sense it is not. Boston (talk) 12:22, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Far East Masonic Benevolence Fund[edit]

The article, orphaned since September 2006, fails to indicate the notability and importance of this trust fund set up in 1893. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. almost no coverage. [51]. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep. The fact that the fund is the subject of its own law, Masonic Benevolence Fund Incorporation Ordinance (Chapter 1034 of the Laws of Hong Kong), is enough to demonstrate notability, There was probably coverage when it was founded many years ago, but Google News probably won't find Hong Kong newspapers from 1893. I don't know if the South China Morning Post has digitized its newspapers from that era. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the notability established per Eastmain, the sources are a cleanup task.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culver City Boys 13[edit]

Contested prod. Completely non-notable organization, all references are in passing, plagued with original research issues, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I have outlined as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not into the subject, but judging from the article, it sports with 15 references (badly formatted, but they are references), most of which look pretty reliable — publications and news clips from local or state newspapers and magazines, review articles from big web resources that seem to specialize in that kind of information, etc. I don't know about the notability (do we have special notability rules for street gangs?), but judging from references, article seems to be pretty solid and well-founded. --GreyCat (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. hardly notable. Manitobamountie (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major gang that's been around for many years. Google News Archive and Google Books for "Culver City Boys", "Culver City Boyz", "The Culver City Gang", and "Culver City 13" show dozens of references. The 13, for those who don't know, isn't a numbered part of a larger organization, but is added to show Sureño affiliation. Many Latin gangs in southern CA show an 'M' or a number '13'. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Many gangs do attach the number 13 to their name, but what makes this one in particular notable? Specifically, what reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage about this organization? (Answer: none.) JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you didn't do any of the Googling I suggested. Found articles in multiple newspapers, interviews with police and reporters about them, including non-LA area media such as the New York Times, there were books, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please cite what the hell you're talking about, specifically, for the rest of the class. Please. Pretty please. JBsupreme (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - See below. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some sources for this gang. Specifically, The NY Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, LA Times, as well as other LA Times articles, using a Google News Archive search. These sources are not trivial. The NY Times devotes most of the article about this gang. The other two sources are behind pay walls, but their titles imply that most of the articles is about the gang. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Those sources are definitely not trivial and searching Lexis Nexis turns up 43 sources, most of which are relevant and non-trivial too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cunard's sources establish notability for me. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article can improve. The Culver 13 is one of the most popular gangs on the Westside. Agtax 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Eriksen[edit]

A youth player who hasn't played an official match for Ajax and afaict hasn't played an official match for Odense either. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never played a pro game. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may have had one or two news articles written about him, but he's still not notable enough as he has yet to play at a fully professional level. Bettia (rawr!) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Speedy delete per CSD A7 as a totally non-notable athlete. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Give You Give remix[edit]

Non-notable single--failed to chart. roux 12:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the band or its relevant discography. There seems to be not enough info for a separate article, but it's worth mentioning in the main page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. JamesBurns (talk) 01:39, 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 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foodex[edit]

Non-notable local grocery stores. roux 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any 3rd party references related to the FoodEx article much less the parent company "Atlantic Grocery Distributors". I found one minor 3rd party reference (police report) about the parent (goods stolen from a truck). The balance of references were self published or 2nd party. I agree with User:Roux, it is a non-notable very small local grocery store chain. - DustyRain (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:20, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my instinct is that a company (or a chain of franchised stores) that no doubt has many customers and turns over a large amount of money and is part of daily life for many people and many towns is inherently notable. I am concerned that the information herein should be obtained from secondary sources, but that is not a reason to delete the article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Richard Cavell. There are loads of stores in the chain (the list is very incomplete) and it is notable in Newfoundland and Labrador. NeonFire (talk) 13:48, 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 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitts-burgher[edit]

Unremarkable sandwich. Already covered in Primanti Brothers. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say, that is not even the name of the sandwich, per the Primanti Brothers menu, as noted here [52]. With regards to the Primanti Brothers sandwichs, have to disagree with nominator, they are remarkable and you will agree once you taste one :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that in Pittsburgh one can get meals with fries on them may actually be notable--I have seen brief human interest stories on it before. This particular instance of that phenomenon doesn't seem particularly notable. JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to Primanti Brothers. The menu demonstrates that it does exist. It's notable enough for a redirect, surely. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the other sandwiches from the "sandwiches" article deserve their own pages, then so does the Pitts-burgher. It's as simple as that. And yes, it's called the Pitts-burgher. Here's the proof: http://www.primantibrothers.com/menu/city/strip/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I believe you are reading the menu wrong. Primanti Brothers have a, as in one, sandwich that is called the "Pitts-Burgher Chess Steak", their No #2 seller! However, that is not what makes Primanti Brothers notable. What makes Primanti Brothers notable is how they make ALL their sandwiches with fries and coleslaw on them. Hence, delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:30, 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 redirecting The Bagatelle Card Club → The Adventure of the Empty House, and The Tankerville Club → The Five Orange Pips. keep Killer Evans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagatelle Card Club[edit]

Also The Tankerville Club and Killer Evans

Completely non-notable and generally un-necessary as an article. The subjects have no significance to anything. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - In 100 years the articles will still be correct and factual, yes, they are about secondary characters in novels but extremely notable ones. My main reason for keep is that I do not see how this harms wikipedia or does a disservice to a person using it. OTOH maybe it is too obscure and sets a precedent that every little detail for every fictional work (ie Pokemon, Simpsons, Family Guy, ) can be detailed in numerous articles leading to 1,000s of article fragments resembling cruft. --Faradayplank (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I would say is that only one is a character; the other two are simply fictional places mentioned once in passing. None of these meet any sort of notability threshold. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was interested the content could be merged, as one page already has a proposal. I don't think my arguments for keep are very good, nor are the articles exceptional. They certainly only have notability based on inheritances from the books. My Weak keep is as weak as they get. --Faradayplank (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substance at all, no apparent notability, can be covered in main article if necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two club articles as subjects of very minor mentions in the Holmes stories, lacking any substantive treatment in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N. Delete Killer Evans as nothing but plot summary that is duplicative of (and inferior to) the summary in The Adventure of the Three Garridebs. Deor (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Bagatelle Card Club → The Adventure of the Empty House, and The Tankerville Club → The Five Orange Pips. I express no clear opinion about the third article Killer Evans, though I'm inclined to allow it to stay. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tankerville Club and the Bagatelle have the same reference in The Empty House too, of course... ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the two clubs; possibly make a redirect. They are just background, and even for very notable fiction ,articles on them is going way too far. If they played a significant role in the story, it would be another matter entirely. The Tankerville club does not actually play a role in either story--""Tankerville Club scandal" is one of the multitude of unwritten cases ,
Three different problems:

Keep for Killer Evans, as the principal figure in a medium-important Holmes story--the problem here is that there is nothing much to say about him that is not relevant to the story itself and that would belong in the same article. I'd say Keep here primarily because of NOT PAPER--the duplication does not matter, and the tories are famous enough that the principal villain in any one of them is notable. But I could also see merge--one story is like one episode, & it is not one of the most famous of the stories.

Merge/redirect for The Bagatelle club -- it is not notable. It's pure background, and nothing about it is of any particular importance in the story.

Merge'/Keep for Tankerville, although The Tankerville Club plays even less role in either of the stories, I think either it or The Tankerville Case needs an entry, because of the reference to one of the many cases that the stories mention, and have been objects of speculation and fanfiction ever since. At the least it needs a merge, because people will come across the name and not know its not actually a story. DGG (talk) 05:15, 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 redirect to One Life to Live children#Jack Manning. I've deleted the page as the concensus seems to say, but redirected in my capacity as an editor because Richard's idea seemed logical. Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Boscoe[edit]

Non-notable child actor with only a single minor role (probably non-speaking) to his credit. — TAnthony^Talk 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on his age, I suspect his role was a speaking part, but he played it for 2-3 years and was just one of many kids who played the part. Google News doesn't mention him (only 2 unrelated pages in the full archives). Carmen LoPorto who did the same role later appears to be notable though, so I'll put him (weird name) on a to do list of articles about kids. All info I could find about Jack was on his character. [53][54] - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Boscoe had the One Life to Live role for about a year and a half to two years and was 5 or 6 years old, so we're not talking a significant role.— TAnthony^Talk 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB article does not have much info. No notability shown. Malinaccier (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to One Life to Live children#Jack Manning. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hate deleting articles about real people, but this guy's notability is tiny, unfortunately. Would change my vote if this article was expanded with sources. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:37, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kautz[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. The only coverage I can find is the reference mentioned in the short interview in The New York Magazine "look book", which is far from significant coverage.
I redirected Kautz' band Electric Tickle Machine article to his biography, thinking that Kautz was notable at that point. The band fails WP:MUSIC though, too, with only one additional name drop (in Welsh).
Amalthea 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is established. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:39, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Kesac (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A State Of Trance 2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been deleted after an AfD before and was re-created within 5 hours of the closure of that AfD. Subsequent speedy (G4) was declined, because the album had been released since the previous AfD. A prod with reason "article on an album without any reliable independent sources. Article consists of little more than track listing, with links to promotional websites" was declined with stated reason "sources ARE reliable" (they may be, but they are not independent). In the more than 2 months that have passed since, no sources indicating notability for this album have been forthcoming. A Google search results in some track-listings, some websites where the album can be bought (or downloaded using torrents), and the website of the artist himself. Given the lack of reliable third-party sources: delete. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album is already charting on 4 Billboard charts, I added that info to the article. Since that's part of the notability criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music), I think the article's a keeper. Raven1977 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hit album that has received independent coverage [55].--Michig (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. 4 Billboard charts, referenced. Passes WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's in the top 10 on two of Billboard's genre chats, that's enough for me. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waking up to a lot of snow.... Nomination withdrawn. --Crusio (talk) 11:04, 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 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper Weiss[edit]

Unsourced BLP, does not appear to be a notable artist, possibly even a hoax: I can't find any Google hits about him. Most Google hits appear to be about a musician of the same name, or match the German words Kasper weiß ("Caspar knows"). Sandstein 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist looks to be in his seventies. There's no point in having an article about him as he probably won't release another record; that is, if he even exists at all. As noted above, there are no Google hits on him, only for a musician of the same name. TopGearFreak 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear cut hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I'm inclined to believe that this might be a clever hoax. If he's so important as the article claims, there's no way that there can be zero google hits for him. Chamal ^talk 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaination he is most certainly not a hoax. i have several survey books of contemporary german art that is in. i work at an organization that he did a project with in 70's. i posted this article because i teach a class on visual art here and i use his work to teach students every semester. perhaps i should rewrite so as not to imply that he widely known. i do understand that he is not a very well known artist in america (although many german artists know his work quite well). there is book of his being translated in english, so hopefully that will change and he will become more well known in the future. however, if rewriting to not over blow his importance is what is needed, then i can do that. also, so you know, weiß is in fact the correct german for Weiss. it translates in english into White (not 'knows'). it is a very common german name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit-art-locale (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this as a delete. It clearly looks as if this fellow existed, but what I'm uncertain of upon reading the article is the significance of his work. The article doesn't indicate why he is notable. I ask Mit-art-locale: why was he notable? What were his pieces of work. Please add these to the article. I'm going to move this to the most recent AfD page so it will run for another 5 days -- Samir 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Samir 23:45, 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.

^ Health Through God's Pharmacy: ISBN 13: 978-3-85068-124-7

[1] Health Through God's Pharmacy: ISBN 13: 978-3-85068-124-7

[1]