Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep, as there is no consensus to delete. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactor[edit]

There are no references from Gatchaman DVDs, books or reliable websites with information relating to Galactor. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator: Is your complaint that the article is unreferenced or that the subject is not notable? The way it's phrased seems to be the former. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to suggest are no references are being to used to support statements written in the article. I am not suggest the article is not notable all I am trying to say is that references be used to support statements. At present there are none. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest letting the need-more-references tag be allowed time to actually, yanno, work. Also, the relevant wikiproject has a new Cleanup Task Force that can be called in to help. I've added the article to the list of things to deal with. (Personally, I think this should be merged into either the main Gatchaman article or a list of characters, but the whole suite of articles needs a good looking at and reorganization, which usually goes better when not under the gun of a five-day deadline.) —Quasirandom (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Galactor is to be merged into Science Ninja Team Gatchaman the Science Ninja Team Gatchaman and its associated articles need major clean ups too there is a lack of reliable sources been used. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science Ninja Team Gatchaman does have a dearth of references, yes, but it has enough to verify its existence and basic facts, and justify its independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orange tag post on that article specifies it have many problem. main thing is the source. Try to find at least 10 off Wiki sources.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge (the concept), or redirect to Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:WAF and does not establish WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I want to recommend is merge to List of Science Ninja Team Gatchaman characters, but there is no list of characters in the article to use as the basis of it. Indeed, the very brief blurbage that exists doesn't even give enough context for what the show's about, an omision that results in an undue weight being given to the (important and notable) information about various adaptations. Hmm. Will continue to ponder for the remaining day of debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so that it can be cleaned up/merged as necessary. Having problems like inadequate sourcing is not grounds for deletion. Gimme danger (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Gimme danger where are the sources provided to prove notablity I am not questioning notabiliy if its so notable I wish sources would be provided as soon as possible. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as is better within context of the series, otherwise only iseful for fans. Although AfD is not clean-up!Yobmod (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salakay[edit]

Conflict of interest, vanity article. -Nard 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional superhero that appears to be published only on the author's webspace. No third party sources, no real world perspective, no claim to notability other than "popular on deviantart". This one is pretty clear. gnfnrf (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disgusting vanity. JuJube (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly delete consensus; lets just say delete. This is none-encyclopediac, and it only talk about personal heros or idols.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be speedy-able as A7 if it applied to creative works. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Do Better[edit]

Unremarkable song by a notable artist. Not a single. Little else to be said about it. Contested prod. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for songs; no reliable sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Best Damn Thing. Fails WP:MUSIC, not released as a single, nor a notable album track. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. hell, it's not even a single.. --Darth NormaN (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additionally, I've edited the article to include more important details & links (and to give it a more professional article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.46.127 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Best Damn Thing per Doc Strange. D0762 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the artist's self-described "favorite song", and notably enforces the main theme of the record & the artist's mindset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.46.127 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Majorities 3 staffs say delete; one say R# or merge, only one anony say keep. For now i would say keep; we have some contributors improve this article plus I have seen some additional sources.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not released as a single. At best merge any information into the album article. Rasadam (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View coverage areas[edit]

Basically a repeat of List of Google Street View locations, which was deleted. After nominating for speedy delete, it was deleted, but the author, Sebwite, argues that this page is different than List of Google Street View locations. This article is still a list of Google Street View locations, described by state. WP:NOTDIRECTORY targets these specific types of articles, and this page should also be deleted. --FlagFreak ^TALK 23:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory, its an encyclopedia. This page has no encyclopedic value, so we should get rid of it.--SJP (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as directory with no encyclopedic value. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a directory, but rather an article about how GSV has evolved in different regions. The "list" is only one chart that shows major cities in order to give an overview. Besides, coverage areas are referenced from plenty of valid sources, and I am still adding more to this day. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Then why don't you rename it "Development of Google Street View"? The current title has the same meaning as "List of Google Street View" locations, and the current article is still a list, descriptive or not. --FlagFreak ^TALK 00:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list is subject to change as Google adds coverage, and I am concerned that the image is tantamount to copyvio. List is generated by original research. Finally, it is profoundly uninteresting, as it seems Google has street views of every major metro area except Seattle. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1.) Being subject for change does not mean it can't be included on Wikipedia. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it can be updated anytime. Saying something should not be included because it changes is grounds for exclusion of a lot of material, such as the records of every sports team, a political primary, etc. 2.) "Uninteresting" is only a matter of personal opinion. This is not every human being's view. 3.)GSV currently has a lot of areas not covered, not just Seattle. Baltimore-Washington still has zero coverage, seven U.S. states don't, and there is none outside the U.S. And there are still many places where not every street or suburb has coverage, and these are slowly being expanded. Part of the mission of this article is to describe this evolution. And I have added numerous sources, thereby making this information worthy of inclusion, whether in its own article or as a part of the GSV article. 4.) If you are concerned about the image being a copyvio, it should be discussed on the IfD board. This image was created by FlagFreak, the nom. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main point; it is easier to describe what isn't covered in one sentence in the text of the main article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This information is already a section of the article Google Street View, so no merge is necessary; it's preferable that such a list be maintained there in the parent article, rather than here. Nothing is lost by deleting this particular list; nothing is gained by stubbing the main article. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: There is some information in here that isn't in the Google Street View article, and it doesn't seem like a mere directory to me. However, the Google Street View article hasn't yet reached the point where it needs to be split. Also, it certainly does need to be better referenced, to avoid seeming like original research.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have lotted quite a lot of references by now, and I plan to add some more. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. No merge is necessary, since the Google Street View article already lists the locations in a get-to-the-point style. --FlagFreak ^TALK 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is not a recreation of List of Google Street View locations, but rather a subarticle of Google Street View in order to keep that page looking more orderly. I created it in keeping up with the Wikipedia tradition of splitting articles in this manner when an article gets to be too long and chaotic-looking. All the information that is on this page was previously on Google Street View, and if this page is deleted, it will reappear there, because it was there before. It is not a directory, but a description of the evolution of the service. Plenty of valid references are available on this information - I shall place them on the page in the coming days. As for the image, it was placed by FlagFreak (the nom), and if there is any concern about copyvio, this shall be discussed on the IfD board. Sebwite (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I have never seen the point of this list in any of its forms. --NE2 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially a list of streetview locations with some added information. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the main article is adequate. I don't even see the point of an up-to-date list of locations covered being appropriate for Wikipedia. We should describe the service yet leave intricate details to Google's website or a fan page. Rasadam (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray magic[edit]

This had originally been included in a malformed nomination along with Gray witch. Due to the problems with the first discussion I have closed it and renominated both articles. The original complaint is that this may fail WP:OR. Please see the original nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray witch Shereth 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'm not going to vote here, I just want to mention something in passing. I have adopted the original author of the material, User:Condalence, userfied both Gray Witch and Gray Magic (although I think the end product will probably be a merger of the two), and we are slowly working on finding reliable sources and improving the articles themselves. L'Aqùatique[review] 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The article as it stands hasn't cited any sources, and is poorly written. However the term 'grey magic' is actually quite interesting and worth an article. The expression is commonly given two rather different meanings, both of which have interesting ethical ramifications, and a number of reputable authors have expressed differing views on the subject. Unlike some of the other terms the article's creator has suggested, (orange magic, blue magic, etc.), grey magic is actually widely discussed amongst occultists. I don't have a heap of time to devote to this article, but I've been scouting around for sources and have already found several. I believe with some work it could be worth keeping. Fuzzypeg ★ 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source and expand. Although I doubt this is discussed amongst "serious" occultists. More like wiccans and pagans. Regardless, its subject to multiple publications by notable neo-pagan authors (whom I question their integrity, yet have authored many books no doubt). — _Maggot^Syn 10:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmph. So Wiccans aren't "serious"? I've been in ritual with a fair few ceremonial magicians, including OTO, A:.A:. and all that carry-on, as well as Haitian Vodou, even some members of the last Stella Matutina temple. And on the 'serious' scale, Wicca still seems pretty near the top. Maybe you mean 'Eclectic Wicca'... And I'm sure I remember gray magic being mentioned by some of these people. Sorry, a bit off-topic, but I don't like being told I'm a namby-pamby. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Now Since L'Aqùatique seems to be pushing for the creator to work on it some more, I believe this article may become acceptable in the future. If in a few months it isn't, then I believe we should delete it.--SJP (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep; Gray magic is just a performing design of art mix with black and white paints. i do see some sources.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. - Philippe 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray witch[edit]

This is a procedural nomination. The original nomination became plagued with procedural issues and rather than trying to sort out that disaster, I am giving the discussion a fresh start. The initial complaint was that this article may fail WP:OR. Shereth 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'm not going to vote here, I just want to mention something in passing. I have adopted the original author of the material, User:Condalence, userfied both Gray Witch and Gray Magic (although I think the end product will probably be a merger of the two), and we are slowly working on finding reliable sources and improving the articles themselves. L'Aqùatique[review] 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Now Since L'Aqùatique seems to be pushing for the creator to work on it some more, I believe this article may become acceptable in the future. If in a few months it isn't, then I believe we should delete it.--SJP (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be restored upon request for transwiki purposes. Sandstein 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

The article is chock full of original research and in-universe commentary. Clean-up is virtually impossible because if I remove all of the in-universe that is relevant to a "history" article then the article would be blank. The very very limited real world material is already covered in the actual imperial guard article and are irrelevent to an article pertaining to history. There is no real world reliable 3rd party sources that discuss those matters in any detail or with any scholarship. Allemandtando (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It should be kept and cleaned with editors who have experience with this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

and what do you plan to improve it with ? If we clean the article it will be blank. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete Clearly, the article is not suitable for wikipedia. It's subject, the history of the Imperial Guard, is inherently in-universe, because it means the FICTIONAL history of the Imperial Guard. The article with this title should, by wikipedia standards, describe the real world history, even of fictional concepts. In this case, that would not support an article. However, it is well written and, within the scope of its subject, well researched. So it would be nice to see it transwiki'd. And it has a tag saying that is planned to happen already. So why hasn't that happened (the tag, I see, was placed January 15th of this year)? If that is still a possibility, I'd like to see that happen (though I don't know much about how it works myself). If not, I'd support deletion. gnfnrf (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. In-universe, not supported by independent references to demonstrate notability. All references are first party, i.e. printed by Games Workshop or subsidiaries. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. Also, ricockulously long. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki:I see gold, purple, and yellow tag. Copy it at another place. This is too long; and random, does not focus on fix subject.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki information if applicable. Rasadam (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki attempts have been scheduled by anonymous editors this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki if applicable but this is in-universe material not supported by reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's material out there, you just have to know where to look. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. - Philippe 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echovnc[edit]

Delete article, written by software developer, that makes no claim of notability. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a section for notability, to clarify how EchoVNC is distinguished from other VNC platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbest (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Sbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong delete. The article fails to demonstrate why this software is notable. No mention is made of awards it has won, coverage it has received in independent reliable sources, or anything else that would meet the requirement. While there is an apparent conflict of interest, as the original editor appears to be the program's developer, the article is not a blatant advertisement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. EWeek wrote about it, but it was a while ago during our launch, (article) as did ZDNet (article). It's also been an active project on Sourceforge since March 2005, and has been written up here and discussed here. Not terrifically notable sources , but not astroturf either. :)Sbest (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article gets deleted you may as well tag RealVNC, TightVNC, UltraVNC because none of those articles have sources even though reliable ones probably exist (they definitely exist for RealVNC, see 300 or so google news hits). Faradayplank (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who suggested the article should be deleted for having no sources? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he/she's saying that what the nominator was asking for was notability and usually that is established in sources (sadly) so if there are none, the assumption he/she is making is that the notability is not established (on wikipedia) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prab Rai[edit]

Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet played professionally so fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not won any major awards to otherwise achieve notability. Can be created when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - popular, but not notable as of yet. leafschik1967 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That he may play pro one day is a possibility, but he hasn't yet, and he won't next season. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the WP:HOCKEY notability criteria both. RGTraynor 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria for athletes, which should be used as a rule of thumb, but that isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue for me is that it fails WP:V. I don't see this article ever not failing WP:V either. I searched this players name in google, and went over the first 450 results. One was for ESPN, and it had just about no information on him, and the other was this. The US Today article isn't much better either. Also, he doesn't meet my standards as well;-) You can't gather basic information about him(Birth, place of birth,etc) from reliable sources, and nothing really "sets him apart" from the average hockey player in the minor leagues that I can find.--SJP (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not in the minor leagues, he's in junior hockey still. Has yet to win a major award in junior hockey. Patken4 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Black ngold29 13:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne 4[edit]

Unreleased movie, no definitive source that it will actually be made or released, crystalballism . Delete and protect title. ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on what I know without deeply researching it, this should be deleted. This appears to violate the crystal section of WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I will keep an eye on this discussion, and will do research on this pretty soon. If this can be verified with reliable sources, then this will no longer be in violation of policy, and my position on the fate of this article will change.--SJP (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth installment of the Bourne films has been confirmed in 4 different on-line entertainment sources that I have found: E! News, IMDB, Canoe.ca, and Movies.aol.com, Damon picture 7 of 70. I have linked the relevant pages for your conveniece. Of these sources, IMDB is the most reliable and it lists the status of this moving as "Announced"; it also lists the names of the writers, director, and leading actor. IMDB lists the release date as 2010. If various entertainment sources are reporting news, then there's a news story that can be included on Wikipedia. --RisingSunWiki 00:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think IMDb is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this video of producer Frank Marshall, the plan is to film Bourne 4 in summer 2009, and release it in 2010.--RisingSunWiki 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MOVIE has pretty clear guidelines on this. Upcoming films should not receive their own articles until reliable sources indicate that filming has begin. For this movie, it appears that it has not. gnfnrf (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for nothing but yesterday an editor moved the page, thus orphaning this debate. I have moved it back. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since production has not begun and is not guaranteed to. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL since it has verifiable coverage about a planned project, but the plan does not always lead to a full-fledged article. My suggestion is to make a Bourne (film series) akin to Spider-Man (film series) and X-Men (film series) and mention this coverage of a possible fourth film in a "Future" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Bourne (film series) and included this article's lone headline in a "Future" subsection. We needed a film series article, anyway -- shows the progress of box office performance and critical acclaim. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as it enters production, as per the notability guidelines. Erik's suggestion of a Bourne (film series) article sounds like the best bet to host this information. Steve ^{T • C} 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as CSD G4, recreated material. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Artists Guild[edit]

Page was just deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graphic_Artists_Guild. There doesn't appear to be anything new in this article to make GAG notable. --Work permit (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Caustic Window album[edit]

Unreleased album with no title, and only four copies ever made. While sources in the article confirm the existence of the album, there is no claim of notability. Previous AfD last year closed as no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concern with this isn't that it doesn't meet the generally accepted notability guidelines, but that it violates a policy. I believe guidelines a pretty flexible, for the most part, while policy should be followed unless following somehow hurts the encyclopedia. I've done numerous searches to try to find reliable sources, but haven't been able to find any. I'll give you links to the searches I did right after this sentent:-)[1]

[2] [3][4] --SJP (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources yet, fails TenPoundHammer's law. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails TPH Law; no name, no article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources provided or found. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Titus[edit]

Speedy as nn person was rejected by admin. But previously deleted 3 times - prod as non-notable, speedy as non-notable, speedy as advert (as Matt titus ). Basically it's just an advert for a matchmaker. andy (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Could someone link the previous AfD's?Mostly cloudy (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't any previous AfD's - three deletions here and here andy (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as an advertisement and was, I note, created by an SPA whose only other edits were to the wikipedia entry for Mr Titus' wife and thus is likely a vanity article a/o an advert for Mr. Titus' business. Aside from that, the subject is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is crap, we don't get rid of it if it can be improved to an acceptable point. If you don't feel like improving it yourself put appropriate tags on the article, but don't delete the thing.--SJP (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist for this person, some basic biographical information can be found in a reliable source, and he has had numerous shows on well known channels.[5] [6] [7][8][9] [10]--SJP (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot suitable for an encyclopaedia. Non notable and advertising. harris 578 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this was going to be a slam dunk delete. But the guy had a show on a major cable network, got a mention in the Times and his TV appearances are verifiable. Can't argue with keeping. Montco (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TV show is verifiable. In addition to the NYTimes stuff, he's also been covered by USA Today and The Daily News. Vickser (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SJP the article can be expanded over time but the sources needed do exist. JBsupreme (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs work but passes notability. Rasadam (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Qayoom[edit]

autobiography; previously deleted, and then re-created by article subject; non-notable Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy Delete via WP:CSD#G4 --Numyht (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: G4 does not apply here; previous deletion was not via discussion. Tan | 39 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:N, and thank you Tanthalas --Numyht (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a blatant conflict of interest and fails WP:N. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want this deleted because it fails WP:NOTE, nor do I want this deleted because it fails WP:BIO. Those things are just guidelines, though they should be taken into serious consideration when we are in the process of coming to a conclusion. The reason why this should be deleted is because it violated WP:V, which is a policy.

I looked through the first 150 results on this [11] search, and I found no reliable sources. When I looked through all the results [12] I couldn't find any reliable sources either. I know I've pretty much shown that this article is unverifiable, but to further prove this article isn't verifiable he doesn't show up at google books either;-)[13]--SJP (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well full marks to the author since is more of the better written articles on a fraud that I have seen. Sources are rubbish. I got excited when I saw a mention of him in The Times, but all he did was post a comment on an article. Sorry, no dice. Montco (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, vanity article, unverifiable. Interesting that he has just deleted the claim that he was poet laureate at Birkbeck, presumably because he knew that could be shown to be false. Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SJP. — Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overcome (All That Remains album)[edit]

Reason Gravediggerfuneral (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) There's no link to verify that "Overcome", will actually be the name of the album, and there's no sources for any other information on the page. Wait to start this article when more information becomes available. gravediggerfuneral[reply]

Keep: According to their MySpace page [14] that is the name of the album. Not having sources isn't a reason to delete. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is if there are no sources (MySpace isn't reliable). Where the heck did you get that notion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course MySpace is reliable, its on their own god damn official page. 90.209.146.34 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not per WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third party sources or verifiable info outside the title Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security thought leadership[edit]

Appears to be a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article, runing into WP:OR trouble. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and since it appears to be an unresolvable neologism. --Several Times (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Personal essay Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per nom. harris 578 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Doc Strange on this one. I looked up the topic, and tried to find reliable sources. I was only able to find two,[15][16] and both were highly unhelpful. Therefore I conclude a lot of the article is made up of original research. The tone of this essay clearly isn't encyclopedic, and I believe it is safe to say this was meant to be a personal essay. WP:NOT states wikipedia is not for personal essays. I would like to mention a third policy that it violates, which Doc didn't mention. That is WP:V. --SJP (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bale[edit]

Delete Not notable aside from having a famous son. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Schuym1 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination misdescribes the subject. The subject gained public attention not because he was Christian Bale's father, although he was that too. He gained public attention because he married Gloria Steinem. (Yes, I realize that notability is not inherited, but he did receive press coverage for that.) I will look for additional sources to establish that he satisfies WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of chaebol by total revenues[edit]

I don't see any merit of the list with just 10 entries and no reference. The list look suitable to be included in Chaebol. So I suggest it to be merged into the article. Caspian blue (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Then go for it. You don't need to bring merge requests here and 'List of chaebol by total revenues' appears to be a possible search term so this should be turned into a redirect rather than be deleted after the content is moved. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I think this nomination is a courtesy to the creator before merging the content by myself.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect or merger- We don't need a separate page for comparing revenues. What's this, a lesson for Microeconomics course? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand and reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short list, might as well be added to the other page. --Gman124^talk 04:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per User:Caspian blue --T-rex 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-m t 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London leaders[edit]

Article with little or no depth about a programme of limited importance. It reads like a press release and in fact the text includes sentences which are almost word for word these of [17] which is itself inspired by the programme's press release. Pichpich (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:N non-notable event --Numyht (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are some sources [18] [19] [20] [21] D0762 (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable event and quasi-press release. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of stakeholders. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 04:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Life (The Offspring song)[edit]

Contested redirect of non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:N and nom --Numyht (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep notable single, featured in the game Crazy Taxi~~. JuJube (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How does this meet WP:MUSIC#SONGS? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reconsidered my vote, changed to Delete and Redirect to Ixnay on the Hombre JuJube (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and just because it fails WP:N doesn't mean it always will. Deleting an article like this is not constructive as it can always be expanded upon.--The Skeleton (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - As with JuJube (above), please explain how you believe this article meets WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Additionally, if you feel there is additional material that can be added to the article to establish the notability of this song, please add it now. I see no indication that this song will become notable at this late date either. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the creator of this AFD has acknowledged this is about a redirect, not an article so should be discussed at WP:RFD. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 27. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cults[edit]

Inappropriate and contentious re-creation of a deleted redirect. Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults", that was just settled at AfD for "List of groups referred to as cults" and this was deleted as a direct result of that AfD. I prodded the redirect and ask the creating editor to speedy it which he did but both removed by a third editor hence this AfD. Justallofthem (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via G4 (Recreated page) --Numyht (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close This is about a redirect not an article so should surely be discussed at WP:RFD not AFD. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad. If an admin wants to close this then I will reopen it there. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G4, no discussion necessary. Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article goes against the nature of wikipedia! Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, and this article has a strong bias against other religions. Also, a page that pretty much was the same as this one was deleted in the past, so this one should be as well.--SJP (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I recreated this redirect article earlier today to provide easier access to another, non-contentious list, the List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. However, having thought about it, a List of cults entry is not the best way to achieve that. I have entered a link to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents in the article cult, which should make it easy enough for the reader to find it. I don't think we need the redirect that I created then. Jayen 466 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The is not a G4 issue. The AfD did not address the issue of this. A review of the AfD shows that most of the objections dealt with specific isues on the list, such as the exact title "...referred to as...", or the criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Pigs and the Big Good Wolf[edit]

Contested prod by an IP (likely the creator). Non-notable/non-existent film about a big good wolf who helps pigs. A Google search on this film shows no results. A subsequent search on the creator of this film also shows no results. Article is poorly referenced with only a reference to EBay; however, a Google search on the EBay item number brings no results outside of Wikipedia. The creator says that this film was sold on EBay but I can't find any mention of it on EBay. None of the links from this search mention a film of this sort. The creator of this article even says, "little is known about the number of copies made or its history. There are no identifying animation studio marks or credits other than the title frames." This is either a hoax or a non-notable film that fails the notability guidelines for films. Cunard (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP: RS, possible hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huff...puff...delete per nom. Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's afraid of the big bad...Delete? Yeah, another hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Numyht: doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:RS, WP:NOR, and could very well be another hoax. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Him When He's Down[edit]

Contested redirect of non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not notable. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiocfaidh ár lá[edit]

Dictionary definition, with no potential for expansion. The article is not linked to by any IRA-related article. Scolaire (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe the article has no potential for expansion. It already mentions "Chucky" and "Tiocfaidh Armani", which Wiktionary probably can't do. Other possible non-dictionary info:
- Was it in fact coined by Bobby Sands, some other Republican;
  - is it inspired by a similar slogan of some foreign revolutionary?
  - is it unidiomatic Irish coined by a Republican who learned gaolge in Long Kesh, sneered at by native speakers?
    - is there a more idiomatic prase used by such native speakers?/
- Has it been used unironically by non-Republicans? If it was not in fact coined by Republicans, did non-Republicans stop using it after Bobby Sands?
- In the Máire Nic an Bhaird case, she allegedly was understood to have said "Tiocfaidh ár lá" and this allegedly contributed to her arrest: are there freedom of speech/inflammatory language legal implications, or were there before the Peace Process?
- Can one idiomatically say Tiocfaidh/Tháinig bhúr/mo lá, etc
  - Has anyone, Republican or otherwise made a "the war is over and we won/lost" type speech incorporating some variant like "(níor) tháinig ár/bhúr lá"

I only state these questions; I am not qualified to answer any; perhaps there is no verifiable source that answers any. Or perhaps not. An argument that often comes up on dictdef deletions is "even if it could be more than a dictdef, currently that's all it is; let's delete it now and if someone wants to recreate it they'll have to start it off at a higher standard." I am ambivalent about such arguments. jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's substantially more than a dictionary term. It's a political slogan and concept. The article's references establish its notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable political slogan, frequently reproduced in republican merchandice. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable political slogan. BigDunc^Talk 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rush[edit]

This is dealt with in the main Rush article. This 'history' is just an expanded version. The Rolling Stones have been around for a similiar amount of time, and no individual history article is required. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was spun out of the main one during the FAC in order to keep the text at a reasonable kb size. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to keep. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, but your nomination kinda reads like WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article details the history of a major notable band that if placed in the main article would severely bloat it with extraneous detail. For readers who are interested in more information, this article exists. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and widely-covered, and the article is wide in coverage. It could be better-sourced though, but this isn't GA-review, it's an attempt to throw the whole thing off Wikipedia. This seems like a Catch-22 which comes up more and more often... We're told that articles should to be kept from getting too large, and that when one section takes over its bounds at the main page, it should be broken away into a separate article... And then it is nominated for deletion... Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that "Broken away during FA Review" is most certainly a good argument for keeping. This is an indication that the article is of a very high quality, and deals with, in more detail, a subject covered in a Feature Article. The fact that work on the Rolling Stones article has apparently not progressed as far as the one on Rush is entirely irrelevant to this AfD discussion. I suggest Speedy-closing this AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai. It sounds like the version in the main article is a shortened version of this, not the other way around. Maxa megalon 2000 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai, and per Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Because the Rolling Stones don't have one" isn't a reason to delete. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Main is too long as a result of the history. Page needs to split.Pdeitiker (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally. I just took a look at The Rolling Stones article. It looks like it's getting a bit long. Maybe a section could be summarized, and broken off? History maybe? Dekkappai (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conforms to WP:Summary style. Rush is a long-lived band with considerable history. Comparison with Rolling Stones article is irrelevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Conforms to WP:SS, and Rush (band) is indeed quite long and doesn't need all the minutiae contained in this article, which would be the only other place for it. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal security thought leadership[edit]

Reads like WP:OR or an essay ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Numyht (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because it's just a buzzword, as the linked articles indicate. --Several Times (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted, G4, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Feed The Animals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unreleased album, crystal balling. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and recreated page --Numyht (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per G4, recreation of deleted material. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's not much content to merge, but if anyone wants the old history, feel free to message me or another admin. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XDELTA[edit]

Very short articles on non-notable software. No references and no claim of notability. I am also nominating DELTA (VMS) because it is the companion software and the articles are almost identical. swa q 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both via WP:N and nom --Numyht (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —swa q 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like the fact that Wikipedia includes trivia on more obscure operating systems like OpenVMS. So, rather than deleting this, let's merge it to the OpenVMS article. --SJK (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you sammy[edit]

Children's book by first-time author. Can't track down publisher (maybe vanity press/self-published?). Can't find any substantial reviews or media coverage. No awards. Does not meet WP:BK. — Gwalla | Talk 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Numyht (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author's own website indicates this is not a major release (print on demand was considered as a viable option). While Amazon rankings are necessarily indicative of notability, I'm not impressed by a sales rank around 5,000,000. The link to the CBC story doesn't give the text or audio of the story (although that may change after the broadcast date). The local paper story is weak -- appears to be a small weekly paper. If it's anything like the local weeklies in my area, they'll print these stories more as filler than because they think it's notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. This article is just shy of being blatant advertising for the book series. It certainly fails to assert that it's a notable book. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It doesn't seem to be catalogued by the Library and Archives Canada, or at least it didn't turn up when I used their site's search feature. 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. --jonny-m t 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guesstimate[edit]

No encyclopaedic information beyond a simple dictionary definition (and no sources) - would suggest transwikifying to en.wiktionary Knepflerle (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per nom --Numyht (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. The same should be done for the equally useless article ballpark estimate, which has an unlikely explanation for the phrase "ballpark figure". Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I have taken your suggestion and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballpark estimate. Knepflerle (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article with information about etymology, different definitions and usage in statistics and education, all with sources. It is better to improve than delete. There is already a Wiktionary entry, but it says almost nothing. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new material is an improvement, but it's still nothing beyond a dictionary definition and I still don't see why it wouldn't be better at wiktionary Knepflerle (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I just read it with the updates you mention and I must agree with Knepflerle, it would be a welcome expansion to the wikitionary entry Faradayplank (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. The additions make a good dictionary entry; but they are about the word, not the activity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As much as I hate most "transwiki to wiktionary" nominations, I think this one is a good case. The article is about the word, and I have trouble imagining how it could be turned into an article about an "encyclopedic concept". --Itub (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment since there is already a WK article Template:Wi could be used rather than a transwiki template
Transwiki to wikitionary of course. -Keith (Hypergeek14)^Talk 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Wiktionary is also not paper, entries their can and should include entymology and usage.Yobmod (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on transwiki Madcoverboy (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Miyashiro[edit]

This trumpeter is not notable per WP:MUSIC hence the article should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS Most of the sources are videos or fan-sites --Numyht (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A Painting a Day"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"A Painting a Day"

The sources provided are for specific artists. There is no evidence that this is an art movement. This may be an internet phenomena, but the article would need to be completely rewritten as such and make no claims to being an art movement, which it is not. It should be noted that A Painting a Day was created and speedy deleted twice. The editor was banned for a username violation, created a new account, and created this article, with the quotes (which is inappropriate anyway). I nominated this for speedy deletion, but it was declined. I don't see how this is anything more than advertisements for the artists mentioned in the article. The claims in this article are completely unsupported. freshacconcispeaktome 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as twaddle. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sources [22], [23] written within a week of each other in the 2006 silly season describe the practice of painting postcard-sized images and selling them on e-bay, or directly through blogs. Trivial coverage, non-notable subject.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This appears to be something brewing among modern day artists. I say it may be notable in the future, but not as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)I live on Planet Art (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per WP:SNOW article expand beyond one line and now includes 16 references. Renaming can be discussed/resolved on the article talk page. Gnan garra 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Hill, Western Australia[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that the disused mine to which this unsourced one-line article refers is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS One line article --Numyht (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Jeez, improve a one-line article rather than deleting it? There's only a whole book about it. --Canley (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might rename it to "Peak Hill Goldfield". This was a very notable mine and an important goldfield in the history of Western Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics covered it extensively in their WA Yearbooks. --Canley (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but agree with Canley on renaming. The mine is one part of a larger article. There are a handful of articles here, especially about the transition from an active mine, that can be used in addition to the book above to flesh out the mine section. There is certainly enough from which to build an article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to paraphrase - there is nothing to show the first two participants in this debate looked. Heaps of book references, notes on government websites, bucket loads of scholarly articles.... Subject is fundamentally an appropriate topic and is very well written about in a large number of places - clearly passes WP:whatever - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can understand the nominators rationale and I am generally opposed to the creation of one-line sub-stubs, this article has obvious potential for improvement. I am certain that WP:WA will bring this article up to speed quick smart. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above, a veritable cavalcade of good references and sources for building this article up are available. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. A great amount of secondary sources have covered this topic. If you see a problem with an article of a notable topic, fix it instead of trying to delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Peak Hill Goldfield Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - you're all 'tothersiders obviously :) and to use oggle is a tragic mistake Satu Suro 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable - the article is a little messy at the moment, but as you can see, it's come a fair distance from the original two sentence paragraph. Somno (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been fleshed out & sufficient referenced - justifying its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could a non-involved administrator speedy close this nomination. The expansion surely satisfies the nominator's concerns. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise process[edit]

Marginal electro-industrial band. Of course, electro-industrial is not the most mainstream genre out there, but in any case, there's very little in the way of reliable sources to build this article. Most of what I could find can be essentially traced back to promo material and can't be considered as "third-party". Will gladly withdraw the nom if someone else can find solid sources. Pichpich (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:RS and WP:V very poorly sourced and very short --Numyht (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:MUSIC and has no refs. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Andrevan , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gta 4 cheats[edit]

I don't know if this would come under WP:IINFO or WP:NOTGUIDE, but Wikipedia definitely isn't the place for this. Booglamay (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NOTGUIDE, also WP:OR and no reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Several Times (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimous agreement. Non-admin closure as permitted in such circumstances. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Sabbath awards[edit]

There is only one item on this list: a merge would be in order. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom --Numyht (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with a merge. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Come on people, we don't need a separate article for one stinkin' award. Xnux the Echidna 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. a lack of references does not require deletion: it requires references. I'm inclined to err toward inclusion.. - Philippe 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Perdew[edit]

He's written notable songs, but there are no sources pertaining to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. On the actual song articles, there is no word about Howard Perdew --Numyht (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references, so it fails verifiability policy. JBsupreme (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both of the song articles listed Howard Perdew as the song writer. Look at the box at on the upper right section of the article, where it says "writer". A quick use of Google showed these were actual songs, which were hits, and therefor noteworthy. Instead suggesting things be deleted, why not simply look up information about them instead? Dream Focus (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 (Hoax), given no evidence of the software's actual existance. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Codename:dataflow[edit]

Contested prod. I'm not sure how the external link provided with this article relates to the subject, but I can find no information there or elsewhere about this piece of software. It seems to be a non-notable operating system, which isn't entirely surprising given that it's only in beta. Rnb (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - From the one link (which seems to be a forum about cheating/hacks for runescape) "RSInfiltration Click here to go to Runescape Infiltration Headquarters, an affiliate of DataPile Association, where you will find everything you need to know about cheating Jagex!". This is either a hoax or prank. An actual OS would have some ghits (this has 0) or be listed somewhere like sourceforge. Faradayplank (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Faradayplank and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable article created by a disruptive user [24]. MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Obvious hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - see below — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was a badly formed AfD, closed as follows

The result was delete. - Philippe 04:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album)[edit]

Truth_(Keyshia_Cole_album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Violates WP:CRYSTAL; after Google-ing, the only link I could find to it was the Keyshia Cole Wikipedia article, where it is also unsourced. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also this needs a separate AFD page. Hold on... Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtyarganj[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner article about a lane (street?) with no indication that the lane is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP: NOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs)

Delete: verifiability is a big one here - we have no evidence that this lane exists. And then, it's only a "lane" - doesn't seem article worthy to me. Alex Muller 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Panzerfaust; may be spun off per WP:SS when approaching the level of detail of pl:Granatnik PT-100. Sandstein 16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pt-100[edit]

Delete no indication that the knock-off in this unreferenced one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS A one line article which is badly sourced --Numyht (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No reason to have its own page. Put it as a tiny section in the panzer article.The Talking Mac (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect to Panzerfaust (not Panzer). Manifestly notable - the Poles manufactured tens of thousands of these. Pl has a decent article, demonstrating what should be possible here on en. IMHO, this level of detail would give undue weight to this variant if it were to be incorporated into the main Panzerfaust article. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italophiles[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a pure dictionary definition. TN‑X-Man 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then tranwiki per WP:DICTIONARY. Would be better off being moved to the wiktionary. -- RyRy5 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionairy. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki per RyRy5 --Numyht (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rasadam (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki is unnecessary since the definition is already at wikt:Italophile. Delete per WP:WINAD. I see no potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability appears to be demonstrated. - Philippe 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia[edit]

Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:CORP. I did a google search and couldn't find anything that came close to significant coverage by an independent, reliable source. Tan | 39 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am aware that this is software, not a company, but if you read the article, it's written synonymously. Is there a (current) notability guideline for software? WP:WEB doesn't really fit here. Tan | 39 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is not about Jahia Ltd (there is a one sentence mention); it is about the open source software presented by the company. WP:CORP doesn’t apply here. As for confirmation on notability on the actual subject of the article:

Germany’s leading newspaper [25]
~~Highly respected~~ online tech media outlets [26], [27], [28], [29]
Commentary from ~~the highly notable~~ Forrester Research (gotta pay for it) [30]

Merci beaucoup! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering most of those are in a language I don't understand, it's hard to form a cogent rebuttal. However, the ones that are in English don't constitute significant coverage - the fact that this software is mentioned isn't significant. The one that is "about" Jahia just seems to be a niche publication stating that 1) it exists and 2) its features. Not to make any judgments here either, Eco, but the fact that you and I have been criticizing one another lately gives some suggestion to "revenge" on this !vote. "Strong keep"? "Highly respected"? "Highly notable?" Your vote is overflowing with weasel words and POV. Looking at the front page of www.welt.de, I have a very hard time believing this is "Germany's leading newspaper". Tan | 39 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Die Welt is one of Germany's leading newspapers - the web site may be iffy, but the newspaper's reputation is very well known. Having worked in the tech field, I am aware of Forrester Research's reputation, which is very easy to confirm. Online tech media is overflowing in quantity but erratic in quality, and I specifically chose three that I knew to be well regarded by those who work in bits and bytes. And, circling back to the beginning, the article is about the software and not the company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that I was aware of this in my opening comments, but you chose to ignore that. If you read the article, there are parts that make the article synonymous with the organization. BUT, that aside, open source software still needs to abide by notability requirements. None of the diffs you provided constitute significant coverage of this software. There have been many, many precedents to this. Tan | 39 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die Welt is indeed a well-respected newspaper, but unfortunately the article linked above is nothing to do with this subject. It has a couple of mentions of the Director of the Algerian Human Rights League, Abd al-Nur Ali-Jahia, but I very much doubt if he has any connection with this software. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you Google! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just came to comment on a subject where I have more than a passing knowledge, nothing more. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As per concern, I removed the overly descriptive verbiage. I don't use the expression "weasel words" because it is not fair to weasels (really, have you ever had a dubious conversation with a weasel?) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Energy[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. And the company's claim of pioneering the “smart meter” exists almost exclusively in the company’s press releases (try a Google search of "Opus Energy" and "smart meter" and see the lack of WP:RS). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The way it's written, it could be a G11. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V --Numyht (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power Mac G5 Alex Muller 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Mac G5 Quad[edit]

This article was created in 2005, yet it has not been improved significantly since then. More importantly, it restates the exact same information that is already found in Power Mac G5. While I'm usually an inclusionist, there is no danger of information loss in expanding the Power Mac G5 article to significantly cover the features of this platform. Thus, it would seem that this is a useless fork that has little or no encyclopedic value. Dragon695 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Power Mac G5 and redirect. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DCEdwards and WP:V --Numyht (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I checked, there is nothing to merge that isn't already in the Power Mac G5 article, even the link to the computerworld review is already there. Faradayplank (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Mac G5. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Mac G5. No need for a separate models page. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Mylavarapu[edit]

Prod was contested. Does not appear to meet WP:PROF notability guidelines. Though article does present a list of accomplishments, you could make a similar list for nearly any active academic (i.e., so-and-so demonstrated something that hasn't been demonstrated before). Most journal articles either attempt to demonstrate something new or support/refute an existing hypothesis. Per WP:PROF, no third-party sources covering this person's notability/accomplishments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Perhaps an admin can check whether this article was delete before. When I Google "Srinivas Mylavarapu" I actually find a cached page from June 19, although the current article appears to have been created on June 25. --Crusio (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It was deleted before, but it was an article about a different individual with the same name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. When I Google "Srinivas Mylavarapu", Mylavarapu linguistics, Mylavarapu Gainesville, Mylavarapu Kui, or Mylavarapu Dravidian, I don't find anything that looks like this entry. There is a Prof. Mylavarapu in Gainesville.... in Soil Science.... The homepage of that person (who has a different first name) is linked as the 2nd reference. The part of the linkage of genes to languages is definitely nonsense. Some genes have been linked to general language abilities, but there are obviously no genes linked to any specific language. There are genetic mouse models of language deficits (weird as that may sound), but that concerns one specific gene that is not mentioned in this article. I have no clue what "internal Auger emitters" are, but I don't see how anything related to language abilities could have anything to do with oogenesis or spermatogenesis. In short, this is a hoax. As this appears to be the second creation of this article, perhaps it should be salted. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS The same editor has also created a page for Velu Ganapathy, currently prodded. Something similar seems to be going on there. A reference to an article in the Am J Physiol Cell Physiol is given and that article indeed lists an author named Ganapathy, but with a different first name: Vadivel. I haven't checked the other two references but bet that that one is a hoax, too. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - and Crusio beat me to reporting on this too) if hoax, then these [31] [32] ought also to be reverted promptly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 The creator of this article User:Sanjaykrishn has made only one other contribution to Wikipedia, on the page List of people from Andhra Pradesh, where he added a wikilink to "Srinivas Mylavarapu, composer", suddenly not alinguist studying mice and genes any more.... --Crusio (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some mentions elsewhere in WP as suspected hoaxes. FWIW Srinivas Mylavarapu & Velu Ganapathy overlap as putative notable alumni of the same High School, just going to check a hunch on where the contributing IPs come from... Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this time Pete beat me... :-) If you browse through the edit history of Srinivas Mylavarapu, you'll see that he "evolved" from being born in 1990 to being born in 1960. Earlier version also have a picture of what obviously is a schoolkid. Enough already, let's get rid of this stuff. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Crusio. A definite hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalistic hoax CSD:G3. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inprotech[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be a non-notable software product. Ghits return several directory listings, but not much more. TN‑X-Man 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is this law.com article about the software, but that's all that coul dbve found aside from blog entries. If there were some more coverage about the software, then it would be a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything either. The law.com article was a good find, but even that does not go much in depth on this particular product. It's not much of an article at this point anyway.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flochek Industries[edit]

Article reads like an advert. Already AfDed once as Flochek and result was delete. Tried prod, was contested within minutes. There is a redirect, Flochek valve, to which a bunch of valve pages point as if it were some common valve type. Spam redirects Cast iron valve and Valve india also exist. Marcan (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably could've speedied under G4 (recreate) or G11 (blatant advert). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP: ADVERT, possible G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pull (Mr. Mister album)[edit]

Unreleased album, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources per WP:MUSIC. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search pulls up among other things a mention in a user review of one of their albums on Amazon, an unofficial Myspace account and torrents of the unreleased album (the only thing I can find about it from a reliable source is a brief mention in the band's biography from All Music Guide). It fails WP:MUSIC as non-notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well referenced article and no consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian television ratings for 2008[edit]

Requests for sources have been asked in the past with the editor/s removing the tag. I feel that no sources can be placed therefore content could be incorrect and fails to state why it's notable. Bidgee (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - The situation has been rectified - Had a request been made direct to those who regularly maintanance the page - the references would have been up sooner.

We apologise for the distress the absence of referencing has caused - and we sincerely hope the problem is now rectified to the satisfaction of those who may have suffered as a consequence of a lack of referencing.--Bortholomew (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Sources are given at the base. The page has been tagged with "unreferenced" since 31 May, 2008 -- when there were no references. You retagged it on 27 June, and there are now sources. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really[33]. I wouldn't class those as sources but as notes which didn't prove it's notability or facts. Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this is in the spirit of 'assume good faith' i trust. Simple exploration of the sources finds all the info noted and thus easily verifiable... Not that this was ever in question by those who author in the Australian TV Project. --Bortholomew (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced and notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Page references are solid; explore and you will find the info published. Simple. --Bortholomew (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve via WP:POTENTIAL with goodreliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gloffy[edit]

Contested prod. The advice column has no claim to notability CultureDrone (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably speedyable; no claim of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable whatsoever. Possible A7. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone
Speedy delete, no claim of notability, no context, no independent refs provided, and not much in the way of independent GHits that don't just mention it in passing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

Comment I would have requested a speedy, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable category. Since it's not really an advert, G11 probably wouldn't be appropriate. CultureDrone (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS One line article --Numyht (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Reax Music Magazine. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ...And I'm basically asking for redirect, not deletion is not a reason to bring an article to AFD. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Australia[edit]

As an Australian, I wouldn't normally nominate Australian articles for deletion, but I don't see why this fraction of Nintendo has its own article when three more well-known Nintendo fractions - Nintendo of Japan, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe - don't. And I'm basically asking for redirect, not deletion. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per precedent at Nintendo of America --T-rex 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real reason to delete. I don't see why this should be deleted just because the other regions of Nintendo don't have articles. They could also have article.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Several Times (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason for deletion given. Nintendo of Europe never had an article and Nintendo of Japan and Nintendo of America only had simple one line articles that were written and then redirected over 4 years ago. Therefor, I see no reason to delete this article simply because no one has decided to write an article about the other subsidiaries. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There wasn't an afd template on the article so I added one. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree. No reason to delete it. Dream Focus (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If Nintendo of America has its own article, so should Nintendo Australia. MuZemike (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't though, I think that's what the nominator is saying. --Canley (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A surprisingly well-written and well-referenced article. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST applies here methinks. Articles on Nintendo's US and European subsidiaries should be created using this article as a model.--Canley (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written, meets our standards, and not exactly sure what the rationale for deletion is supposed to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, No reason for this to be deleted. I don't see how it violates Wikipedia policy. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Clarke[edit]

He is a non notable footballer from a non professional league. Although rookie listed with Sydney he did not play a game for their senior team. Claims such as his selection as an All-Australian are false as is the intro stating him to be a 'a professional Australian rules footballer' Crickettragic (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly Ed Clarke is 'a professional Australian rules footballer'. Playing a sport full time as your fulltime job for a professional team. If that isnt profesional what is?

Secondly the "All Australian" claim is true, I will update is to be for the under 18s All Australian side but it is still ALL AUSTRALIAN.

This wiki has not been finished yet and I am in the process of finishing it. Some details need to be corrected but they are not blatent lies. Just because a player is not playing in the top league of the world doesnt mean that they are not a notable player. The O&M league is the 4th most popular and most followed league of Australian Rules football in the world. If you only believe that players playing in the highest league of any sport should be on this site, then go ahead and delete any soccer player who isnt playing in the English Premier League. I have followed the guidlines of wikipedia, I am using references of creditable sources. What more can be done to prove that this Article deserves to stay published on wikipedia. Byrne 86 (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Byrne 86[reply]

Comment - He does not play for a professional team though, both Wangaratta and the Northern Bullants are in semi-professional leagues and thus their players do not suit the criteria for a wikipedia article ... as stated here. I appreciate that you have not completed the article but unless he has some other claim to notability than what has already been mentioned then he is not worthy of an article on wikipedia.

Players from the WAFL and SANFL (post 1990 with the formation of the AFL), two of the three leagues more popular than the O&M league are also not notable enough for inclusion unless they have won a Sandover or Magarey Medal, although even then it's debatable. So please don't think I am trying to undervalue the O&M league, I'm just following the guidelines that have been in place here for years where only athletes from a fully professional league are notable. Crickettragic (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does being All-Australian make him notable? It is verifiable, I just don't know if it's enough to make a difference. I declined the speedy because it's certainly an asserion of notability even if it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE in the end. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was at an Under 18 (i.e. junior) level. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks for the clarification. That information and the league comparisons below make it clear to me that he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. As someone who doesn't "get" AFL despite having lived in Australia, I may have erred on declining the speedy but to me it asserted some notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his All-Australian selection was in Under-18 level so it doesn't make him notable. Crickettragic (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I dont know if he is notable enough for wikipedia as I dont really know the sport but it does seems as if he has a lot written about him on the internet. eg [[34]] and [[35]]. It also says something about him getting the Did Simpson [[36]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfashion (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mrfashion do you want to make it any more obvious that you are a sockpuppet? Crickettragic (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. he did not play at a fully professional level or at the highest level possible. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Sorry Mattinbgn, would you consider the A league the highest level of soccer? no it is a substandard league for those people who cant make any league out side of australia, why then are players in this league allowed a wiki article about them? Most of them are less notable then Ed Clarke and are paid less then he was at sydney and about the same as he is now. He is a fully profesional player, trains full time. The definition of professional is -following an occupation as a means of livelyhood or for gain [[37]]

Who are YOU to judge what a professional is? Byrne 86 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:ATHLETE. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gtstricky and Point of view pushing --Numyht (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- --Bduke (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is incredulous to suggest that the Ovens & Murray Football League, a country-based Aussie Rules comp, can be compared with professional competitions such as football's A-league. The latter has national live television coverage, has managed attendances over 50,000 for Sydney-Melbourne games and last season averaged nearly 15,000 attendance across all games. It's hard to imagine that say Myrtleford (pop 3,500) v Yarrawonga (pop 3,500) has similar import, and difficult to accept that this comp would be capable of supporting "professional" sportsmen. The arguments re SANFL and WAFL also ring true. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE in my view. Murtoa (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ovens and Murray Leagues grand final draws in excess of 15 000 spectators. It has a very strong following throughout country Victoria and NSW and has a large amount of television, radio and newspaper coverage. Who are you all to decide that this is not of any importance. To the people living in these areas this league is as important as the AFL. Albury has a population of over 46 000, Wangaratta has a population of around 16 000, Wodonga has a population of over 40 000, the Alpine Shire has around 18 000. This isnt including all the towns surounding the areas of the teams. My point is that this league is of importance. Just because it is not your opinion that this league is important doesnt make it so. People should be able to find information about this league and its players through wikipedia. AFL is not the only league of Aussie Rules that is notable. Byrne 86 (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your thoughts on the O&M (and for the record, the GVFL is probably stronger nowadays), it is not a fully professional league. WP:ATHLETE says: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league ...". Most, if not all, players in the O&M earn the majority of their income from other sources and therefore Clarke does not meet the guideline. The league is notable, arguably the clubs (such as Yarrawonga Football Club) are notable, the players just don't cut it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO if a player plays football as their fulltime job then they are a full profesional? Well then he is, its his full time job. Ask anybody who follows that league about ed clarke and they will know who he is Byrne 86 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point. It doesn't matter if he is a full-time professional (and I would be surprised if he or anyone else in the OMFL was), but whether he plays in a fully professional league. It is quite clear that he does not and never has. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Nayna[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO for athletes as he has not played in a fully professional league Crickettragic (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable as per WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:N. Google shows nothing about the topic and no reliable sources found. -- RyRy (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fals notability guidelines by not providing reliable sources. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut (project)[edit]

Project is not notable; searched for any mention on Google News, Scholar, and Books under the full name "Correct-by-Construction Workbench for Design and Verification of Embedded Systems" since "Coconut" would be impossible. Found nothing. If sourcing can be produced, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure about the notability, but some sources are [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], but I'll agree that finding them is a bit of a pain - can't find much from the European Union website :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reliable source that goes over the project in a fair amount of detail. This information should be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia since it is a project lead by a a very notable organization, and its verifiable, so there's no reason not to include this information somewhere. So for now, I say we should keep this. However, if this can smoothly be placed in another article, then we should do that.--SJP (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Added notability statement to the article, along with in line cite and references. Should be enough to establish Notability. However, the article does need expansion and a rework. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I completely agree with the two viewpoints presented above. There are verifyable sources and the [EU] projects are in my opinion also of interest to the general public. --Georg Hofferek (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources provided are independent of the project. In fact, they are the same press release. You cannot cite your own press release and claim that is a reliable source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry; you are talking two different issues here. First, I believe Reuters is independent of the source, even including Business Wire. Second, if it is carried by independent – 3rd party – verifiable – reliable sources, how would that not been verification of Notability? Third, the claim “...Best Proposal for Embedded Systems by the EU's Seventh Framework Programme”, is a claim to Notability which is an acceptable criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and proven by the reference. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the "sources" have identical text. All the sources were written by somebody in the organization and released to the press. They are press releases. Press releases are not independent of the organization, and are therefore not reliable sources. As for the idea that the project is a "best proposal", how do we know it was not the only proposal? Being a proposal means, in my mind, that this project isn't actually producing anything. Can you point to a single scientific paper, news report (that isn't the one press release) or anything else about this project? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phlegm Rooster, do you mind giving some links that prove this was written by the same guy? Also, so what if it only has one source? Though more is preferable, the number of sources doesn't matter. The amount of information they contain is what actually counts.--SJP (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text reads identically, so they are authored by the same person or committee. They are to be found on the typical press release websites. I consider that sufficient evidence. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for relisting: while it is conventional to close AFD discussions with a unanimous consensus for retention of an article as "keep", the editors supporting the retention of this article have relied on claims that republications of the same press release establish the notability of this project, which I find to be unpersuasive. However, note that this article may be retained, even in the absence of citations of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish the project's notability, if it is reasonably believed that such sources exist. John254 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the previous sources provided were republications of the same press release, [43] and [44] clearly constitute original (and significant) coverage in third-party reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of this project's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Thanks, John254, for finding those sources. My main concern was that press releases alone cannot be enough to keep an article. The third party sources do a much better job explaining what Coconut is supposed to do, even the one I read translated by Google. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; default to keep. - Philippe 04:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edupunk[edit]

neologisms- started in May 2008. One Acceptable referece with all others being Blogs or MySpace - No Google News hits. As one reviewer stated "...This is not a organised collection of ideas, almost everyone who talks about the subject has a different idea of what it is. Even the poster boy contradicts what Edupunk is in the talk page of the article. This appears to be a group of educators using wikipedia to launch a new website." I agree. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a one-month old term, it has already appeared on The Guardian and on the The Chronicle of Higher Education, and its popularity is growing fastly among educators. It's been commented upon by people notable on the education field like Stephen Downes and it has already made its way into educator blogs on other languages, with a lots of ::education blogs on spanish making echo of it like this one, russian, or this one in norwegian (I think) There are all reasons to believe that in a very near future it will have become more than notable enough for an article. (note: I have been very involved with editing this article, so my view can be a bit biased) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am an advocate of having articles that have established Notability. However, aren’t we using Crystal Ball with regards to this one. Even you state “…reasons to believe that in a very near future it will have become more than notable’’, and at that time I will whole heartily endorse. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts called extrapolation of future growth by looking at the growth it has substained until now. Also, the mission statement at meta says that we are here to, among other things, develop educational content, so we should be a bit more lenient with educational stuff. And one more item more, and that would be the last one: if the term for some reason stops growing and decays, then it's trivial to merge it into some educational article as a subsection and leave this article as a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a mathematical term, I am very familiar with extrapolation. And even in the definition of extrapolation it states “…constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points… and are subject to greater uncertainty.” And that is just my point, Crystal Ball. I believe Wikipedia guidelines on Notability are pretty well defined and sorry to say, at this point in time, Edupunk does not even closely meet the standards. With regards to leniency, if exceptions are made to policy and guidelines, why have them to begin with. Every submission can use the same claim “… it may not be Notable yet, but it may be one day.” Finally to your last point, and I am paraphrasing, if it is a neologisms, which I believe it is, “…then it's trivial to merge it into some educational article”. Why not merge it now? However, I believe you have a problem there too. What article would it fit into and be accepted by? Hope this helps explain my reasoning behind the nomination. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the term was made vague and then kept vague on purpose, so I have no idea of where to fit it (if I can think of somewhere then I'll mention it here). I am convinced, however, that there was a lot of discontent educators that have seen on this term a worthy flag to rally together around it and go against some perceived enemy that is causing some unspecified degradation on the educational system, and this is what is causing the term to go up so fastly. And that's what keeps it on the top of the wave, a lot of people that have been discontent for a long time and will keep being so for a long time while they fight the cause of their discontent. And that people is feeling identified with the term, and will keep it alive as long as they are discontent (heck, there was one educator comparing its rise with that of the term web 2.0, where uncontent web designers all over the internets rallied all together for this very vague term due to its thirst of new paradigms on the web design) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National School Boards Association's blog, it appears that one of the keynote speakers on their T+L conference this October will be talking of Edupunk. Not a bad endorsement for a term that at that time was 11 days old :D I will be damned if does not indicate a lot of potential for the term. There is a difference between peering into a crystal ball and the damned term poping up accross so many online sources of the educational world in such a short time. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, above I wanted to mean that the term had been posted about by Stephen_Downes, the article defines him as "a designer and theorist in the fields of online learning and new media.". I had incorrectly linked to a red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This neologism has received some coverage by reliable sources[45][46],however, the coverage of it hasn't been significant enough. If all the information in the article was sourced by reliable sources, then pretty much all you would have in the article is a definition, and that would go against the first of the 5 Pillars, and WP:NOT. Also, the definition would be rather vague.--SJP (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has two reliable sources as noted by SJP, not one as Shoesss stated (the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Guardian). I would also argue that Stephen Downes should be a reliable source, even when he is publishing on his blog or newsletter rather than in a journal. According to the policy, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Perhaps I'm simply unclear on the policy, but shouldn't someone who has had a book and numerous articles published, in addition to serving as the editor for a journal in the field, be considered an "established expert"? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Stephen Downes can be considered reliable or not. Even though I've been here for well over a year, but in the past I've just fought vandalism, so I'm a newbie when it comes to anything relating to article writing. My issue here is not with the sources. I'm actually fine with the quality of the sources. They're pretty clearly reliable. The thing I have an issue with is that from the sources you can pretty much only get a definition, and the definition, I think, would be pretty vague. No matter what we do this article will always be a violation of policy. Now it is a violation of WP:OR, and if we made it so its not a violation of that policy, it would become a violation of WP:NOT.--SJP (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned of this discussion on the three wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article: Wikiproject Education, Wikipedia Technology and Wikiproject Sociology. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. Rufus Pennington III[edit]

Not-notable lawyer; there are hundreds of lawyers involved in the Guantanamo cases, and the references consist of trivial mentions. Brianyoumans (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't Groucho Marx play this character in 'Duck Soup'? Nick mallory (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person clearly isn't notable enough to have a article here. I did a google search on his name, and looked through the first 10 pages of the results. There was just about no reliable sources, and the reliable sources that I can think of didn't really provide biographical information. Also he hasn't taken part in any well known court cases, or represented anyone famous.--SJP (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are problems with the article, definitely (it doesn't name the captive, for example) - but I think cleanup is more in order than deletion. It's not a case of vanity press, and I see a bona fide newspaper or two in the references; as well as repeated mention by Universities and other venues where he is speaking. My bar of notability is essentially met by the fact "students who see that Pennington is going to be speaking at their convocation, or newspaper readers who see an article about his upcoming appearance, should be able to turn to WP to find out exactly who this guy is. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wish you were right Sherurcij:-) I don't like the idea of deleting something someone put time and effort into. Also, I believe wikipedia should cover a wide range of topics, and we aren't a paper encyclopedia, so that's possible, but I still believe articles need to have some notability. If the most notable thing you have done is speak in some UU church, or appear once in a college newspaper, then I don't consider you notable enough to have an article.--SJP (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep via WP:POTENTIAL. If someone expands the article and adds in more sources, it will be a suitable article --Numyht (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe we shouldn't look at the current state of the article, and base our conclusion off of that, but instead look at the potential an article has. I try to look at the potential of an article, this is an example of me doing that, but I see no potential in this one. I did a search on this guy, and have viewed 300 links thus far, and I have seen nothing that indicates notability so far.--SJP (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The only potential here is that the case he is on ultimately returns something significant from a legal standpoint. Maybe this case will. But any assumption on that would be serious crystal balling. There is no legal commentary that he has pursued anything in this case that dozens of other lawyers aren't also doing. They aren't all notable. A couple of the references are sort of useless. Any idiot can sign up for the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association. Any idiot with a law degree can volunteer his services to detainees. Doesn't really make him special. A single speech on the issue in a church? Big deal. Montco (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholeheartedly agree with everything said by Montco except for the "weak" preface. Not everyone involved with a notable project deserves a whole Wikipedia article to themselves. This person has fallen way short of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required by wp:bio.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I question whether the number of other lawyers who volunteered should preclude covering Pennington. There are lots of categories of individuals with hundreds, or thousands of examples.

Montco is absolutely incorrect in his or her comment that "any idiot" can volunteer to serve to help a Guantanamo captive. The volunteers have to go through extensive security check -- this can take over a year. They have to sign an undertaking not to reveal any secrets they learn, to the public, or to their clients. And they have to post a substantial bond.

Regarding the concern over "significant coverage in reliable sources" -- why doesn't this reference satisfy that requirement? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. L. Martin[edit]

No Sourced assertion of notability & those made unsourced are dubious. ref taggeg for over a year Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find very little on this person outside the UMARA site, which may be his. Some of the claims, like the 1988 Coors Man of the Year, I have been unable to verify online. He may well exist and have some notability, but lacking any good third-party articles, how much is uncertain. Unless someone can find a good biographical article that doesn't just repeat the info here, I say out. Brianyoumans (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this, which is a reliable website that proves much of whats in this article. This article doesn't speak of the awards the wikipedia article says he has received, but it does say he was named an honorary citizen of a city where over 1 million people live. I'm pretty confident reliable sources that give more information can be found.--SJP (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still like to see an article in a reliable publication. If this guy has founded 40 schools, he should be profiled somewhere. It may well be that he has been, and the article is just hard to find because his name is so common and hard to google.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have done some more extensive research on this guy. It is clear that the basic story is true - see this article in a local newspaper, for instance. He hasn't personally founded 40 schools, but it is possible that, running a studio for many years, his students have (although I could find only one or two examples). He does seem to be the American head of something called "Tang Sho Dau" (see here), but I have no idea how significant that is. He was recognized by Inside Kung Fu magazine in 2000 - see this pdf of a recent issue. Does this add up to notability? I'm not sure yet, but I'm closer to keep. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims in the article would seem to add up to notability, if true; the problem is sourcing them. Having searched around, I've found a little more coverage of him - e.g., this profile from the United States Kuo Shu Federation - which backs it up. It's tricky to judge this one due to the somewhat sparse coverage, but I'm convinced the article is not a hoax, and in that case I think he passes the notability test. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Secrets[edit]

"Short cuts to playing the piano well". Ie. how-to guide (and not a very good one). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced original research and how-to guide. --DAJF (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; rather ropey how-to-guide at best. Also I'm slightly disappointed having read the article's title; I thought it would be about why my piano keeps coming home late at night smelling of cheap perfume. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a how-to guide. TN‑X-Man 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a how to --T-rex 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of not only WP:NOT, but it also violates the 5 Pillars, which define the character of this project. WP:NOT says wikipedia isn't an instruction manual, and the 5 Pillars say wikipedia is an encyclopedia.--SJP (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Is it generally a pathetic excuse of a article --Numyht (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Adventure[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This game lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications and I believe it should be deleted on those grounds. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just Googled "Castle Adventure" and found a rather large number of sites that provided coverage by a reliable third party. Every site out there dedicated to classic games of that era, seems to list it. It is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally find such articles useful. I'm partial to the formal documentation of early computing, including obscure games (by the size of today's markets, almost all early games would be obscure). By their nature, these items are seldom covered by third party publications that are currently online (note, there's a lot of stuff still in paper that likely did mention games such as these). -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument implies WP:USEFUL -- if there is no reliable third party publications written on this subject, we simply cannot cover it. JBsupreme (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you bother to Google? There are plenty of third party publications written on this. It was a major game back in those days. Gamespy has an article on it, as do other major gaming sites, well recognized as valid sources. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=+gamespy&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images There are 1900 sites returned when I used Google to search just the English Wikipedia for the word "Gamespy". Looking over that, you will find it is used as a reference and quoted from quite frequently in many articles. Dream Focus (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your link does not work. Rather than direct people to a useless Google search, please cite any relevant non-trivial publications about this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Er, if we're not obligated to check what can be done with the article in addition to what has been done before deeming it deletable, doesn't that lead to nuking substantial portions of the encyclopedia with each major change of standards? --Kiz o r 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is article describes a game classic which is part of the computer gaming history. Btw.: When will this deletion madness come to an end. Deleting articles is like throwing the work of many people away for no reason. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedy. It is not necessary to save paper. Instead adding a notability value to every page could be helpful to destinguish between more or less important articles. Zron (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quatermaster, Zron. Xihr (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If verifible, reliable third-party sources can be found as claimed. It should be kept. One can also claim notability by way of assuming that this is part of early computing/computer programming history. Then, it just needs to be cleaned up. MuZemike (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a classic game and the computer game history would not be complete without it. The were links to several reliable third-party sources in the External links section of the article but they were removed (maybe to prepare the deletion of the article):
- The Key to the Castle — a Castle Adventure fansite
- Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 27 at MobyGames
- Castle Adventure — a modern clone
- Castle - a modernized open source version written in Seed7

The attemt to remove one of this links is discussed at Talk:Castle_Adventure. BTW I think that Zron's idea of adding some notability value to every page is good. That concept could replace Afd discussions by discussions to raise or lower the notability value of a page. Non notable pages (which might be seen as notable by a minority) could still be there and the notability value would be displayed somewhere outside the article. Georg Peter (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I used to play it in the 80s. I can confirm that it existed at that time and it is certainly not a hoax. Later, maybe in the 90s, I looked for the souce code of the program, but I was not able to find it. Now it seems that some people rewrote it (or rewrote modified versions of it) from scratch. Good. Raise exception (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) — Raise exception (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability and provide the materials to write an encyclopedia article. Home of the Underdogs is a very weak source, being an abandonware site, yet is the best of all the mentions I can find. None of the above sources are appropriate for referencing or providing reliable material. The only GameSpy reference I've found so far is this, which is not GameSpy, it's a personal website hosted on the classic gaming network. Games of historical importance are covered in the multitude of books published about videogames, meaning they'd never be permastubs and notability would be demonstrable. I'd be happy to switch to keep if some of these abundant reliable sources which supposedly exist are demonstrated. Someone another 13:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Someoneanother, Home of the Underdogs is not a great source of notability, and the review barely touches into critical coverage. Other than that, no non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Castle Adventure fanside is IMHO a reliable source. I also think that the other links like "Home of the Underdogs" are reliable sources. There are lots and lots of mentions of this game in the internet. The people voting to delete, may be too young to know about this game. I have also a critic point to the whole Afd process: It is said that the process should establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors. How can there be a consensus, if a majority is aggainst something. I have seen deleted articles, where a big majority voted for keep and where the keep arguments also had a majority, and they all were ignored. I am sure there is also the silent majority which is not interested in deleting information. There is IMHO a small minority which pushes deletions. Over the time new reasons like importance have been invented to account for deletions. BTW.: I consider adding markers like "few or no other edits outside this topic" as some form of racism. Hans Bauer (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith with those who are !voting "delete" - the article has legitimate issues it must address if the topic is to assert any notability. Do not attempt to snub us by claiming we're "too young" or by citing other AfDs, as they're not valid arguments. And that site you've provided is a fansite - please look at WP:RS. Anyhow, adding the marker "few or no other edits outside this topic" is part of the fact that editing to Wikipedia is transparent - it is not racism, it is fact. It's not racist to say that African Americans tend to graduate from high school in the United States less than whites, as it's a fact (depends on the context naturally, but that's not relevant here). Same principle here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Experience of the game irrelevant in determining the quality and scope of the supporting sources. Wikipedia is not about self-appointed experts writing original research from their own experiences, instead we use reliable sources. I owned and played this game a long time ago, that has nothing to do with my standpoint which is about the suitability of the game for an article. The fansite is just that, unless it can be demonstrated that the writer is a more authorative source than the next guy on this subject, it offers nothing which can be used to cite an article with. Someone another 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability isn't a subjective judgment of how much we appreciate an article. It's a matter of having multiple, reliable secondary resources that are independent of the subject. We are simply not allowed to write articles based on self-published fan sites or original observations. Here are a few reliable sources that deal with Castle Adventure, including Moby Games, GameSpot, and GameSpy. The coverage is weak, however. But I've seen enough just on google to convince me that there is some information on this game in an older gaming publication. Anyone have some old gaming magazines, or a specialty book about text games? Randomran (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was advertised in many magazines in the 1980's as an adventure game (google book results). The subject is notable because it gained popularity when Keypunch Software controversially and illegally published the game a few years later, becoming one of the most popular non-commercial games of the 80's (1, 2). It was a very early example of shareware (1). Care should be taken with any google search to include "Kevin Bales" as there are several Castle Adventure products. A google search of "Castle Adventure" "Kevin Bales" indicates a great number of hits for something that existed well in advance of the Internet, or indeed, the Video game industry as it stands today. WP:NOTE is a guideline, and even if it wasn't, there would be a good case for breaking the rules with this article. While these sources listed above are not necessarily great for verifying the information, they would appear to support that the game was notable at the time it was released, and notability is not temporary. Any article that was notable in 1984, would still be notable now. Yes, I can accept that the notability of the sources is questionable, and that its tough to verify. But when considering deletion it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. I think that the notability of the game, if it hasn't already been established, could be if we were to read through magazines from the mid 1980's. Bear in mind that gaming media didn't exist as such back then, and this game was created by 14 year old and later stolen and illegally released by a company. This is why it received notoriety in later years. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is entirely unsourced. Per WP:BLP, "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". It follows that the entire article must be deleted and may only be recreated with reliable sources. Sandstein 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tareq Aakef[edit]

This BLP is entirely unsourced. If all the claims were sourced he would be sufficiently notable. The current content is so promotional in tone, its of little of little value, in making a proper balanced article. We can delete the content, while allowing somebody to make a proper sourced bio in the future. Rob (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO The tone of this article is inappropriate and very promotional. There isn't a reliable source to establish his notability. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search, and looked at all the links that came up, and I could find no information about him, thus notability can't be established, and this article should be deleted.--SJP (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTDIR --Numyht (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and clean-up. Googling in arabic gives far more results [47]. Much is web forum posts, etc., but newspaper coverage in [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], etc. --Soman (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camoflauge[edit]

This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of references linked to in the article and in the external links section, proving this was a real person, who sold enough albums to be noteworthy. Dream Focus (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources out there and he does seem to be notable with what I was finding. Article just needs to be cleaned up and citations/references added. --Pmedema (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per plenty of reliable sources that can be found from a quick Google search, including this. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found 2 reliable sources that give a fair amount of information about him.[53] [54] The USA Today article says "The rapper Camoflauge, whose homespun albums made him a celebrity in Savannah while flirting with greater fame" so he obviously a fairly large fan base.--SJP (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve with Inline Citations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SJP, who has made the only valid argument for inclusion thus far. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Conners[edit]

Unnotable game designer, was previously prodded but the tag was removed by an IP. The text of the only reference that is not about the games he has helped make is "There is no biography on file for this developer."[55] No articles from RS or anything else indicating notability present themselves upon a Google search. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following links... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0175192/ http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Aaron+Conners

Both of these indicate that this person is both an author and game designer. The games this person helped design are listed in Wiki and thus the person is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.203.254 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to verify that he is a notable enough person. See WP:BIO. -- Kipof (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coldplay discography --JForget 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coldplay's b-sides[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Coldplay's b-sides

CP of Coldplay article, nominate on behalf of User talk:216.221.108.50 Metagraph comment 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coldplay is the best band in the world,^(TM) but this list is entirely not needed. Alternatively, this list can be merged into Coldplay discography, but I don't see much added benefit in doing that. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography, since it's already covered there. -- I need a name (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography per above. DA PIE EATER 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing that can't be covered in the individual album articles, or the discography article --T-rex 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography, although this might be an unlikely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography. It doesn't make sense to have multiple pages that share the same purpose. In situations like that you should redirect the other one(s) to the most frequently updated one.--SJP (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Necromancer: The Secrets Of The Immortal Nicholas Flamel[edit]

(Contested PROD) Upcoming book, and not even the next book scheduled to be published in this series, that would be The Sorceress: The Secrets Of The Immortal Nicholas Flamel. Pure WP:CRYSTAL, no sources, no content. Stormie (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I look into my crystal ball I see an article about "The Necromancer: The Secrets Of The Immortal Nicholas Flamel"...and....and....POOF!!!... obliterated. --Pmedema (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not meet the listed requirements for the Category of Upcoming books. It isn't a book until you are done writing it, and you can't just say I'm working on it, check back in two years, it'll be released then. It can't even be considered a stub. Dream Focus (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Future book, fails WP:CRYSTAL. It's still 2 years away, if not more. TN‑X-Man 13:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points above, I looked for sources but can't find anything we can use. --E x p l o d i c l e_TC 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails WP:Crystal. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unsourced, still be written, two years off. As mentioned above, see WP:CRYSTAL. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although the title may need to be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Dog: How Quentin Survived the Gas Chamber to Speak for Animals on Death Row[edit]

Unnotable book that fails WP:BOOK. Contested CSD (author requested deletion, but third editor who worked on article disagrees). Failed PROD by same editor who claims "I disagree with the PROD. The book, its author and its subject have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources." This, however, is false. The subjects of the book may possibly be notable as THEY have been covered in multiple sources. The book itself has not and is not notable. Almost all of the content in the article was copied from the back of the book and other websites. The one National Geographic reference given only mentions the book in a single line, which does not constitute significant coverage. Just as every book written about presidents is not notable soley because its subject is, neither is this book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thereby satisfying WP:N. The dog survived 15 minutes in the carbon monoxide gas chamber at the St. Louis dog pound, then was adopted by Grim, who wrote the book and used the dog as a counterargument against gassing at pounds. As a result, the St. Louis pound ended the practice of gassing animals. The book has had several reviews in well known sources. The man and dog (and book) have had substantial coverage in National Geographic News. Grim and Quentin have appeared on MSNBC, Animal Planet, CBS Early Show, CBS News, CNN, Access Hollywood, and Today Show, and the magazines that they were featured in are Guideposts, People Magazine, and Forbes, according to a review at BarnesandNoble.com [56]. It seems misleading to claim that this coverage does not lend notability to the book, on the ground that it is about the man and the dog, but not about the book about the dog by the man, which he was promoting on a book tour when he gained the coverage. The coverage in the sources listed could be used to improve the article. See also Albuquerque Journal, May 11, 2005 [57] and May 1 2005 [58] , St. Louis Post Dispatch August 6, 2006 [59] , The America's Intelligence Wire, May 2, 2006 [60] , Carolina Newswire March 23 2007 [61] ,Wichita Eagle May 1, 2005 [62] , UPI NewsTrack June 5 2005 [63]and other coverage at Google News [64].Edison (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the BOOK has not. The man and dog have, not the book. Also, repeating the copyvio statements that were removed from teh article here does not make them any less copyvio. They were copied from the back of the book with no actual sources to show it was the book, and not the man and dog, that were the focus of the appearances. The book itself is not notable. The notability of the man and/or dog is another whole issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news stories I have added are about the book. The dog itself is not notable if not the subject of the book. The author might be notable independently of the book. A list of TV appearances and magazine coverage does not appear to be a copyvio of the Barnes and Noble review which you removed from the article. I have randomized the order in which the appearances and magazines are listed; does that alleviate your copyvio worries? Edison (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomizing it doesn't make it any less copied nearly word for word from the back of the book. And no, all of those news stories are not about the book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe links are there to be clicked on and read. I see discussion of the book, or of the fact that the coverage is of a book tour, which is about the book. Additional coverage per Google News has too much of the story behind paywall to be sure it is about the book and not primarily about the author. Edison (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Link #19 above clearly shows many news articles where the book is referenced in the title of the story.--Michael White^T·C 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you meant link 9? Checking the stories themselves, not just the title, shows that most are again primarily about the man, with the book mentioned in passing, not primarily about the book. -- Collectonian (talk contribs) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnother view is that if the article says Mr. Grim and the dog are on a book tour, describes the book, then talks about their experiences which are related in the book, then the article counts toward notability of the book. The interview is about the subjects of the book, but also covers the content of the book. Edison (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Edison's observation. — Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But plagiarism issue might need to be addressed (and I'm not sure that has happened). -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claimed plaigarism or copyvio is a list of 12 or so magazine articles and TV appearances in the Barnes and Noble website, apparently copied by them from the book jacket. Is a list of things copyrightable? How about if paraphrased or rearranged? In any event the list could lead to useful content for improving the article, and tends to support notability. Edison (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is because it isn't just a list, but also the phrasing. Rearranging it doesn't eliminate that, particularly when the list is NOT useful as it has no real context and no actual source. Its just a part of the book's overall blurb. You need to actually go find the REAL references for each of those appearances, check to see if the book was the majority topic, and then it can be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little here to show the book is notable. On the other hand, these references would be a good start for an article on the person. So maybe my opinion is really Redirect to not yet written article? gnfnrf (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The incident is notable, not the book. ~~I don't understand why someone would create an article about a book before there's an article about the book's subject.~~ --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I'm a newbie that didn't get an adopter until yesterday. Schuym1 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit too negative there. I sincerely hope that this discussion doesn't dissuade you from contributing to Wikipedia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't stop me from contributing. Schuym1 (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]

I'm confused. Does this other AfD have anything to do with this? What are the Miracle dogs? Where am i? No, wait. But really, are they related? Protonk (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miracle Dogs is a movie (I believe from Animal Planet) about "magic" dogs that cure diseases. Miracle Dogs Too is the sequel. The only relation in the articles is that they were all made by the same editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Ah. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite and rename If not other article exists about this incident. If one does, then merge. The incident seems notable, the book doesn't. It was a good faith creation of a page about the book--the user creating it didn't know the rules about notability (I'm assuming). So let's make the article about the dog and the euthanasia shelters (or kill shelters, but that's probably POV). Protonk (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease provide a link to the policy or guideline which which says there must be an article about the subject or subjects of a book before there is an article about the book. Has this been the general practice in Wikipedia up to this date? I expect there have been many notable books about somewhat less notable subjects. One example is In cold blood with the article created 3 April 2003 [65] about the murder of a farmer and his family (none of whom have articles) by two criminals, whose own articles were created 25 March 2006 [66] and [67]. The author, Truman Capote, had his article created before the book article, on 8 December 2002. Consider another true crime story, The Onion Field. The article about the book was created 9 May 2005 [68]. There is no article about the killers or the victims. The book's author had an article created earlier, 20 May 2004 [69]. How many examples would you like of book article which lack subject articles, or whose subjects had articles created long after the book articles? I think it will be found that book article without or before subject article is common in animal books or crime books. If the consensus is to delete the article about this book, then whatever notability accrues from the numerous articles about the dog/man/book should probably be directed toward creating an article about the author. Edison (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X's For Eyes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/X's For Eyes

Non notable subect per WP:N Mfield (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC per news and ghits. Just trivial mentions on various non-notable websites - download sites, garageband.com, myspace, and youtube. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Milonica (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - User:Denim069, who created the page, just blanked it in spite of the template. Mfield (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose "Opening for big name acts" is an assertion of notability, and so the article is not speediable under A7. But otherwise no notability is demonstrated. Author blanking the page can possibly be taken as a deletion request under CSD G7, if one were so inclined. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via [WP:N] Possible Hoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's not a hoax, but it is lacking in any sources to establish notability. I've searched for media mentions and have come up empty. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. What initially appeared to be an assertion of importance was not; Moore is the only artist of the genre, so he cannot qualify under WP:MUSIC as the most important artist of a notable genre. Accordingly, there are no assertions of importance in the article, and criterion A7 applies. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Moore[edit]

Non-notable music performer; article's assertions of notability are not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No evidence of notability. No sources. Reads like a puff piece, which it probably is. Reyk _YO! 04:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Notability not even close to being shown. Reads like a news release, probably a copy-and-paste. No sources at all, utterly fails WP:MUSIC. (I tagged this for speedy, which was declined.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Single release dates, as released by sources other than (and sometimes even) the artist are notoriously unreliable. Folks, the word won't end if we don't get the article up until the song is out.... - Philippe 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)[edit]

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, and (so far) WP:NM. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Rolling Stone's report. The song will hit radio stations by September, prior to the album's release in November. --Efe (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that does is verify it. Wait until there are more sources; the song is still a long ways away in chart terms. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but deletion is not the ultimate choice. --Efe (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Rolling Stone anticipates release and when it will actually be released are different. We cannot trust Lohan's reliability until it is actually released. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Not a fan of single song entries, but it appears they are rather ubiquitous herein so singling out this one doesn't fan any outrage in me one way or the other. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Rolling Stone source is pretty straight forward about this. --T-rex 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Rolling Stone anticipates release and when it will actually be released are different. We cannot trust Lohan's reliability until it is actually released. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can trust Rolling Stone. Furthermore I don't think there is any question over Lohan's reliability either. The fact that a trusted verifiable source means that this is a clear keep via WP:CBALL --T-rex 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Spirit In the Dark. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination appears to have been made in bad faith as some sort of vendetta against Lindsay Lohan. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as it is supported by a verifiable source. Speculating that the single will not be released does violate WP:CRYSTAL since such speculation appear to stem from mere prejudice and not any verifiable source.--Bardin (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your mindreading skills are off today, Bardin. I have no vendetta against Lindsay Lohan, despite your brazen, bad faith, POV assumptions. I think she's a great actress and singer and own several of her films and songs. But the article does, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. So let me suggest you examine your own biases here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I do not listen to Lindsay Lohan. I'm a fan of heavy metal music - as my edits on wikipedia can testify - and as a general rule of thumb, metal fans tend not to listen to Lohan's music. So despite your suggestion, I have no bias to speak of. You are the one that raised the issue of Lohan's reliability or lack thereof, an issue that has absolutely no relevance to any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines. There is a reliable source verifying the information here and yet you dare question a source such as the Rolling Stones based on ... what? Your subjective perception of Lohan's reliability based on her past behavior? I'm sorry but I fail to see how that rationale is anything other than mere prejudice. Apparently, I'm not the only person here who thinks so either. By all means correct me if you can by pointing out the wikipedia policy or guideline that indicates how such a subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. --Bardin (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously. They're judging Ms. Lohan. --Efe (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as much as you're judging us. See my comments above to Bardin. They apply to you as much or more. Please keep your comments focused on the issues, not the contributors. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But, do not be subjective. --Efe (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to justify inclusion of a single. There isn't anything to say about this song except the title, because it hasn't come out, so there isn't any charting, sales, or critical reception.
Kww (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Usually singles article are made and there is no reliable source for its upcoming existance. This time we have a good source that it will be released and we are burning? Madness. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A very recognizable singer and actress. The single has been confirmed by MTV, Rolling Stone, and Perez Hilton. -DrewMaverick (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to relative album. Most (or all for that matter) of the "keep votes" aren't aware of the policy on Wikipedia for songs and music singles (at WP:MUSIC#Songs) that states that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song hasn't charted anywhere, won any awards or been performed by several artists. And per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't assume this will simply happen. Just because Lohan is a notable artist the song doesn't automatically inherit notability. And having a single article as the foundation of an article is simply ridiculous. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 06:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion, one that is based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from a nominator's rationale. I note though that the same policy you cite further states that a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Given the artist in question is overwhelmingly mainstream (perhaps too much so), I find it hard to believe that the article is unlikely to grow beyond the stub that it currently is. There is, incidentally, nothing wrong with stubs and many good articles started off that very way. I believe most mainstream artists here on wikipedia have individual articles for each of their singles even when they have not charted, won awards or been covered by other artists. The reason, of course, being that there's still enough information to create an article around such issues as the critical reception, production details, the accompanying music video and so forth. When a single gets coverage from a mainstream publication like the Rolling Stone even before it is officially released, I would expect that even more coverage will be forthcoming when it is released. In any case, if this article had been nominated for deletion along your line, I honestly would not have bothered taking part in the AFD. It does not bother me in the least bit if this article gets deleted, only to reappear as it undoubtedly will if or when the single gets released. After all, I'm not a fan of the artist. I'm merely interested in expressing my objection to the nominator's ground for deletion as it does not appear to have been made in accordance with any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines but rather a personal prejudice against the artist and the perceived absence of reliability on her part. -Bardin (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who might be interested in my responses to Bardin's false accusations of bias, prejudice, and bad faith, see the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit In the Dark. Ward3001 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your assumptions fail WP:CRYSTAL, as I just explained above. And User:Ward3001's rationale for deletion is perfectly fine in my view as it is congruent with mine; we both said that this fails the same policies. In addition I explained why, since it seemed that most people wouldn't bother reading the policies before going "I like", "it surely will chart" or "It's Lindsay Lohan, therefore the song is notable". As for User:Ward3001's bad faith, what makes you assume that? Just a simple legitimate Afd??? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradiso project[edit]

I can't understand the bureaucratic gobbledygook in this article, it seems that this project "aims at identifying strategic research directions on network and service ICT infrastructures in the hypothesis of the disruptive paradigm concerning global societal developments". Google, News, Books, and Scholar searches gets some false returns, but searching for the term "paradiso project" gets nothing in the way of evidence for notability of this project. It was prodded (by me) and recreated, and the speedy tag applied by another user was removed by the creator. Can anybody figure out what this project actually does, and/or provide some reliable sources? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of this document. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done as per WP:CSD#G12: blatant copyright infringement. — Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling Interest (board game)[edit]

This game's notability doesn't appear to be obvious, at least not in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Johnnie ong, the original author, has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from this page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, a whopping three Google hits for "Controlling Interest" + "Leisure Life" and that isn't much. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Failure to demonstrate any notability of the game and lack of reliable sources. I see a leveraged buyout of this article title coming from Redlinks. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liquidate, no attribution of notability to independent sources. It may have been around since 1972, but Acquire has been around since 1962 and only board game geeks tend to have heard of it. Acquire, however, is demonstrably notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily gone, copyvio as tagged.. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin Hawkins[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exists [70] but nn. JJL (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyright violation of his IMDB bio page [71]. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 references in the article are what are saving this from WP:CRYSTAL. Iff this album is never released, (highly unlikely), then it can be renominated at that time. Consensus right now is to keep. I am also renaming this to Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album), and I'm renaming the Franklin album to [[Spirit in the Dark (Aretha Franklin album}]]. Spirit in the Dark will now be a disambiguation page. All of these changes can of course be removed/reverted if the Lohan album never goes beyond the (sourced, reliable) speculative stage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit In the Dark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Spirit In the Dark

Housekeeping note I didn't mess with the title to avoid screwing up the AFD, but there is a perfectly notable Aretha Franklin article at Spirit in the Dark, the correct capitalization for this thing. Whatever happens to the Lindsay Lohan article, Spirit In the Dark should be a redirect to Spirit in the Dark, and, if kept, the Lohan article should get a name like Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). I certainly hope that no one will claim that Lindsay Lohan should take priority over Aretha Franklin.
Kww (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, and (so far) WP:NM. Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tnxman --Numyht (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the Rolling Stone source. Not everything that is in the future is violative of WP:CRYSTAL. Crystal applies to unverifiable speculation, which this isn't. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not just apply to "unverifiable speculation". An example of when it would not apply would be a statement that Barack Obama will be nominated for President of the USA. That's a certainty barring any disastrous events. But there are a number of cases of films or albums being "in the can" but delayed signicantly for various reasons, not the least of which is unreliability of the principal players. WP:CRYSTAL stipulates that an event must be "almost certain to take place". Lohan's past behavior raises serious doubts that release of the album is almost certain any time soon. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are judging Lohan's behavior. Its your point of view. --Efe (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it is anyone's point of view as to how reliable she is. Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything that suggests release of the album any time soon is "almost certain". WP:CRYSTAL applies. Ward3001 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to concur with your assessment of Lohan's reliability, but the Rolling Stone article makes it seem like the album is completed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't. It just says the album is scheduled for release in November. Ward3001 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Release" and "Complete" are two different things. Lohan's reliability, or lack thereof, effects the "completed" part of the album far more then it effects the "released" part of the album. But even assuming that the release of the album is not 100%, Crystal still doesn't apply. Crystal concerns only unverifiable speculation. Speculation that is verifiable does not come under WP:CRYSTAL. The level of certainty of the future release has little to do with a WP:CRYSTAL analysis. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (and with all due respect), but Crystal does not just apply to unverifiable speculation. It applies to degree of uncertainty. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground (Lindsay Lohan song).

--Efe (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination appears to have been made in bad faith as some sort of vendetta against Lindsay Lohan. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as it is supported by a verifiable source. Speculating that the album will not be released does violate WP:CRYSTAL since such speculation appear to stem from mere prejudice and not any verifiable source.--Bardin (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your mindreading skills are off today, Bardin. I have no vendetta against Lindsay Lohan, despite your brazen, bad faith, POV assumptions. I think she's a great actress and singer and own several of her films and songs. But the article does, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. So let me suggest you examine your own biases here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I do not listen to Lindsay Lohan. I'm a fan of heavy metal music - as my edits on wikipedia can testify - and as a general rule of thumb, metal fans tend not to listen to Lohan's music. So despite your suggestion, I have no bias to speak of. You are the one that raised the issue of Lohan's reliability or lack thereof, an issue that has absolutely no relevance to any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines. There is a reliable source verifying the information here and yet you dare question a source such as the Rolling Stones based on ... what? Your subjective perception of Lohan's reliability based on her past behavior? I'm sorry but I fail to see how that rationale is anything other than mere prejudice. Apparently, I'm not the only person here who thinks so either. By all means correct me if you can by pointing out the wikipedia policy or guideline that indicates how such a subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. --Bardin (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "verifiable source" does not present a case that release of the album is "almost certain". That's more than "valid ground to argue for deletion". Your "keep" argument is based on your subjective inferences that take a giant leap from the RS article stating that it's scheduled for release to your conclusion that it is almost certain to be released. And regardless of whether you listen to metal or I listen to Lohan or someone else listens to opera, Lohan's reliability is a relevant issue to the question of "almost certain" and does not inherently reflect any bias. And how do you propose that anyone evaluate her reliability other than from her past behavior? Maybe you've come up with a way to determine reliability by looking into the future, but I'm afraid I don't trust your clairvoyant skills any more than I do your mindreading skills. I'll stick with past behavior. Ward3001 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to point out where in all of wikipedia's many policies and guidelines is there any indication that the subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. Unsurprisingly, you have not been able to point out such a policy or guideline. You can reiterate over and over again that your perception of her reliability is somehow and bizarrely relevant but repetition is simply not convincing. --Bardin (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as the verifiable source is concern, there is no doubt expressed in the rather definite sentence "the song is due to hit radio in September, which will be followed by the album’s release in November." The only doubt that exist is in your own mind. --Bardin (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be "no doubt" in RS's sentence that RS has been told that the album is scheduled for release in September, but that is far from a convincing argument that it is almost certain to be released. When Harry Truman was elected President of the USA major newspapers reported that his opponent won, but that didn't make it almost certain. The fact that a source is "verifiable" (i.e., others can read it) does not make the information given to that source factual or "almost certain".Ward3001 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a policy or guideline about my "subjective and personal perception" about Lohan's reliability any more than you need one that what Rolling Stone has been told and what, in fact, will happen are "almost certain" to be the same. You judge what Lohan's handlers is telling RS to be "almost certain". I disagree. I judge Lohan's reliability to be questionable. You disagree. That's why we're having this discussion, to determine the will of the Wikipedia community. Discussion is appropriate. Trying to bulldoze your opinion by slinging around false accusations of bad faith is not. Express your opinion on the issue. Don't accuse an editor of bad faith because he disagrees with your opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously. They're judging Ms. Lohan. --Efe (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as much as you're judging us. See my comments above to Bardin. They apply to you as much or more. Please keep your comments focused on the issues, not the contributors. Ward3001 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But, do not be subjective. --Efe (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Title is in a reliable source, but nothing else is. Not enough to build an article on.
Kww (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an article about an album. Why should it be deleted? How is this any different from the articles about her other albums? Sure the article barely has anything in it, but as time progress, more info will be added.

You all are just saying to delete ths article because you don't like Lindsay, but you wouldn't be saying delete if this was about an artist you like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JYoung3 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Keep. Seems enough reliable information that it is worth keeping. But definite rename. No source citing this as the title, and even if there were, it would need to be disambiguated. Even official myspace refers to album as "New album coming this Fall". Also, now that a single has finally been released it would seem pointless to delete only to recreate in a matter of weeks when everyone is happy there is enough info. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without a tracklisting and a release date, this fails WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NESCafe[edit]

Contested prod (which was actually placed inappropriately). Article has been tagged since May 2007 for sourcing and cleanup. Article does not have reliable sources which assert notability of the subject. A similar article describing vNES has been deleted for similar rationales. That is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but a suggestion that editors may find persuasive argument for or against the deletion there. Protonk (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a Google Search indicated the topic is listed on alot of emulator websites, and well used, having it listed on the List of NES emulators page would appear to be the appropriate level of inclusion. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to establish notability as noted in the nom. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is already listed in the List of NES emulators. Otherwise, it lacks notability. MuZemike (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of NES emulators per WP:N --Numyht (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty City Neighborhoods in Grand Theft Auto IV[edit]

No references whatsoever; does not appear to be notable for Wikipedia. Article is simply a list of the neighborhoods in the fictional city which are already listed in Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto). –Dream out loud (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information already covered elsewhere. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Already covered. Also, page looks like it was designed skeletally, like an unfinished gameguide. MuZemike (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Better covered in Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) --T-rex 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transiwiki'd over to StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto IV/Broker (will later be split up). -- Prod (Talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Oo7565 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Blutonium Boy[edit]

No assertion of notability. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy on the assertion of notability, specifically Each of Adamiaks last 12 hardstyle compilations (Blutonium Presents Hardstyle under EMI Music) reached the top 20 of the German Media Control Charts. The following discussion took place on my talk page. There are some minimal sources available but I confess to a lack of understanding of DJs vis-a-vis WP:MUSIC. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will go Cari one better - I am the lad who nominated the article for Speedy Delete in the first place! That was not one of my better calls, as the notability of the subject is confirmable. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Blutonium Boy is notable, he has the leading role of hardstyle in Germany with his label Blutonium Records. That label has over 100 releases, in hardstyle music, that is impressive. You can compare other labels on Discogs. It is strange to search for reliable sources (according to Wikipedia), because if I search Blutonium Boy I get this and when I search hardstyle the first hit is EastWest to Distribute Three New Best Service Titles which includes Blutonium Boy. It is strange however how Wikipedia does not have a policy for something that is hardly in "reliable" sources but thousands of people enjoy every weekend. Mallerd (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that a nomination for deletion by WikiKingOfMishawaka feels something like payback. Wikipedia should change something in their policies. Mallerd (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article needs to to cite a news article from a good source. BBC news ect. If this can be done soon it should be a keep. If not a delete harris 578 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why Andrew Townsend is kept then. BBC and newspapers etc rarely write about djs in general. Only performances by Tiësto was on the news in the Netherlands, even though in the Netherlands the scene is the biggest in all of Europe with Q-Dance and ID&T. Wikipedia must change something because these policies mean that only 1-2 djs are notable. That's nonsense. Mallerd (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only decide on the cases that are put on the AFD board. The Andrew Townsend article has got a link to a news article at [[72]] If Andrew Townsend gets put on here for deletion we will decide on its own merits. harris 578 (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between the sources provided at Andrew Townsend and Blutonium Boy, both have news references, both have myspace, both have myDJlist. News from Blutonium are Factiva (Dow Jones also mentioned?), Western Daily Press, he has his own label here. Now with the demise of Tracid Traxxx the only label which has reputation in the hardstyle scene of Europe. Please explain to me what is wrong here? I beg you Mallerd (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference on Blutonium Boy and that takes you to Blutonium website? harris 578 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added many more sources in the discussion following the nominations which support the notability. On the talkpage of the Blutonium Boy article and here are there several sources. Mallerd (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a future but needs more work. But so does everything else. harris 578 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOISE WITHIN[edit]

Band that asserts notability (WP:MUSIC #6), but does not back it up with references. Kesac (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to back up the thin assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless shown to be the subject of substantive treatment in reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is subject of "treatment" here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=94838 and here http://www.revolvermag.com/content/former-snot-prong-nothingface-members-form-new-group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblemedia (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally tagged it under CSD A7. I still fail to see any evidence that it is notable. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE complies with article a6, consists of members of notable groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.61.112 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - played their first show a week ago? --T-rex 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The deletion comments below indicate that the book is not sufficiently notable for inclusion based on a lack of substantial coverage in independent sources, a critical point that the comments in favor of keeping the article do not address. If someone would like the text for use in an established article, please leave a note on my talk page. --jonny-m t 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond intelligent design[edit]

Near-orphan article about a self-published book about intelligent design. No evidence that it has attracted significant attention. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK) for a relevant guideline. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well written article; book has attracted some attention; "near-orphan", "self-published" and "about intelligent design" are not grounds for deletion. Could possibly be re-factored as article about author with sections on publications, radio talks etc. BTW, if article stays, I think it should be moved to Beyond Intelligent Design, over re-direct, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mulder and his views might be notable, but his self-published book probably isn't. For all we know he's sold 5 copies... Brianyoumans (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preciously little information on the book itself, and no reliable secondary sources for that. Mulder probably is notable, his book isn't. Huon (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will agree that there seems to be little information to be found about the self-published book of this title by Mulder (a title it shares with several similar books and articles). Or at least, I have not come across much information about the book yet. However, when I first started this article, it was intended to be about the associated radio spots / segments. The list of stations that currently regularly play these radio segments runs to 23 pages. When I investigated, I found that there was a self-published book as well, and that the author lectured on the same topic as well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Might be relevant as a reference or source cited in article about Intelligent Design etc. Though I'm not a fan of "self-published" I don't think that is prima facie evidence against a work. It's just one factor in determining notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't matter whether it is self-published or not; what matters is whether it has been noticed by third parties. The same goes for the radio spots and lectures. Are there reviews, articles discussing it, criticism, praise, etc.? I don't see a lot of that in the article, but I suspect that it may exist. Since I haven't searched for references myself, I won't vote either way. --Itub (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to relevant ID articles. I initially considered renaming to Melvin Mulder, but a simple Google search of "Melvin Mulder" intelligent design produced barely anything that would sustain a bio. The book title of the article is clearly a coatrack device for info about ID and the author in general. There appears to be mergeable factual content, but this is not by default a keep vote in my mind, if the content is not merged within a month (if not deleted here), it should be Afd'd again with this in mind, where I would vote delete. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several external publications about the book are cited in the article, enough to establish notability.Biophys (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I wouldn't have nominated if I believed that to be true. I've examined the references and find none that would pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK) guideline. "Multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" ? Could you explain how this or any other criterion of the guideline is met? --Jenny 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climaticide[edit]

Neologism with no evidence of notability or widespread usage. Google returns ~3000 hits, all of which appear to be blogs or forums, nothing remotely like a reliable source. PROD tag removed by author, recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve the article, Climaticide, I have edited it to include additional sources, one of which is Radio France (Not a verifiable source?) and through it LE JOURNAL DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT. (Not a verifiable source?) These are both verifiable sources, which are are not blogs. I must confess to finding the prejudice against all blogs absurd and senseless in any case.

The term climaticide, although of fairly recent vintage, is being adopted at a rapid rate (a Google search yields over ten pages of links in English and French) because it fills a useful niche. Climate change and global warming are broader scientific terms that may refer to pre-human eras or phenomena caused by natural forces. When someone uses the word climaticide, on the other hand, they are clearly referring (whether they accept or reject the concept) to anthropogenic climate change and it's alleged negative consequences.

It seems to me that this specificity of meaning combined with the rapidly growing acceptance of the term in two languages justifies its inclusion in Wikipedia.

After reviewing the complaints against user: Dchall1 I suspect this attempt at deletion of being politically motivated, as the user has a history of editing/deleting articles which contain political positions with which he/she disagrees. Stevendkimball (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom. In checking it out, there may appear to be some reliable sources but I feel that it is not a notable neologism. As you say "is being adopted at a rapid rate" shows a partial violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, blogs are not a reliable source because they can be created by anyone and not verifiable. Just recently, Avril Lavigne convinced news people that she was pregnant through "reliable" blogs. The article is also very much into the relm of original research. --Pmedema (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no reliable sources for use in English, but it claims that the meanings in English and French differ. My Google search gave 126 unique hits; that's not quite widespread use. At most, a redirect to climate change seems in order, a separate article looks like a WP:FORK. Huon (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a catchy made-up word from the blogosphere. I think it will become notable, but it's not there yet. Compare it with other neologisms such as googlebomb, which are already in many published books and articles. Maybe climaticide will be there in a couple of years? --Itub (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is too much about the specific word rather than the topic and so fails WP:DICDEF. It should be redirected to Climate change. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colonel Warden until it gets at least one GoogleNews hit. No content appears in need of merging. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FAQ (Finest Available Quality)[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete This is nothing more than an advertisement for an online t-shirt company, masquerading as an article. The related FA-Q was speedied yesterday. WP:SNOW also applies. Horologium (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A load of waffle about a not specially notable phrase. Guerrilla spam for a tee shirt brand. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or maybe I should say "DOA" and add that that means "delete or annihilate"). Ridiculous article. Yes, it's got footnotes, and do you know what they're for? To show the dictionary definition for the words "finest" (defined as 'better than most of its kind'") and "available" ("Defined as 'present and ready for use'") and "quality" (refer to the Wikipedia article Quality). I agree, it is spam for a forgettable T-shirt brand. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is advertising in disguise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- advertising masquerading as a non-notable neologism masquerading as an article. Reyk _YO! 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like some marketing firm trying to make a popular internet term and make it it's own. even if it is a notable phrase (which I highly doubt) the article is barely an expanded dictionary definition with little hope of ever being expanded upon. Deathawk (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and also as the Finest Available Quality of Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha that I've seen in a while. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a spammy mess. TN‑X-Man 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the term "Finest Available Quality" comprises a different array of concepts that, when assembled, convey ideas both of progress and pursuit of excellence. Use of the phrase "pursuit of excellence" ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete written like an advertisement and/or a personal essay. Aside from a link to the website for the brand, the only sources are dictionary definitions to the words "finest" and "available" , so the creator fails to grasp the idea of reliable sources. Created by a possible single use account. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP:N It reads like a magazine article --Numyht (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is certainly no consensus to keep these articles as-is, and while there are some calls to merge the material the consensus appears to be that the subject is adequately covered at Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and that these articles do not contain anything worth merging. I do not see how a redirect is useful (they seem to be unlikely search terms) but I am ambivalent toward anyone re-creating these as redirects. Shereth 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - after a request on my talk page I've agreed to provisionally restore these as redirects pending discussion on a potential merge. Shereth 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic)[edit]

In-universe "fictional biographies" with no real world reference. ~~Merge all salvageable content to Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and delete~~ Delete, since it has no salvageable content at all. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to legal mumbo-jumbo GFDL reasons, merge and delete is not a valid outcome. If this is a merge discussion (which it appears you want), it should be held on the respective article talk pages, not at "Articles for Deletion". -- saberwyn 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delete them. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm a regular "voter" on AFD discussions and I have no idea what Saberwyn is talking about. Merging is a perfectly acceptable and frequent result. I disagree with characterizing these two articles as "in universe fictional biographies". They most certainly are not. They are, however, simply discussions of variations of the same character, and as such I agree that they could and should be merged into whichever of these 3 articles pertain to the ORIGINAL version of the character. 23skidoo (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is perfectly acceptable. Merging and deleting is not, if content is merged from an article, the article must be turned into a redirect to the target of the merge, so that its history is preserved and available. To merge content and then delete an article would mean that the author of the content would no longer be credited anywhere, violating the GFDL. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series) and Sonic the Comic respectively. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Nomination encourages merger of salvageable content. Let that go forward without a five-day AfD deadline. Townlake (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the nominator myself, there's really ain't nothing in the article that could be salvaged at all. No real-world references and citations or anything like that Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that mean the information is not capable of being cited? Others above seem to agree merger is viable. Deletion seems hasty to me under these circumstances. Townlake (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both no real life third party sources to meet notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is the major problem at heart with the vast majority of Sonic articles. Mind you, at least Sonic the Hedgehog (character) has a few third party real life sources at least! --tgheretford (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? --E x p l o d i c l e_TC 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a policy for notability for college professors based on their publication history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative of the main sonic character article. Pretty sure anyone searching for these characters would just search for 'sonic the hedgehog'... There is no salvagable content, only violations of WP:NOT#PLOT (no references either). Bridies (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stuff like this is part of what garners Wikipedia a bad reputation. JuJube (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excess, uncitable plot summary spun off from the Sonic article. Adding any of this junk to another article would only make other bad articles worse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Titular characters would at worst be redirected as valid search terms, but not deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super. We'll get right on using reliable sources like this and this and this and this to write an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can use reviews of the comics and TV show that mention the characters; I would have to think that publications focused on comics and animation would have some content concerning these characters. With any Google search of a notable topic, of course there are bound to be a bunch of fansites mixed in, but the trick is sifting through those and also keeping an open-mind to published sources that don't automatically show up on Google. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sonic the Hedgehog or one of his supporting cast stops Eggman (aided by his robots) from becoming the Emperor of the World." And then they don't talk about the characters any more.

A capsule review on a comic fansite of no particular note isn't really helping your case that there are sources with which this article can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggest looking for other types of reviews. The out of universe stuff can be referenced in reliable sources and so again, at worst could be merged and redirected without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is a list of voice actors.

You haven't yet shown a source that has two sentences about the comic or television incarnation of Sonic the Hedgehog. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The character in general (both video game and television) is sufficient to actually get a listing in a published encyclopedia, thus again, at worst we would merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence about the television incarnation of Sonic the Hedgehog, saying nothing other than that a Sonic the Hedgehog television show was made. Again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have shown references in two published reliable sources; at least sufficient for justifying a merge and redirect. Sonic is a significant character whose influence goes beyond video games is discussed in scholarly studies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where. Are. The. Sources. With. Which. We. Will. Write. An. Article? Or even an article section? Not a google search, not a vague handwave, not an article about the video games, but actual sources relevant to this article. Right now, if we were to use your sources, we could have one sentence: "Sonic the Hedgehog also appeared in a cartoon of the same name," which is already IN that article, and has no particular GFDL burden since I wrote it just now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we could also say who voiced him on the TV show, we can also note that the character has been referenced in numerous published sources, and looking through other books, we can even add information on who drew and inked the character as well, i.e. at least a few sentences. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sonic the Hedgehog also appeared in a cartoon of the same name, in which he was voiced by Jaleel White." The numerous published sources" have nothing to say beyond that anyway, and any info on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics can go...in the articles on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics!

You're grasping at straws here. You're proposing things we could add to this article so that we have to merge them to another article. There's nothing here right now worth saving, and any hypothetical thing that might be here that would be saving can simply be added to a different, more-relevant, article - a better place for the info anyway - instead of adding it here first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could "Sonic starred in a Saturday morning animated adventure from 1993 to 1995" not support the sentence that reads "Sonic the Hedgehog is a fictional character appearing in the American saturday morning cartoon Sonic the Hedgehog from 1993 to 1995"? And if you say, "any info on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics can go...in the articles on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics!" Then, that's a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic info on the comics. Since this article currently has none, instead of adding such hypothetical info here, we can simply add it to the comics articles. This article currently has no sourced, encyclopedic information that doesn't already exist in a different article. There's nothing to merge.

Moreover, you haven't proposed any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic information that would better belong in this article than in some other, more-relevant or more-general, article. This can't be saved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided actual sourced info from a published encyclopedic. There's no reason for an outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided one sentence that is about the existence of the series in which this character appears. And even if the article were deleted, I could take your link to that one sentence from this AFD anyway and add it to the article on the television series where it belongs. So there's no GFDL concern. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a GFDl concern, but also that it is a legitimate redirectable search phrase and in any event, there are interviews with those who worked on the comics and TV shows that can be used for additional out of universe context. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You linked another reference that better belongs in the Sonic X comic article, since it's about the comic as a whole and mentions Sonic only in passing. Again: you haven't proposed any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic information that would better belong in this article than in some other, more-relevant or more-general, article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've link another reference that can be used to add coverage on the creation and concept of the character in an out of universe format. That makes three reliable sources for out of universe information that provides not hypothetical, but actual sourced encyclopiedic information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's a creator of a comic describing how fans will react to the comic he's working on, since it's from an interview before the creation of the comic.

When people say "published sources", implied in that is "published sources that allow us to make some sort of useful factual claim." The creator of a Sonic comic telling us "Everyone loves Sonic the Hedgehog" in an interview promoting his upcoming Sonic comic is not a useful factual claim; it fails both the "useful" and "factual" bits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It provides out of universe context of where the creator is coming from with his expectations and impression of the character in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into splitting the thinnest of hairs. None of these sources are good sources for any sort of factual claim in an article. Sorry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are sufficient enough to justify inclusion of the material in question. I believe it would help to have additional sources as well, but they do demonstrate potential and some value at present. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I'm getting crushed against the right margin! Grutness...wha? 06:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No need for separate article. Anything special about the comic and TV version of the character is already in the appropriate article(s). No need for merge or redirect. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Article has been and is still being improved since nomination. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this edit, the improvement consists of sourcing that this character exists, and that he was voiced by Jaleel White, as well as some trivial grammar/spelling edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of that edit, the improvements consist of demonstrating coverage in multiple published sources, including even a published encyclopedia, who voiced the character (out of universe information), the writer's opinion of the character (out of universe information), as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead of Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic) and ref2 of Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic the Comic) into Sonic the Hedgehog (character). Nothing that doesn't fit elsewhere already. The rest is plot-retelling (WP:NOT#PLOT) and original research (WP:OR) against WP:UNDUE. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically all the reasons have been given, but so it's not "per nom" or such, delete as there is nothing salvageable in this article that doesn't already exist in Sonic the Hedgehog (character). This entire article is original research and excessive plot detail with no real world context. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As acknowledged by Sgeureka, I have added salvageable unorigianl research with real world context that can be merged into the other article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only Sonic The Hedgehog (character) is needed. The important info is already on the character page. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the new info? Also we don't delete valid redirects. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likelihood of people typing out a namespaced, misspelled name = low. And no, the fact that someone used this name for an article doesn't change that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I think a good deal of editors may unintentionally type in misspelled names in the search areas. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. Excessive plot content and non-encyclopedic ability descriptions. Kariteh (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As indicated above, encyclopedic material has been included that should be salvagaed in some manner; not to mention that undeniable validity of the article title as a redirect. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What validity is there for a redirect? So that someone could recreate the article with the same content? Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there is a much larger number of editors who have been working on the article in question or who come here to read them than those who have commented in this AfD suggests that it is a valid redirect and who's to say it wouldn't be recreated with better content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stormie. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without deleting content, with the redirect, so that improved articles can be easily written. Not doing the redirects implies a refusal to accept the possibility of improvement, contrary to deletion policy, by which an absolute deletion is the last resort., I think a redirect should be refused only when it can be shown to be impossible that an article can ever be written that might possibly stand. . DGG (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, if we're going to use the titles as redirects, that doesn't mean that anyone will just be allowed to recreate the content of the article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitelik[edit]

Unsourced, neologism, no real world notability. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google has nothing good to say about it either. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete._{Wiki11790 talk} 01:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is WP:MADEUP and original research. --Pmedema (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and no WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:OR. Examples seem to be shoe-horned into this article. TN‑X-Man 13:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pervious noms put personal commentary --Numyht (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayaamat Se Kayaamat Tak[edit]

Notability not established and difficult to ascertain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike Kabhi Naa Kabhie, nominated below, I can't see anything on the 9X website that confirms that this is a show broadcast on that Hindi language television network. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified stub with barely any information. No prejudice to recreation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:afd bottom}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stradbroke Island Galleon[edit]

The subject of this article is considered a load of bollocks by mainstream archaeologists. Recently Greg Jefferys has self-published a book arguing the opposite view. This article was written by Greg Jefferys, quotes him extensively, and essentially promotes his point of view, and his book. I don't think it is would be possible to rewrite the article as a neutral summary of claim and counterclaim on the topic, as it appears the only readily available sources on it are Jeffrey's self-published book, and what media coverage Jeffrey's claims have attracted. One could go digging through Queensland's archives, but I believe this would only result in a novel narrative i.e. original research. Therefore I hold that the only appropriate action is to delete this as an insufficiently notable fringe theory. Hesperian 00:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Hesperian 00:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not written by me but I obviously have added to its content once I found it was up.

Actually Greg Jefferys (me) has a degree with majors in history and archaeology from the university of Queensland and currently doing a Master's Degree in History. My self published book contains a lot of original valid historic research from reliable historic sources. Sorry if I have not referanced the article well as I am just learning my way around Wikipedia and don't have that fluency yet. The Wiki article contains contributions from Peter Gsener head of the Queensland museum's maritime archaeology Museum. I'm glad we are not in 15th century or Hesperian would probably try to have me burned at the stake for heresy. Hesperian seems to be on a vendetta of some kind, got no idea why but just because he thinks its bollocks doesn't mean a zip. I would suggest he has not read the book and knows nothing about the subject because the story of the Stradbroke Galleon has been part of Stradbroke Island's oral history traditions back to the 1880's at least and is therefore a valid subject. There is mention of the Strabdroke galleon subject on at least 40 seperate websites and discussion on the subject has appeared in numerous books and magazine articles going back to newspaper articles in the Brisbane Courier Mail in 1921. Thomas Welsby, noted Brisbane historian and founder of the Brisbane Royal Historic Society includes mention of the Stradbroke Galleon in his books on Stradbroke Island and searched for it twice.

The Queensland State Library has a file on the subject of the Strabdroke Galleon as does the University of Queensland. The Stradbroke Island Musuem also has an extensive file on the Stradbroke Island galleon. THe Queensland Underwater Archaeologoy Association has led two expeditions to search for the Stradbroke Galleon so I do not know how Hesperian can say the subject is an insufficiently notable fringe theory? Gregjay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregjay (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you need some exact references for this material in actual books and magazine articles, not written by yourself. I doubt that letters to the editor in a newspaper or websites will count for a topic like this. There is also the NOV problem--you would need to discuss also--indeed predominantly-- what I gather is the mainstream view that it is not an historic galleon.(unsigned by DGG)

Comment - a big problem here appears to be a user who cannot sign, and has limited understanding of the issues of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS and makes claims that are not relevant to what is required in the average Afd discussion - whether the evidence of others has any capacity for Hesperian to be burned at the stake is irrelevent - a good read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD could really help - rather than focussing on the nominator - and attacking a person rather than the issue. Claiming academic credentials and dropping names of those who might have considered the issue is irrelevent - it is the article and it capacity to withstand the rigors of what the nominator has pointed out above - that is under discussion Satu Suro 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I believe their might some shipwreck of unknown origin in a swamp on the island, I don't think the article belongs here. At the moment it is a fine yarn to tell, but details of the possible items discovered from the wreck are too sketchy, there is too much supposition about the wreck and speculation regarding historians motivations. If more reliable sources could confirm it's existence then an article referencing those sources could establish facts and in this case, move a possibility on the fringe to a re-write of the mainstream of Australia's discovery by Europeans. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For an article to merit inclusion it should sourced with reliable sources, among other things. I can't find any reliable sources for this article, because none of them are independent of the person who wrote this article. Also, seemingly this is not widely accepted as being true. SJP (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:RS and appears to be original research. --Pmedema (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Back in mid 2006, a retired academic from Dubrovnik wrote an article for the English Wikipedia, apparently recounting the life of C16th Dalmatian seafarer Vice Bune. The article claimed Dalmatians first explored New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands. He claimed that in the late C16th Vice Bune established a Dalmatian trading post on the Solomon Islands. And so on…

The author of the Vice Bune articles provided a number of credible looking references. Some were to inaccessable “old documents” in Dubrovnik, but there were other references to web articles. It slowly became obvious though, that the articles were ones he had written himself under different names. The same article appeared in different language versions of WP for some time, until deleted. You can see the vestage of the Vice Bune affair at [[73]] and [[74]]

These issues of credibility and authenticity can strike at the heart of the Wikipedia project. So for precisely the same reason, this article, as it stands, has no place in WP. By the way, Lawrence Fitzgerald’s Java La Grande, cited as a reference here, contains no reference to a Stradbroke Island Galleon. --Nickm57 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Nickm57 and WP:SOAP. This is clearly very dubious, and there seems to be only one person who's pushing this POV - and he wrote the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:POV One line article --Numyht (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- --Bduke (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article as it stands is a POV mess, but that in itself is not an argument for deleting. There does seem to be some indication that this legend does exist separate from Greg Jefferys. This tourist site may be one such indication. The questions are really whether the legend is notable and whether there are good sources. Then both sides of the argument could be presented and a NPOV article could emerge. A University of Quuensland page describes the legend as pseudoscience. I'm as opposed to pseudoscience as the next scientist, but pseudoscience can be notable and we can have articles on pseudoscience. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - almost all tourist web sites are highly derivative and indiscrimate with no standards of any sort for their information or sources - (so that is pseudoscience for a start, sic) - there is nothing in the article or the discussion to date suggesting that the writer or the article is actually concerned with the idea as an aspect pseudoscience - so the idea is possibly a good one but not appropriate for this afd imho - the idea of an article emerging seems odd Satu Suro 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not researched this sufficiently, but see nothing odd about the possibility that the POV stuff about Greg Jefferys' views can be edited to be both more neutral and shorter and that material describing this legend as pseudoscience, like the lecture by the UQ academic, can not be added to give a good article about a legend. It really depends on whether the legend is notable, but it does seem to have been noted. It does not matter what Greg Jefferys, as writer, is concerned about. Other editors might be able to make the article better. Note that, because I have not had the time to research this better, I am not expressing a view. I am merely wondering whether we are about to lose an article that could be a good article. People are interested in legends. --Bduke (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bduke, the reason I have nominated this is because I didn't think it possible to gather sufficient independent information even for a stub. By all means prove me wrong; if you can stub this back to something you consider accurate and balanced, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Hesperian 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My name is Alex Shipway and I was the original creator of this page. Although the way I created the page was incorrect, it was soon fixed and other users added on knowledge of their own. I believe this page, one that has history of Australias foundings, should definately be kept here for people to research and seek out the history of Australia. The argument for deletion basicaly is because their is little evidence, howevery, look at the list of cryptids page, most of these animals definately do not exist and their is no evidence for them yet they are still on wikipedia. Isnt the coin dated 1597 enough evidence? it proves the theory of date and time. In conclusion, I believe that this page should stay on wikipedia, so thta others can seek out the truth of Australia's Discovery. KGCSIG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.80 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so this should be read by interested parties imho - cheers :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Satu Suro 08:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't know what all the fuss is about I enjoyed the page, its an intersting subject, who knows which European country discovered Australia first, plenty of Spanish ships dissappeared in the Pacific, why don't some of these people complaining about the format just tidy it up ? Noah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.105.55 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent original research which can damage Wikipedia. And if User:Nickm57 is correct in that one of the quoted book sources does not in fact mention the subject, then the honesty of the author is in doubt. Moondyne 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the book Java La Grande is a referance on the subject because it pertains to the theory of Spanish or Portuguese discovery of Australia not because it mentions the Stradbroke Galleon legend. Most, if not all, of the people going for the delete option have no knowlegde of the subject and the only issue seems to be formatting or other convention that genuinely concerned editors would simply fix up. Obviously not every contributor is going to be an expert on Wikiepedia formating and language convention etc. this should not, in fairness be grounds for deleting an otherwise valid articleGregjay (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok lets go through them one by one -(1) articles are not valid if they fail the WP:RS - specially third party sources - that is nothing to do with formatting (2) no one is claiming anything about either being experts either in the subject (3) knowledge of a subject has nothing to do with debates about deletion (4) there is nothing to do with a 'fix-up' - the principle at stake which seems to have been lost on supporters are basic principles of what wikipedia is and is not - have a look at WP:NOT - this Afd has now enough items if actually checked show that the article has no legs to stand on Satu Suro 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly referenced. The main contributor appears to have problems with WP:COI. There are few reliable sources. Gillyweed (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greg – a reality check here. As SatuSuro points out, the concerns with this page are not simply about “formatting or other conventions.” I take it you haven’t had the time or inclination to read WP policies on writing articles, many linked above on this page. You really need to do this. If you get a reputation for stubbornly refusing to follow WP practices, as appears likely with your determined efforts to add the "Stradbroke Island Galleon" to Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, you are simply going to end up frustrated and even more cheesed off with what you call “mainstream academics”. Can’t you see that most WP contributors and readers are naturally going to be suspicious of any writer who cites himself as the key source, five times, as you do in this article here ? --Nickm57 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment well Nickm57 I do appriciate what you are saying and no i have not read the WP policies but will do so however I find it puzzling that the Mahogany Ship the Geelong Keys and various other anomolies can be happily included in the Portuguese Discovery of Australia article when there is much less historic material to support their valitidity when compared with the Stradbroke Galleon story. For some reason, I guess because I self published a book that poo poos the Archaeological fraternity and opposes the conventional view of Australian discovery, a lot of people have their nose out of joint about the Stradbroke Galleon story. I will read the WP policies and attempt to revise the article to conform. The reality that needs checking is the one where double standards are applied to different contributors which is certainly the case here; one only has to look at Hesperian's insulting language when he deleted my contribution to the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia which I think is at least as valid as the other articles in that sub-section . The reason I maintain my efforts to have the Stradbroke Story included in teh Portuguse piece is because it is valid to the argumentGregjay (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentI enjoyed the article and found it quite informative. I've read better laid out articles in Wikipedia but also plenty of worse ones as well I can see no reason for deleting it as it supplies information on an interesting and valid historic subject. I had a look at the Portuguese article mentioned by Nick57 and i can not see why its any better than the Stradbroke Galleon work. The Portuguese Theory sights McIntyre or his book as a referance about 20 times! Keep the galleon story its good. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.219.8 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Oo7565 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Jonathan Kaye (Linguist)[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a linguist said to be the founder of a disclipline whose article doesn't mention him at all. So little is learned about this guy from our article, that we don't know when or where he was born, whether he's still alive, any biographical information at all, a non-article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hesitant~~ Strong Keep — Sure, the article is poorly written, and barely written at that, but Jonathan Kaye does exist. I'm also certain that that PDF about Government Phonology is citing Jonathan Kaye. But, I could be wrong, and ghits bring up little. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the above reason and them some: this (ctrl-f, "Kaye"), this, this (under "Brazil"), and this; I'm sure there are more out there, in the great beyond. Btw, those links to prove he exists and that he is maybe notable, but, I've yet to find any concrete info about him. But, I'm not discouraged; a lot of those links were .edus and such. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to post again, but by the looks of this, it seems my new friend Jonathan Kaye is still alive. He published quite a few works in the 90's. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless a a source can be found confirming that he is the founder of said discipline or if he has published something other than a texbook. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sources are needed, but does he have to be the founder of Government Phonology to be notable? It looks like a lot of people are citing his work, and many are even dedicating their work to him; I think in the linguistic community he is pretty notable (but without sources I could be wrong). Leonard^(Bloom) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this fellow seems to have published a good deal in the field of linguistics (about which I admit I know little). For instance see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Jonathan+Kaye+linguistics&spell=1 as an indication. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person clearly is real, and he clearly has published a fair amount of material, but I can't find any sources independent of him that show he is notable. No sources say he has won any awards, is influential in his field, etc. Also, I can't even find sources that give basic biographical information. SJP (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might try hitting some books for this one. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to pull most of the article expansion from the summary of his CV in the book of papers honoring him. Vickser (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't know too much about Linguistics, but I'm putting Kaye in a definite keep category. A book all about him, Living on the Edge: Phonological Essays Commemorating the Radical Career of Jonathan Kaye was published by Walter de Gruyter, which is a german academic publishing house. A JStor search turned up a large number of Kaye's articles, citations of Kaye's articles, and reviews of Kaye's books. While google result's for "Jonathan Kaye" are thrown horribly off by the golfer, searching for "Phonology : a cognitive view" (a book of his) on google turns up 712 hits. I'll try filling out the article a bit because as is it's junk, but the guy's notable. Vickser (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that my school's library actually has a copy of the book about Kaye. I can swing by and pick it up tomorrow if there's anything we can't get off google books. Vickser (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major academic publishers don't publish Festschrifts about minor academics; only quite notable, influential ones. The title of the book and the publisher alone proves he is highly notable.John Z (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Demonstrably notable enough for me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:V but Move to Jonathan Kaye (linguist). I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this academic appears to be notable but the references should be changed to inline citations as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The festschrift alone would be enough for me but the claim about founding government phonology appears to be supportable; e.g., see this course syllabus in which much of the papers in the reading list and especially the earlier ones were written by Kaye. I see the festschrift as a clear pass of WP:PROF #6, the syllabus as strong evidence for a pass of WP:PROF #5, and the large number of cites to his 1990 "Constituent structure and government in phonology" as a likely pass for WP:PROF #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vickser and David Eppstein. Having a festschrift published in one's honor is sufficient indicator of academic notability. Also, as D.E. points out, the claim to being a/the founder of government phonology appears to check out too. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kats[edit]

Non notable congressional candidate. Fails WP:BIO, notability is not inherited from candidacy. Other than getting the GOP nomination in an uncontested primary, she doesn't even have a claim to any notability. Just a local lawyer. Can be recreated if she wins. Montco (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 13. WP:BIO makes it clear that mere candidacy does not equal encyclopedic notability. --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kats is no longer listed under category of Politician. Listed as People from Pennsylvania, Lawyers form Pennsylvania, and People from Montgomery County, PA. She is not just a local lawyer, but also recognized as one of the "50 Best Businesswomen in PA" by the former Governor, and recognized as a Super Lawyer in the city of Philadelphia. On Temple University's Presidential Advisory Board and has a room named in her honor. To say that she does not meet the notability criteria is a lie. All references of her candidacy being the sole reason for being listed on wikipedia have been removed, other than a small snippet detailing her run for congress, which is part of her life. If it is to be deleted, give one reason as to why she does not meet the notability criteria as a Succesful Lawyer, Businesswoman, and Philanthropist, and refrain from references to her candidacy as the sole reason for her deletion, when the page has been edited to reflect those changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsforcongress (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katsforcongress (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Montco (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Katsforcongress (talk • contribs) may have a conflict of interest. Montco (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure of the nominating criteria for Super Lawyer or Successful Lawyer, she may meet them, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't meet the criteria for a WP entry, let her win the election and then repost the article. Mostly cloudy (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that Super Lawyer thing. It sounds really cool, until you learn that 5% of the lawyers in the state get the designation. How many lawyers are there? Apparently 43,000. So that makes her one of 2,150 in PA. If you google the 50 Best Business Women in PA, there are three hits. Apparently 47 of the 50 best didn't think it was even significant enough to mention. Montco (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:ADVERT Looks like a advertisment --Numyht (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant reliable third-party press coverage establishes that she is noteworthy. If it looks like an advertisement, it needs editing, not deletion. Fg2 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and isn't notable enough as an attorney to merit an article. Qworty (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cat's Eye (1997 film). Since this was already done I have redirected there. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's Eye (movie photobook)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful with Cat's Eye (1997 film) and redirect. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DCEdwards1966 Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These AfDs were set up oddly... It appears that the entire Category:Japanese female models photobooks has been nominated individually, rather than bundling them into one. Also, User:Wikivalu the creator of the category and the articles was not notified, so I notified the editor. In regards to the AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat's Eye (movie photobook), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual queen of the year '93, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YUKISS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorusora ni YOUKISS!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuki to tsuki to taiyo to: I see no coverage, reviewing, sourcing, or any other evidence of notability. The editor, in creating these articles, appears to have wanted to illustrate photobooks in which Yuki Uchida appears. No other information which cannot be supplied at the main article is given. So, merge this article to the film, and the rest of these articles (if there is any information to merge) into Yuki Uchida. Dekkappai (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cat's Eye (1997 film). don't need a separate page for two sentences. --Gman124^talk 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual queen of the year '93[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Queen of The Year '93: Yuki Uchida - La Palette‎ now redirects to this article. If this AfD results in 'delete', admin please delete this redirect too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that one of the five models happened to become famous later does not make the book notable. Also a lack of sources --T-rex 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dele per nom; et per T-rex Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also a related article Visual Queen of The Year '93: Yuki Uchida - La Palette, with a category of its own. 70.55.86.157 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedily redirected it to the subject of this AfD. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember not to leave the category Category:Japanese idol movie empty and delete it when the time comes. 70.55.86.139 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've deleted the empty category. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gman124^talk 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YUKISS[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that this article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorusora ni YOUKISS![edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki to tsuki to taiyo to[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:V and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Several Times (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything reliable on this woman. She clearly isn't notable enough.--SJP (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I was the only !voter here, and I retract my !vote since the nom withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Cramp[edit]

The article has no context and no sources.Schuym1 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cleanup and unreferenced template. Is that what I should have done? Schuym1 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]

Delete Non-notable character, entirely in-universe info. Not even worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is withdrawing I noticed that the nom removed the AFD tag, so I asked, and they said they would like to withdraw the nomination [75]. Since there is already one comment, I won't non-admin this myself. Yngvarr (c) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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