Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

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 delete. Kurykh 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki's forthcoming single[edit]

Contested PROD, so going this route. Article utterly fails WP:CRYSTAL. There is no information whatsoever about this single. We need to wait until more information comes out. Even then, it may not meet the notability for singles. Actually, someone may want to look at the singles on Template:Ayumi Hamasaki and do a mass AFD, as most of them appear to fail the notability guidelines for singles. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unwarranted per WP:CRYSTAL. tomasz. 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no citations, total original source. per WP:NOT.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ...subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest... I know a Ayumi Hamasaki fan might yell at me for this but for now, there's no wie interest except to Ayumi's fans and Japanese J-pop and trance fans. Also fails WP:V. ...whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source... I'm in no doubt that the singles actually exist, its just that I have no way of confirming it. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Lady Galaxy 18:42, 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 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vethathiri[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prooof of notability, and completely uncited for years. No-one is interested in improving it, it should go.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 24 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, Chetblong (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non notable with no reliable sources. There have been years to find sources for this subject and there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around since 2006, and no reliable sources or proofs of notability have been provided yet. BecauseWhy? (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well; i see two orange tags; lots of unsource materials. I do see so sources list on bottom. 3 staff members say delete.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. google books gives quite a few hits. Seems notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:40, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mojitos[edit]

non notability of act, local news only, no established sales Mfield (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete. Nothing to denote notability, Speedy Delete per norm. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have declined the speedy deletion request placed on the article. Notability is asserted in the article (media attention, Battle of the Bands winners, 65,000 votes etc) and whilst this may not be enough to pass WP:MUSIC is is enough to save it from speedy. nancy ^(talk) 08:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable music band. Article also has crystal ball issues. Artene50 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is poorly format, and too little details. however; this one still has to go through normal 7 days as normal deeltion porcess.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:10, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nigro[edit]

Contested prod. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE as nothing more than an amateur hockey player, like thousands others. Grsz ^talk 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Person in question is on a professional team, and that clearly renders him notable per WP:ATHLETE. I also find it troublesome that the nominator removed information from the article[1] before nominating it for deletion[2]. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which professional team does he play for? Has he signed a contract? Has he played a game as a professional? Grsz ^talk 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article answers all the questions you have asked, as even a cursory reading would inform you. McJeff (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct your misunderstandings. He was drafted by the Blues. In order to be "on" a professional team, he would have to have a contract, which he does not. And in order to pass WP:ATHLETE, he would have to have competed at a professional level, which, again, he has not. Grsz ^talk 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OHL maybe considered professional by NCAA, but the players only recive a stipend rather than a proper salary. Former OHL players don't loose eligibility to play for Canadian universities, and are not considered pros by CIS. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous keep misunderstands being drafted with being on a team. Hundreds of players are drafted and never set foot in a professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE and to give him an article because he might someday play professionally fails WP:Crystal. He also falls far short of the notability standards for hockey players. -Djsasso (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, once he actually plays for St. Louis then he is notable to have an article. Black ngold29 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the WP:HOCKEY notability standards. Sixth round picks do not often make the major leagues, and he is unlikely to play at any professional level for at least a year. Unfortunately, we see this syndrome every year, where a raft of junior league players get written up for articles just because they're drafted, and many never see a professional game. Ravenswing 02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he plays professionally or wins a significant award in juniors, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability standards across the board. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a larger article. Too little details and informations, keep this as a isolate article is nt going to help much, plus WP is not a tionary.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:12, 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. Mango juice^talk 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kairosis[edit]

Uncited original research. The quotation about catharsis, kenosis, and kairosis is nowhere to be found in the classical corpus or notable secondary sources. Also, I propose to remove sections referencing that quotation in its linked pages. --Quadalpha (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quadalpha (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other websites I find which reference this contain the same text as the Wikipedia article. The rest either contain "kairosis" used as a username, or people referring to the definition on the Wikipedia page. Ignorance is not proof of absence, however. I cannot claim to know enough about classical literature to know that this concept is not used. So, ~~I stay neutral leaning toward deletion, until some other people change my mind.~~ BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the evidence presented below by Quadalpha is enough for me. Delete. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

καίρωσις is listed in Liddell and Scott (the authoritative classical Greek lexicon) with an entirely unrelated meaning (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.31:1:11.lsj ). The spelling with an omicron is not listed at all. Similarly, while catharsis is a well-known literary concept, kenosis (κένωσις) does not have associations in classical literary criticism at all (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.34:4:29.lsj ). While this does not preclude their use in later criticism, the lack of references would seem to indicate non-notability, at least. --Quadalpha (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references means lack of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see listed references: Accepted Doctoral thesis from a credible University, published conference papers, aesthetics blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment recent editing has improved the article to the best it will get during this deletion discussion. Please reread and see if your opinions are changed. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have been unable to look at the doctoral thesis since I do not have access to it, I would submit that the other two sources do not constitute sufficient reference for what the article claims. The blog entry can be, per convention, dismissed as a "reliable source." I cannot determine whether the book is self-published since I don't know Danish, but a cursory examination shows that it is the product of the Knutepunkt conference. Althought I mean no disrespect to Nordic role-playing, I do question whether such a community would be recognised with the authority to make such sweeping pronouncements as "as catharsis is to the dramatic, so kenosis is to the lyric, so kairosis is to the epic/novel." Perhaps the reference would be sufficient if the article claimed to represent the field of literary criticism from a Nordic role-playing perspective, but then I suspect it would fall afoul of notability guidelines. In any case, the section about Emma (that is, most of the article) seems to be interpretive as well as uncited, and it is based solely on a statement ("as catharsis is to the dramatic ...") backed up only by an unpublished thesis manuscript, a blog, and a role-playing conference. So I suppose what I am saying is still Delete. --Quadalpha (talk) 06:38, 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 delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brojobidehi Mahanta[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:57, 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. The core issue with this article is its lack of verification to back up its claims. In addition, notability is in question, and without any reliable sources to back up the claim to notability, the article does not meet criteria. If reliable sources are found to verify the article and confirm notability, the article can be recreated. Until such time, if an editor wants the article to work on, I will happily userfy it for him. Just poke me. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swarupananda[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Definitely needs sources and major cleanup.TheRingess (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure that notability could not be established, but obviously needs sources and a rewrite. Perhaps check notability with India/Hinduism project. --Jayen 466 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Article has no notability or reliable sources. If you disagree, please provide evidence for notability as I have found none. Until there is evidence to prove otherwise, this article is about a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Delete Article makes no claims to notability. Also, there are no reliable sources provided to confirm any claim to notability. If these exist, I am willing to change my vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until somebody can provide reliable sources for the subject because at the moment there are none. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He reached the level of sainthood in the Hindu religion. A person is noteworthy simply by reaching that internationally recognized level of spirituality in their religion. Dream Focus (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What reliable sources verify this claim to be internationally recongnized? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is impossible to say anything, as there are no reliable sources to the claims. Could be anyone under any name. Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. The wikipedia has a list of all the saints for each religion. His name is on it. Googling about, I found many sources mention him. I also found his book translated. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=nuHJ88d2FnwC&dq=Swarupananda&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=_lEA6nhDV7&sig=vIxNyaW6MmGfUzhyxKPnjxKZLC0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1 How many here actually doubt the guy existed and was given sainthood? Dream Focus (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone doubts his existence. It's just that the article is in very poor shape. To meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability on biographical articles (see WP:BIO) we need multiple secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject. Notice that simply publishing a book does not confer notability in the sense the community defines it nor does a claim of sainthood with no backing sources. If you feel inclined, you might edit the article to include references from reliable sources, thus meeting the guidelines included in the link on notability.TheRingess (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason I express the doubt on existence - is because there are a few gurus that I know of, who have the name Swarupananda. Its a popular Hindu name. There is no evidence what so ever that he was given sainthood (I believe he was never given a 'sainthood'), nor is any evidence that he himself is notable. If specific references are given in the article, then we can discuss it further, at the moment the article is not meeting 'the guidelines included in the link on notability'. As per TheRingess. Wikidās ॐ 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on the basis that there is an inconclusive debate on the notability. Proving notability seems to be more fitting for someone from the Hindu project or an expert in the field, I would keep until we reach consensus from there than a nonsensical google competition by us. Rasadam (talk) 18:43, 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. Kurykh 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Valentin[edit]

Player has not sufficiently satisfied the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football. He has not appeared in a professional match. GauchoDude (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete and has no other claim to notability. Vickser (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" as he plays in the MLS Reserve Division which is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You have tried this argument here and no one agrees with you. Reserve leagues are not fully professional. He is not notable as he has not made any notable appearances. Merely being drafted alone doesn't make him notable either. When he enters into a professional game, which he hasn't (and doesn't seem to be close as he wasn't even named to the bench today), then recreate the page. At this moment in time, he is undeserving for the above reasons. Delete. GauchoDude (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you can use my use of the same argument there as a precedent, given that I made it only 87 minutes before this one, and only one person has commented since. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then use the one here, after which one editor agreed and seven others didn't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~More than one ...~~ also the question of why this standard is being applied to the fully-professional MLS reserve division when by definition it meets WP:ATHLETE was never addressed (and is basis of pending Deletion Review). Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - The fact that virtually any one can walk onto the team without a contract and play as a "guest player" in your so-called notability reserve games just about sums up the argument. GauchoDude (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - that doesn't change that the league itself is fully professional. Such "guest players" would not be notable (unless otherwise qualified). Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that the league allows guest players proves that it is not a fully professional league - this is exactly why friendly matches and reserve matches in other countries are not deemed to confer notability. Plus the above statement of "More than one" is false - only one editor (Ugen64) agreed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah - yes only one other editor agreed. Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus has long been that reserve matches do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once again, reserve matches do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears very unlikely that the MLS Reserve Division is a fully professional league. That said, if someone can provide evidence that it is fully professional, I'll change my vote. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 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. I have left the history so that relevant, cited information can be merged to the target article as appropriate. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Entwistle[edit]

unnotable and we do not cover people because they are victims, this is such bad, unprofessional precedent that it needs nipping in the bud, apart from having been murdered she has 0 notability, evidenced by zero coverage outside the murder. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, tragic but not otherwise notable, sadly. Delete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge - Merge to Entwistle murder case per WP:ONEEVENT and proposed guideline WP:N/CA. The victim is not notable in own right. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried moving Neil Entwistle to Entwistle murder case and redirected Rachel there but it was reverted, hence the afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Entwistle murder case, everything that's remotely encyclopedic is already contained there. Rachel Entwistle isn't notable. Only the sad circumstances of her murder and the subsequent court case are conceiviably so. RMHED (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is more appropriate as this is a searchable term and yes murder victims can be notable enough for their own article but in this case a merge is probably better. --neon white talk 00:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per neon white. --00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Entwistle murder case. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm not completely sure but I think if any content has shifted over to the Entwistle murder case article that leaves us with certain GFDL obligations which must remain fulfilled. JBsupreme (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect, subject is not notable in her own right. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entwistle murder case as not notable on her own. I'd also advise to do the same with the article on her foormer husband.--Aldux (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both this and Neil Entwistle into the article about the murder case, but there's no need to delete here. They are not notable as individuals, only notable as part of a newsworthy and ongoing murder case.--Les boys (talk) 14:53, 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 Deleted by Athaenara. Chetblong (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaitscan[edit]

Gaitscan was tagged as an advert in Feb 2007. Page was created with text copied from company's website. Page creator's only edits are to this page, all on 8 Dec 2006. No other pages link here. I couldn't find reliable/verifiable info supporting this product from a source not financially linked to it. I came to this page after watching this CBC Marketplace report about orthotic scams [3].

I'm not questioning the product or the company, but without verifiable info this article is just a sales pitch. LuciferBlack (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article creator shares his name with an employee (vice president no less) at the company linked in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 (spam). So tagged. That the article managed to survive for 18 months changes nothing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:46, 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 Delete, reads like promotion *and* is a blatant copyvio. Gone. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Policy Network[edit]

A file of this name was deleted before; and reads like promotion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article establishes no notability and reads like an ad. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:43, 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 Snow Keep {{cleanup afd}} has been placed on the article Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darker image calendar[edit]

A pornographic calendar does not seem particularly notable even if it was one of the first to feature black women. The article is OR, and unsourced. None of the 36 Google hits indicates any notability. Also, could some one take a look at the image, it looks o be improperly tagged but I am no image copyright expert. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) [update:] I withdraw my nomination based on the media references listed at http://www.darkerimagecalendar.com/ (go to the tab labeled press), I assume that the lack of web references is due to the fact that this calendar was before the real rise of the internet. I am not sure though, so, continue to discuss. (upon admin consideration my position can be considered a weak keep) -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also have concerns that there's conflict of interest with the primary editor, since he's representing himself as the photographer/publisher of the calendar. ~~In which case, that adds a layer of original research to the lack of sources.~~ It's not blatant advertising, ~~but it's not an encyclopedia article that's clearly demonstrated notability, either.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Edited 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC); see revised comments below.[reply]
Delete: In the unlikely event that there are any good references to demonstrate that this is notable or recognised as significant then that could salvage it, but it would still need to be rewritten as its tone is not neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourcedKeep. I think the assertions of notability are sufficient for it to be kept, IF they are documented. Note that the calendar claims to be the first 'swimsuit' (not pornographic) calendar featuring minority models that gained widespread mass market distribution. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: ProQuest has the LA Times text as presented by the author. I can't find the text of the Hollywood Reporter article, but it's such a trivial mention I can't see it being faked. I did tag a bunch of things in the article that were NOT referenced by the cites in question, toned some of the puffery, and added a B+N buyer quote from the article. Overall, it still needs work, but the core elements are sufficiently documented by WP:RS and seem to establish appropriate WP:N. I call it a keeper now. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, this is not a porn calendar. Look it up on Lexis-Nexis ("ALLNEWS") and you'll quickly find out that that description is completely inaccurate. Secondly, the source of the information in the entry is verified not only by a reputable newspaper (the Los Angeles Times) but also in the "Press" section of the website. You cannot fictionalize the television appearances for the calendar. I think a calendar that received this degree of notoriety deserves an encyclopedic mention. Just because it is not a 21st Century phenomenon does not make it irrelevant. It is particularly relevant in the development of urban model or hip hop model genre. I am the author of the article. --PutneySwope1 —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— PutneySwope1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So edit those in please. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Not sure what you want edited in. The LA Times story can only be found through Lexis-Nexis because of its date. (Or, you would have to pay to retrieve the articles mentioned in The Los Angeles Times or Hollywood Reporter.) There is a graphic of the LA Times story on the Darker Image website in the Press section. The television show mentions of the calendar appear in Quicktime format on the Darker Image website, but cannot be linked here because the site is done using Flash. PutneySwope1 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latter, include the link on the talk page of the article: that way, other editors can view it. Regarding the former, cite it, even if no link is given in the citation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, LA Times article on Talk page. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So include a link to the website on the Talk Page? Not a problem but it is listed as a reference in the article, as is the citation to the Los Angeles Times, which conforms to the Chicago Style Manual. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't find the fulltext and verify the cite. If so, and it says what you say it says, I'd call this one a keeper. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, see my talk section on this topic.

Keep, barring Jclemens turning up something odd with verifying the fulltext. I'm going to assume good faith that the reprint of the LA Times article at the Darker Image website is accurate: it asserts that this was the first black calendar to sell in a mainstream bookstore. I'll call that sufficiently notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The LA Times coverage is legitimate; see [4] which has three paragraphs available free. However, the article should be moved to The Darker Image which was the main title as featured on the cover of the calendars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been holding off on a move until the AfD was settled; I hate having a title change mid-discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also prefer to wait until the AfD closes to have an article moved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my thought too. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be WP:SNOWed as keep at this point, so we can get on with that. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everyone's input. Very helpful. I completely agree with the title change suggested by Metropolitan90. PutneySwope1 (talk) 04:10, 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. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Saric[edit]

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (the Danish 1st Division is not fully pro) and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability (last AfD confirming this here). The fact that he has signed for a Premiership club is irrelevant (see many other AfDs on youth players without a first team appearance: 1, 2, 3, 4). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Herfolge are a professional side and he has played with full-time professionals at that club. He has made league appearances in a league which has dedicated coverage. He has now signed further professional terms with Liverpool.Londo 06 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Herfolge are professional is completely irrelevant - they do not play in a fully professional league (the equivalent is players playing for a fully pro team in the Football Conference, which have been determined on many many occasions to fails the criteria as the league is not fully professional). As proved by the links to previous AfDs, signing for a big club does not help him pass WP:ATHLETE either - he must play for the club. Until then, any attempt to claim that he will is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've certainly heard of Herfolge and they are indeed a professional outfit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Come on the Mothers (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above (twice), the fact that they are professional is totally irrelevant. They do not play in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saric doesn't pass WP:Athlete, but I think the coverage of him meets the general WP:Notability guidelines, namely "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." On a national/international scaleYahoo! Sport, The Sun, and The Telegraph all had articles that were primarily or exclusively about him, in addition to plenty of coverage in large local papers such as The Liverpool Daily Post. In full consideration of WP:CRYSTALBALL and the fact that he hasn't played for Liverpool yet, national papers running stories in which you are the centerpiece counts as notable for me. Vickser (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any player signing for a Premiership club will have a news report on him. However, as shown in the links to previous AfDs provided above, players who merely sign for Premiership clubs are not deemed article-worthy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, any player who signs for a Premiership club will have some coverage on him, but you'll note that he is the centerpiece of the linked articles. Articles simply mentioning his transfer (as all transfers get mentioned) would not qualify as "significant coverage", articles where he is the lead story, in my opinion, do. For comparison with some of the rightfully deleted players you linked, Jay Spearing got listed with a whole bunch of other boys in a paragraph at the bottom in the Telegraph [5]. Ray Putterill's national paper coverage consisted of a Daily Mail article mentioning his name with 4 others as local youngster's the club signed.[6] As far as I can tell, none of the other players linked were the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and thus are non-notable. For Saric, that's not the case. Vickser (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY. As for the notability point above, the player admits himself in the article that he will be playing (at least initially) for Liverpool's reserve team, which is not notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played for Herfølge, who are a professional side in Denmark. So he does not fail WP:ATHLETE. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above (three or four times), the fact that they are professional is totally irrelevant. They do not play in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate to use a cliche, but I think some people are missing the forest for the trees. Every single notability guideline is subordinate to WP:N, which says that notability is defined as "significant coverage by reliable third-party sources" (not an exact quote, I'm going off memory here). On an unrelated note, is the Danish 1st Division definitely not fully professional? Doing a quick survey I notice a few prominent names (especially Silkeborg and AB) out of the list of clubs that participated in that league last season... ugen64 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked with Danish editor User:Kalaha before nominating this for AfD - he said the division is a mix of fully pro, semi pro and amateur clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remarks above about needing to be in a fully professional league are troubling. I can find no Wikipedia policy on this; indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does not mention this and specifically says:

"Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure..."

which seems to me to cover this. In addition, the Danish 1st Division with 16 teams is the second tier of Danish football, the Superligaen having 12 clubs, making Herfølge one of the top 28 clubs in the country. Now, whether or not this player is notable depends on the level of his involvement in these clubs/leagues, about which I have no knowledge and will leave others to decide, but attempting to delete him on the basis of the clubs/leagues he plays in is wrong. Emeraude (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN has not been accepted by the wider community (as it says on the page itself, it "is not a policy or guideline"), so is irrelevant. I don't see how you have missed WP:ATHLETE ("Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league") given that it has been mentioned at least five times. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as he is a notability - he is the latest winner of Danish U-17 award. Further there is very few amateur clubs in the Danish 1st Division (one or two, maybe) and most of the teams are fully pro. ka la ha 10:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find no evidence that it is not a professional league. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numbers57 is invoking Kalaha as his primary defense for nomination, but Kalaha seems to believe the article should be kept. With the award, first team appearances, and the media coverage, I think this is a case where project guidelines need to be subordinated. He has made first team appearances, so he is not an explicitly youth team player, so it makes that argument difficult, even if he will be with Liverpool reserves initially. matt91486 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to be careful to follow the spirit of a guideline. WP:ATHLETE confers notablity on Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league. But how fully is fully? And how do we apply this to every sport. In the absence of community-accepted detailed criteria for each sport, we need to be careful how to apply this. If we were to apply the letter of the guideline rigidly, we'd wipe out many, many articles (such as most of those listed in Category:Canadian lacrosse players - for while they are fully professional teams and a league, most NLL players have alternate sources of income. So we have to follow the spirit. In this case a fully-professional player has played for a fully-professional team, in a national league comprised mostly of fully-professional teams. Common sense dictates that under these circumstances the spirit of WP:ATHLETE has been met. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see any reasons why this entry should be deleted. He's a young, coming player, now on one of the biggest teams in England. Why shouldnt there be an entry about himk? Stupid suggetion. --80.203.70.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a blurred line between professional team and league, WP:Athlete is not specific enough. The combination of other notability factors (coverage, etc) suggests this player will pass notability. Rasadam (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think in this case the professional status of the Danish league is irrelevant. The fact that his team plays in that country's top division is notable enough on its own. Perhaps an amendment needs to be made to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN to cover this. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His team doesn't play in the country's top tier though - the Danish 1st Division is the second tier - ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Boy, is my face red. That'll teach me to be so hasty. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:05, 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 redirected to Dermott Fictel as a plausible typo. (non-admin closure) ~ Eóin (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermott Fictell[edit]

These two articles are the exact same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott_Fictell

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott_Fictel

The second one should be the only one used. Tm1000 (talk) 20:38, 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 No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic (comic)[edit]

Contestes prod. Non notable self-published comic by two otherwise non notable authors. James Abrams plus Archaic gives 68 distinct Google hits[7], and Brett Marting plus archaic gives 60 Google hits (mostly the same as the other search, of course). Neither produces a Google News hit. Was nominated for the Golden Chazzies, a completely unknown award that gets a grand total of 33 distinct Google hits and no Google News hits[8]. So the only potential source we are left with is a mention in a list from Wizard Magazine. Fails thus WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, unless a better solution is suggested. Seems a shame to just toss all that information. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, utterly non-notable, self-published comic. Get rid of it and the pages of the authors. Wizard magazine and Internet fan sites like Silver Bullets are not enough to justify notability requirements. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. When talking about specialist literature like comics, Wizard and Silver Bullet are the New York Times and Washington Post. Receiving an accolade like the #4 indie comic of the year should be accolade enough to establish notability. I've added some refs which should additionally demonstrate the subject's encyclopedic notability. Ford MF (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ford's reasoning and efforts. McJeff (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to refs from wizard.Yobmod (talk) 13:50, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Sambey[edit]

Speedied once under A7, and nominated for PROD a second time. Speedy challenged at User talk:SchuminWeb#why delete my page?, where author admitted their conflict of interest in creating the article about themselves. Article was recreated by the original author, and nominated for PROD by another editor who was unaware of the earlier speedy. The PROD text was, "Subject of article does not appear to be notable per WP:PEOPLE". I have challenged the PROD per the earlier fuss being made, and therefore take it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article fails to explain the notability of the subject. The main claim to notability appears to be that Stanley Sambey was a founding member of the Federal Marijuana Party however I can't find anything regarding this on their website. I can't locate any reliable sources which verify the content of the article. Nk.sheridan Talk 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yup, I forgot the WP:COI issue! btw, I'm the editor mentioned as nominating for PROD. Nk.sheridan Talk 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable article, conflict of interest. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable subject. The main writer is the subject himself, which likely results in a conflict of interest. Additionally, the article would need significant rewriting to meet Wikipedia standards. And since the person is non-notable, it'll be next to impossible for anyone but him to do so. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, appears to be a self-promotion article, little verifiable info. -Toon⁰⁵ 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to nominator, per WP:PEOPLE and WP:COI, Postoak (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:SALT possibly if things become problematic. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person hasn't been elected to any public office. Article has no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Creating editor (User:Stambo2001) has challenged deletion at my talkpage. I've directed him here per this Nk.sheridan Talk 21:13, 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 the two listed by the nominator. The others did not have an AfD tag on them, and will need to be nominated separately. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009[edit]

Precedent here and here has established that football clubs which play below the professional leagues do not merit articles on individual seasons unless the club achieved something truly remarkable. Obviously by definition the club has achieved nothing remarkable in a season which has not yet started. For the same reason I am also nominating Maidstone United F.C. season 2007-2008, in which the club also achieved nothing especially remarkable ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I don't believe teams outside fully professional leagues deserve season by season articles. I would also suggest deleting Eastbourne Borough F.C. season 2007-08 and Eastbourne Borough F.C. season 2008-09 for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four per above. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Undeserving of season by season articles barring something particularly exciting, which happened in none of these cases. Vickser (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Maidstone United and Eastbourne season 2007-08, keep Eastbourne 2008-09, I thought the criteria for seasons articles were for teams in a national league making Conference National teams seasons valid. Therefore this seasons article for Eastbourne meets notability.--Jimbo^[online] 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case then I'll change my vote to match yours. Could you provide a link to this policy/guideline/discussion? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had a look but can't find anything to support my claims. I guess the following should be included in this AfD too. --Jimbo^[online] 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08
Woking F.C. season 2007-08
York City F.C. season 2006-07
York City F.C. season 2007-08
- Comment Surely Aldershot returning to the Football League is worthy enough? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009. None of the others are currently AFDs. We should discuss each separately - there may be merit to one of them. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maidstone United F.C. season 2007-2008 is also an AfD, as I nominated the two articles together...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, they're all regarding teams who did not play in a fully professional league at the time. --Angelo (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to agree with deleting the non-league teams. However those Conference teams are well publicized and those York articles have really good citation, so I don't think they should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 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 Keep - he made his official pro debut on July 1st thus it meets WP:ATHLETE --JForget 22:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Wileman[edit]

Player has not sufficiently satisfied the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football GauchoDude (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are, um, pretty unclear criteria. I interpret point one as being someone who plays for a professional team which competes in a national-level league, on which basis he seems to qualify - I don't understand the American system very well, but FC Dallas seems to compete in the top-level league there, which is what it's asking for. What is a "FPNL club", anyway? The only reference to that on google seems to be the deletion criteria and discussions of it.... Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It basically means he has to play for a professional team, which he does in FC Dallas, however moreso the fact that he has to appear in a competitive fixture to become notable, such as a league match or the US Open Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly concerned over whether we keep this article or not, but please next time try to give your reasons for listing it for deletion rather than just vaguely invoking a page without explaining why it qualifies. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for us all. Shimgray | talk | 13:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The player's MLS profile confirms he hasn't made any appearances, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 01:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he has now made his pro debut, as per JonBroxton below. Giant Snowman 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since he hasn't made an appearance yet for FC Dallas he fails WP: Athlete. Vickser (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and recreate if and when he makes an appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 09:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Note to nominator - WP:FOOTYN has not been accepted by the wider community and should not be used in deletion debates. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" as he plays in the MLS Reserve Division which is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as per the discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, reserve leagues are not considered to be a "fully professional league." GiantSnowman 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm not aware of any WP:FOOTBALL discussion that discusses MLS Reserve Division, but rather discusses the less professional European reserve divisions. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - You mean a league less professional than the MLS Reserve Leagues, where you can have "guest players" walk on to the team to play, having no connection to the team whatsoever? From here, "A guest player with a reserve division team may be eligible to appear in a reserve division game provided that he is properly registered and all necessary paperwork has been completed and confirmed." I also seem to recall one team had to call down people from the press box to come play to field a full squad, which was mentioned on Fox Football FoneIn. GauchoDude (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's actually true - Dan Cerwinske, who is a member of Galaxy's back office admin team (albeit one who was once a college soccer standout) played for Galaxy in a reserve game this year. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - New evidence shows he has played professionally - July 1st 2008 Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reserve teams are not first team, so playing for one of them should not be considered as a notable event. --Angelo (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wileman has now made his full professional debut for Dallas, completing full 90 minutes in a US Open Cup game against Miami FC. [9] --JonBroxton (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion please - JonBruxton is correct, he has indeed made his pro debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:42, 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 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Blaque[edit]

Non-notable songwriter, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No notable references. No references in the artcle, external links point to MySpace and Discogs. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as stated and WP:BIO due to an outright lack of reliable third party publications about the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:12, 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 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward P. Felt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Edward Felt is notable only for making a call from United Airlines Flight 93, which is something many passengers did. As quoted in WP:ONEEVENT: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. VegitaU (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. Making a 911 call, no matter the circumstances, is not a notable activity. There is no indication of other basis for notability, unless one counts having a building named after you by your company, which again does not seem to be a basis for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain — I created the page because I thought Ed was notable for having made (possibly) the last call from the plane before it went down. Others apparently felt so as well from the previous discussion, as well as there being mention of his call in external sources. However, since he was an associate of mine, in the interests of fairness I have chosen to abstain from participating in any decision about deleting/keeping the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CeeCee Lyles also made a call at the same time (09:58) on her cell phone to her husband and she does not have an article to her name. Even having left a recording from a previous call she made. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside the 93 flight to warrant a Biography. He was part of a notable but one time event, which fails WP:BLP criteria for article creation. Rasadam (talk) 18:56, 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. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Doherty[edit]

Non notable. Five years on Wikipedia and no reliable sources. Non notable author. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games
- Acharya S
- Dan Brown
- Docetism
- Doherty (surname)
- Earl (given name)
- George Albert Wells
- Gospel of Thomas
- Historical Jesus
- Historicity of Jesus
- Jesus
- Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
- Jesus myth hypothesis
- Josephus on Jesus
- Ki Longfellow
- Lee Strobel
- List of books about Jesus
- Robert M. Price
- The Bible and history
- The God Who Wasn't There
- The Jesus Mysteries
- The Jesus Puzzle
  - There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>. I am no fan of Doherty or his thesis, and the article does need some sourcing, but the relevant deletion that should happen is this proposal for deletion instead --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After being on Wikipedia for 5 years alows a lot of time for adding many links. Also, there is no substancial independent coverage. As is, this article lacks notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia links aren't evidence of notability. We need substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Five years and no reliable sources. Also, author of a non notable book. As a non notable person with no reliable sources to establish notability, this page should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with reservations, and possibly with The Jesus Puzzle merged into this article. The subject does not seem to be directly notable in his own right, but the numerous ghits for both him personally and for his work I think merits having a page to at least discuss The Jesus Puzzle and his other works, and an article on him as an individual is as good a place as any for such content. And the book is I think notable as this review from American Atheism's online edition seems to indicate. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review also appeared in the print edition: vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 43-45. That's one reliable source; we generally want two or more. Are there more out there? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept. A merging with The Jesus Puzzle is definitely warranted as there really is not enough there for two separate articles. As for the second source how about the peer review journal the original The Jesus Puzzle appeared in? If that is not enough I found him, his book, or web page referenced by Zuckerman, Phil (2003) Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Ricker, George A (2006) Godless in America: Conversations with an Atheist, Gibson, Stephen L. (2007) A Secret of the Universe: A Story of Love, Loss, and the Discovery of an Eternal Truth, and Bennett, Clinton (2001) In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. George Albert Wells includes some critical comment on Doherty in an article published in New Humanist. That and the American Atheist review cited above imply Doherty's notability at least as a popular atheist/humanist author. The article should probably be merged with The Jesus Puzzle, and could possibly be merged into Jesus myth hypothesis if that article were organised differently. EALacey (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem with specialists in a niche field is that very few people outside of that niche have ever heard of them. The real question here is: "Is the Jesus Mythist theory notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia?" If the answer to that question is "yes", then this article on Doherty should remain, because he is generally considered to be the leading exponent of the Jesus Mythist theory. Unlike most who advocate the Jesus Mythist position, Doherty does get some of his material published in academic journals.jonathon (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable, as anybody familiar with the Jesus Myth theory would know. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His book was reviewed in Free Inquiry (Unpacking Christ's case Robert Price. Free Inquiry. Buffalo: Summer 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs-- Full text available on ProQuest) Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources about him can be found, ironically, on the websites of his philosophical opponents, of which there is no lack. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above -- deletion vote seems to be for POV-pushing reasons. Those voting keep here may also want to vote on Acharya S, which was also put up for deletion and has even more reason to stay but has not been getting as many votes. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have my own misgivings about the sudden deletion vote for Acharya S, Doherty, and the The Jesus Puzzle all on the same day (the last also needs help BTW) the criteria for living persons is so high (much of it for practical reasons) that the narrower the field people cover the more likely they will get axed regardless of how publicly known they are.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I would argue that the field of the historical authenticity of Jesus is not a narrow field. It may seem narrow to those who do not question certain beliefs from birth, but is not so narrow to a growing body of Biblical scholars. And no matter how unknown to the general public, it has far-reaching implications. The only vote here to delete comes from the same source, and repeated. I suspect this is a vote to delete that is not based on notability or cited sources, but on emtotional reactions to the subject matter dealt with by Doherty, who has become the leading voice for this interesting position. As someone said somewhere, we allow comic book characters space, and characters in sitcoms, but get feisty when serious research is put into investigating our religious beliefs?JiggeryPokery (talk) 20:19, 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 merge and redirect. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Puzzle[edit]

Non notable book with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is notable enough to warrant attention from this, this, and this site, all of which tear it apart piece by piece. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commet Those are websites, I do not understand how they can pass as reliable sources that establish notability. Is the book published by a major publisher and does it have reviews from scholars in notable journals? There is a need for reliable sources that confirm notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the philosophical opponents of the book have taken notice of it in order to refute it is prima facie evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with the sources mentioned by Blanchardb is that they're self-published websites. To establish that this book is notable, we need to have reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the book--most websites won't qualify. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Earl Doherty article. The combination is notable, but I don't see the need for two articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete Possible merge to Earl Doherty, if reliable sources are provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)~~

Note: This vote cast by person who made nomination, so admin closing the vote should be careful not to double count.DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Earl Doherty. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Certainly notable on a topic becoming more and more discussed in larger society. Some merging being possible, but I've seen too many times people try to use "merge/redirect" votes as if they were "delete" votes as an excuse to delete the information and/or while counting for alleged "consensus". DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with merge -- If we keep the Chick Tracks article whose 90 references are all self published (more than 90% from Jack T. Chick's own website) then certainly we should keep the Jesus Puzzle article (which as far better references) with it being merged with Earl Doherty. In fact, I would like to know why given the self published nature of its references Chick Tracks is not marked for Deletion as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is about The Jesus Puzzle. Other stuff exists is not a suitable reason to keep this one, nor is its converse a reason to try to delete another article (which of course you are free to nominate separately). Frank | talk 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Earl Doherty. Not that much material in The Jesus Puzzle article, I doubt it warrants its own article. As mentioned by others, the combination seems notable enough.--Boffob (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Earl Doherty per Boffob. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: above view is the second one given by the nominator, in addition to the nom itself. Frank | talk 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote from delete to Redirect and merge to Earl Doherty. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Author. Book is not notable enough for article itself. Make into section redirect.Yobmod (talk) 13:52, 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. Kurykh 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Brazilian[edit]

Another useless article. This article has nothing about the population. An editor actually found out that the sources that the user who created this article was false. The user was just making up numbers. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just delete the made-up numbers, and you have a valid stub. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say this community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:53, 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. Kurykh 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Brazilian[edit]

Another useless article. No information about the population. In fact, the user who created this page inflates the population to 1,850 and after reading his sources well the population is just 738. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Factual errors can be corrected. No need for an AfD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say this community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. The person who is pictured is rather Brazilian Canadian, a different thing. Punkmorten (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:52, 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. Kurykh 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Brazilian[edit]

Again another useless article. Its almost empty. No numbers on the population. There is no sources. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid stub. The article needs improving, not deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say that community is not notable in my country. Asian notable communities are Japanese, Chinese and Korean (in São Paulo). Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some notable Filipino Brazilians over Google but I do not see any strong cultural interaction between the two people.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect It need either improvements or redirect it to a certain page regarding or related to foreigners in Brazil. -iaN LOPEZ 1115 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncyclopedic article that can't be improved due to lack of relevant information. DutchDevil (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:52, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Big To Huge[edit]

future non-notable album also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination; also, non-notable. Renee (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one reference provided returns an Error 404. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 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 Speedy Close This is a CSD, page tagged for speedy Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic black (disambiguation)[edit]

unnecessary page Napierk (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy --T-rex 17:22, 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 Close, tagged for deletion under G7 Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Black (disambiguation)[edit]

unnecessary page Napierk (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy --T-rex 17:22, 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. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO, a number of the sources don't even mention him, and the reliable second party sources that do mention him give fairly trivial mentions. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Feigl[edit]

Not notable at all, lacking neutral sources, article contains pov material. Namsos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is the German version of the article (translated with Google translation) and he does seem notable -- there are far more citations. Renee (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently, this guy was a crackpot denying the Armenian genocide and wanting to restore the Habsburg monarchy. Of course, even crackpots can be notable if their ideas gather enough attention in mainstream media. Renee draws attention above to the article on this person in the German Wikipedia. It is instructive to read the talk page of the German article, too. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete German article is irrelevant. --Namsos (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above comment suggests possible bad faith on the part of the nominator. POV is a reason for cleanup, not deletion; the de.wikipedia article is absolutely relevant, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? this is English Wikipedia what happens in German is not my concern since I do not read or write in it. The editor is on that article too. --Namsos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German article has more sources, which was noted here by User:Reneeholle before your above response. Lack of neutral sources was part of your nomination rationale. Deletion is a last resort for things that may not otherwise be saved. By ignoring an answer to your objection, it appears that deletion, (perhaps because genocide denial is a distasteful topic, but that's my perspective and may not be yours) rather than the improvement of wikipedia, may be your goal. Regardless, I'm convinced the person is notable and the article should be kept, and that decision was based on the evidence presented, not your statement. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It seems that his notability rests on his status as a genocide denier and a monarchist crank, rather than anything in WP:PROF, and therefore that it should be determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources about him per WP:BIO. A Google news search found a little, but not enough to really convince me, and the recently-added Spiegel article only mentions him trivially. At the very least, the lede of the article should highlight more prominently his non-mainstream views. I notice that unsourced claims in the article of being a historian and a professor at the University of Vienna have been the subject of some edit warring recently; the article still calls him a professor, but without context, and that should probably also be removed unless it can be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless he can be proven significant as a Armenian Genocide denier and conspiracy theorist, he is irrelevant. As far as I know, no other English wikipedia articles reference him. The Myotis (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any web search yields thousands of hits. Erich Feigl has produced over 60 documentaries and won numerous awards. A lot less prominent personalities have found their places on these pages. I am surpised this nomination even came this far. It looks like an abuse of the system by a user who has little good faith. --Murat (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that less prominent people have an article is not an argument here, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a reason why none of these documentaries is listed at the Internet Movie Database? Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One is that I could see, where he's credited as an assistant director, but I'm unsure how comprehensive IMDB's coverage is of non-English language documentaries. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article passes WP:BIO. It seems to be a very encyclopedic article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per David Eppstein. Fails WP:PROF, and also fails WP:BIO as there is no evidence that he has been the subject of extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot notable enough. Can't have an article for every single Genocide denier. Even people who are very familiar with the topic have never heard of him.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of refs, and an oldish article on the German wikipedia which has much stricter notability requirements. As such I can only view calls to delete this as a non-english bias --T-rex 03:24, 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, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, appears to fit the bill quite nicely. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hacker (novel)[edit]

What used to be the article for The Bourne Ultimatum was edited by User:Jamie Bourne replacing all mentions of the Bourne novel and adding in a plot summary for "The Hacker". It was then moved by User:The hoodie to "The Hacker (Book)". I dont believe this novel exists for two reasons: one, i cant find it with a general google search, two the ISBN is for the Bourne novel, three the author is listed as Ludlum but also John Bryson, four Robert Ludlum didnt write said novel and five the John Bryson i can find that is an author (John Bryson (author)) hasnt wrote said novel. It appears to be pure made up information and a constant list of mistakes by other users. Salavat (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fabricated article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Library of Congress has no record of this book either. I'd say revert to the original Bourne Supremacy article, but that apparently exists elsewhere. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A Made up hoax. The article claims it's written by John Bryson, but there's an infobox that say it's written by Ludlum. All relevant ghits are to the article, this very AfD or to Wikipedia mirrors. In fact, the other language versions of this article are all actually for The Bourne Ultimatum. Basically this was vandalism that went unchecked and unreverted for a year. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:23, 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) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Minnesota Fats[edit]

Unnecessary dab. The fictional character doesn't have a page and probably wouldn't; anyone searching for Rudolf Wanderone, Jr. would be more likely to search for his common name Minnesota Fats, and this just adds an unnecessary click to the search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination; unnecessary dab.Renee (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This AFD is half-baked. For one thing, the article has not been tagged. And, for another, the proposition that the hugely notable name of Minnesota Fats should lead to no article here is obviously wrong. There are some competing claims to the name between the real and fictional people and this dispute is itself notable. I have rewritten the article to make this clearer and cited two good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serves to explain why the real-life pool player changed his artist name. JIP | Talk 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as disambiguation page. There isn't enough material here for an article per WP:FICT and the bit about the name is best covered in Rudolf Wanderone Jr. anyway, where it is well-sourced and discussed in the context of his biography. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added an AFD notice to the page, TPH (I presume it was a glitch in the matrix) --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fictional character doesn't meet WP:FICT it seems, and any info can be covered in Rudolf's page. It doesn't make sense to me (per WP:NAME) for the pool player's page to be at Rudolf what's-his-face since only pool fanatics know him that way. Someone searching for "Minnesota Fats" would most likely want to find info on the real pool player, not the fictional one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you should withdraw this AFD and propose a merge of Rudolf Wanderone Jr. into this article per WP:NAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Rudolf Wanderone Jr. I wonder how come this hasn't been done already. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. The other article is much better and gives the infomation on both the real and fictional persons. No need for someone to waste time trying to improve this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hustler was a landmark film, very famous and iconic. Thus it's no surprise that there are plenty of reliable sources on the fictional character, sans any mention of Wanderone. See, e.g., this Google book search. Of course, I'm quite familiar with WP:WAX, but it's surprising that with all the incredible amounts of fancruft crap—thousands of truly unverifiable video game character articles and the like—to see resources used to nominate this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's Minnesota Fats. What's next, Sam Spade? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is notable, plus the existence of the character predating Wanderone's fame shows the marketing that Wanderone did to further his own career. People think Rudolf Wanderone created The Hustler but truth be told, it was the other way around. Without the Hustler, Wanderone would have been a legend around pool halls, and probably not a lot more. Eauhomme (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I favor keeping the page as a disambiguation page. One redirection to The Hustler character and one redirection to Wanderone, or a clear disambiguation to Wanderone. I strongly oppose removal of the article on The Hustler character or any indication that Wanderone is the only Minnesota Fats. Eauhomme (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A good deal of expansion should be possible as popular culture references to the film specifically. I really couldn't believe this particular nomination when I saw in on deletion sorting. Nominations need to be made with some awareness of the subject & the background. DGG (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jaw droppingly keep per Colonel Warden, Fuhghettaboutit, Fee Fi Fo Fum, &c., &c. Ford MF (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual situation of interaction between fictional character and real person's life justifies keeping, even if an interpretation of WP:FICT would indicate otherwise. JamesMLane t c 20:40, 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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bec d'Epicoune[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bec d'Epicoune

poorly written and lack nobility. ElectricalExperiment 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not against Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the fact that it's a stub should have no bearing on its existance - there are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia. JonCatalán (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable, particularly one that marks the border between two nations. A "poorly written" stub of a notable topic is a WP:SOFIXIT issue where deletion is not the solution. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major geographic features are notable. Bec d'Epicoune is a valid mountain stub. Sources are widely available to verify it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mountain apparently exists and as such, is inherently notable. Current state is not a reason for deletion, but rather clean up. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per precedent, all verifiable major geographical features, such as mountains, are notable. Sandstein 20:11, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finan Family History[edit]

This looks very much like someone posted their finfings on their own family history, which is rather unnotable. StaticGull Talk 12:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteper WP:CSD#A7. If that is not possible delete per WP:N and WP:NOT. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and/or WP:NOT harris 578 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:V, possible A7 --Numyht (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. completely non-notable and myspace-ish.Renee (talk) 17:35, 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 Redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Fall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Although the article may be notable enough, it doesn't contain enough information yet. StaticGull Talk 12:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fixed the AfD so it wasn't closed. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tears Fall. There was already an AfD which closed as Redirect; which should not have been removed. I'd fix it myself, but I'm a little confused as to how to do it, and how to handle fixing this (second) AfD. Can an experienced admin please help ? Plvekamp (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; certainly not enough for a whole article on its own.Renee (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two AfDs were actually at different locations due to case sensitivity. I moved the page and added an "AfDs for this article" box. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A gnews and gsearch isn't turning up notability for this single from an unreleased album, nor is any claimed in the article. No prejudice against re-creation if it becomes notable in the future.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation if this develops into something covered by the media. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already mentioned, without prejudice to re-creation in the future. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above. - eo (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fantasy Ride since this song is not confirmed as a single. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing significant has changed, still not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:31, 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 delete. Kurykh 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Jerry[edit]

Contested prod. Amateur movie, no claim of notability. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film is not an amateur movie with no claim of notability... can we get a clear indication of what needs to be added or removed to fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjerry (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! the creator of the article who has done nothing else on Wikipedia other than work on this article wants to Keep this article. I am aghast! Clearly User:Mynameisjerry has big conflict of interest and ownership issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Upon review, I would say my nomination rationale is wrong, but the article is still not worth keeping. Since the movie is in pre-production, and there are no big names involved, you should wait until it gets released before creating an article on it. Right now, the sources do not fit the guidelines for verifiability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crystal-ballism. The article describes a product that may exist in the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is in pre-prod and still isn't cast. Wikipedia is not for advertising your film or guessing the future. Fails WP:MOVIE as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a professional independent film with professional actors. All major roles have been cast. Cmwinters (talk) 00:26, 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, the argument on the delete side was that there is already a category for the topic, which is not a substantial argument when we have a list of dog breeds that also has a category. The article can be improved, perhaps by using a table format and adding more information, and it needs references. However just because that hasn't been done yet isn't a good enough argument to make for it to be deleted. Chetblong (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macintosh games[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}}.

Delete for two reasons. Firstly, eight months after being tagged as unreferenced, none of it is sourced. Secondly categories are much more suited to collecting data like this. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list in need of cleanup. It's not on a deadline. SashaNein (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spit non-policies in my face. SashaNein (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that WP:DEADLINE is a policy? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. She didn't introduce WP:DEADLINE as an imperative. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, categories are better suited. Furthermore, I bet that there are millions of red linked games that someone might be tempted to add to this list (I would also bet it's less than 10% complete). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per TenPoundHammer --T-rex 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pages in category "Mac OS games": 621. As stated before this seems better suited to categories which already exist. Even Category:Mac OS-only games exists. If it ends up deleted please redirect Mac games to something suitable like the category Faradayplank (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close Catgories and lists are not exclusive and do not compete with each other. See WP:CLN. It is considered disruptive behaviour to nominate either in this way. This is an obviously notable subject for a list. The content should largely be common sense. --neon white talk 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN is a guideline, not a policy. WP:V is policy. Also there is NO extra detail in the article that wouldn't be found in a category, it is just a simple list of article links. Nothing else. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a navigational list. Have a good read of WP:LISTS especially Wikipedia:LISTS#Navigation. They are a major part of wikipedia navigation and do not conflict with categories. It is the consensus of the community that neither should be nominated for deletion on grounds of overlap. --neon white talk 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Who considers it "disruptive behaviour"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, who considers it disruptive? Given that I've nominated a bunch of similar articles which have all been successfully deleted I am looking for a specific place where this consensus was reached. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We already have other such articles such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games with corresponding category list, the former containing plenty of red links; in fact, it looks like more red links than this list article. With that said, also agree with SashaNein about cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention the other useful list, else he'll go on a crusade to have that notable list removed as well. SashaNein (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO. Better presented as a category, and no point in listing a couple hundred games on this list. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not indiscriminate, it has clear criteria in line with guidelines. Again categories and lists do not compete with each other. --neon white talk 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is that criteria? Is the criteria simply games that run on a Mac? Is it games that run on current Macs? If it is simply every game that runs on a Mac, do we include games that run within emulators like VirtualPC? How about games that run in WINE? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stated criteria is "Macintosh video games available for any version of Mac OS in native mode" --neon white talk 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - along with the other hundred or so similar lists in Category:Video game lists by platform, including three featured lists. Nifboy (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't see any difference between those lists which include other information which can't be included in a category and this one which is just simply a list of article links? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the equivalent of deleting a page because it's a stub. Nifboy (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG turn into category This thing SCREAMS "turn me into an easy navigational category". No added information. Only wikilinks. A category would be easier to maintain and 0 information would be lost doing it. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid navigational list, fully complying with guidelines guidelines. --neon white talk 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories are not exclusive. It has been shown that it is possible to have a featured list of video games by adding more information. If this list doesn't provide added information when compared to the category, the solution is to add the information, not to delete the list! Treat it as a kind of stub; AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at the top, the article has been tagged for eight months as unreferenced and eight months and approximately forty edits later it still has zero references. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have a category for this purpose. It makes no sense to duplicate this content, and it goes without saying that open-ended lists attract all sorts of non-notable additions (like Movod 2, for example). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN explains why lists and categories are considered both valid and neither preferred. --neon white talk 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It concerns me that nobody seems to be dealing with the question "Does having this list improve the ability for a Wikipedia user to find access to appropriate articles?". There are wikipedia policy's and guidelines that go either way, and the idea behind these debates isn't vote counting - its about achieving consensus on compiling a collection of appropriate and useful information. I think we would do much better with this topic, if we focused on whether or not having the page is useful to wikipedias aims, rather than simply quoting competing policy and guidelines. Where's our consensus guys? Does this list help our users get access to relevant and appropriate information in Wikipedia about the subject? Less of "it does/doesn't meet policy" and more "does this help us" methinks! Icemotoboy (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now to contradict what I just said, Deletion policy states that These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does this article add any additional value to Wikipedia? It's a duplicate listing (and just a list) of the Macintosh games. The category is a much better format (easier to maintain, more navigable). If the article however would be turned into a table with release dates, publishers, etc, then I can see some use for it. But then, Chronology of Macintosh games might be a more appropriate name for that. Rasadam (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in its current form, this list effectively duplicates the "Mac OS games" category. But I think it could be very useful and encyclopedic. Deleting it seems like a waste... it would be similar to deleting a stub or an otherwise undeveloped article. I'd like to work on it, but I can't guarantee anything soon (especially not within the day or two that this discussion will remain open). Thus I recommend that the article be kept and improved. I'll certainly help out, time permitting. --Iamunknown 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have an entire Category:Video game lists by platform, so I'm wondering why the Mac list is being singled out in this fashion. I'm not trying to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here, but I would like to know what the consensus is regarding lists like these, which have well-defined but perhaps overly broad criteria leading to a very long list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS. (Yes, that does imply that I would support the deletion of a few more of those lists) --T-rex 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That could appear to be POV statement or strawman argument. The issue is not whether Mac is a gaming platform or not, the AfD was raised because: the article was unsourced, and the requester felt that categories were much more suited too this. What this discussion needs to decide is if we can agree on whether this list as it standards adds or takes away from users navigating to pages on wikipedia. Mac's have a well referenced and verifable commitment to games across its iPods and iMacs that arguably is gaining momentum (1, 2, 3, 4). I think whatever the consensus we should agree on something that benefits users by not being confusing. I.e. A level of standardization in the VG Project on this issue would be great.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - First saying that Macintosh is an OS is not POV, but a simple indisputable fact. Secondly iPods are certainly not Macintoshes, they are mp3 players. The subject is not apple --T-rex 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was suggesting that saying "Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS" without citation could appear to be a POV statement, I provided some references that would dispute that statement, and that regardless it was a strawman argument. Lets try and focus the discussion on the usefulness of the list vs. category not debate whether "Mac OS" is more or less worthy of Video Game lists.Icemotoboy (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, what you feel about OS X is irrelevant to the discussion. As I stated below, Wikipedia:Lists is very clear that lists and categories of the same thing actually improves navigation as readers have a preference either way (Some would want an article-based list, some would want to sift through a category).
        
        It's clear that the list is valid as a list, even with an identical category. What the discussion should then be about is how well it meets criteria for being an article based on its content. Obviously it needs references, tag it. It's not a red link garden, it links to many other valid articles. I might suggest making the list into a table to make it sortable. As for the scope of the list I'd say it's very useful as there are many games I had no idea were released on the Mac. Plus it's a personal amusement to me every time I hear someone claim Macs don't have games, and an article like this is a poster child for why Wikipedia exists; to educate people and spread knowledge. Anyway, unless someone wants to challenge policy, we've confirmed it's existence is legit now let's go over how to improve it (as that is supposedly why we're all here). --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid list according to policy (which explicitly states that categories and lists of the same items may coincide with each other). Hell, it looks cleaner than other lists I've seen on Wikipedia. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no point having a list if it does nothing a category couldn't. Reyk _YO! 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List and categories are both welcome even if they cover the same thing, as stated in Wikipedia:Lists --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 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 Keep. — _Maggot^Syn 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parry[edit]

Non-notable. Only mentioned by primary sources, his own website. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable journalist, played notable role in Iran-Contra scandal. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Polk Award winner and his Iran-contra reporting is acknowledged. Even if sources about him are slim there's enough to confirm major assertions and he he has sufficient recognition for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times story just barely mentions him, and that is more sourcing than the article has had so far. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Polk award is enough for me. His impact on Iran-Contra solidifies it. Definitely notable. Vickser (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable enough. However the article could use some work. Right now it is mainly a coatrack for his views. He left a successful career in mainstream journalism to edit a left-wing political blog. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 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. Speedy deletion already said. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retardomusic[edit]

Delete irrelevant internet meme. It receives a grand total of six unique hits via google search, four of which are related to this Wikipedia article. There are about 2000 non-unique hits, all of them from the site rantsnraves.org. Fails WP:WEB. Mind matrix 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, seems like self promotion and/or a joke. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete made up neologism, joke, personal essay, possible attack magnet and I could go on and on... Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NFT. Delete it please, horrible. --Numyht (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an nn meme and probable OR. May actually qualify as a speedy --T-rex 17:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly speedy as an obvious attempt to astroturf a patently non-notable meme/advertise a website. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Speedy Delete - Speedy under CSD A7 as a non-notable meme, from a non-notable website. Complete original research. Total violations of WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NEO, and WP:WEB. How many policies can one article break? Speedy Delete. iced kola^(Mmm...) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, for the same reasons everybody else mentioned. BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete complete and total worthless garbage from an idiot troll trying to force a meme. If he kicks up a fuss, block him. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this entry will do no harm. It is a genuine development in trolling and I see no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskyboris (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOHARM. Mind matrix 02:49, 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. I've read through the article several times (including "past versions, reversions, new versions...), I've read the entire talkpage of the article, and I've read through and weighed the discussion here at AFD several times. It would be very easy for me to simply say "no consensus", but I would be doing so simply to avoid "hurt feelings". I'm obliged to say keep based on the case presented. The improvements to the article are valid, the sources are "improving", indicating a likelihood that they will continue to improve. Mr. Wilson's credentials, (Harvard), his academic position (academic dean of a prominent (within its field) seminary), his writing of a widely (again, within his field) book, the availability of reviews for said book, all add up to notability of subject. I agree in part with those advocating deletion that this biography is skewed towards being too coatrack-y, however, and want to urge all editors to not let the focus of the article be simply the book he wrote. The article definitely needs more citations specifically that talk (independently and reliably) about Mr. Wilson instead of "Mr. Wilson wrote a notable book". If those prove unattainable in the in the next few weeks/months, then this article is inappropriately named and a rename discussion should occur. (to the book title). Ideally, especially for WP:BLP biographies, we should have background, comeuppance, birth/(death) dates, etc that are sourced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (theologian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrew Wilson (theologian)

Non-notable. Only mentioned in primary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable -- no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of apparently notable sources (and a few stray hits) googling for "andrew wilson" and unification. Please take the time to do at least that much research before nominating an undersourced article: google first, nom second. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found two relevant cites from ProQuest, searching on "Andrew Wilson" and "unification"--a third did not appear relevant.

Andrew Wilson. The World & I. Washington: Jan 1999. Vol. 14, Iss. 1; pg. 266. A review of Boorstin's "The Seekers". Author tag "Andrew Wilson is associate professor of biblical studies at the Unification Theological Seminary His publications include True Family Values (1996) and World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (1991). He has collaborated on textbooks in the field of moral education and also spent several years researching and planning an encyclopedia oriented around values."

Gülen's Paradox: Combining Commitment and Tolerance. Lester R Kurtz. The Muslim World. Hartford: Jul 2005. Vol. 95, Iss. 3; pg. 373, 12 pgs. Wilson is cited in end note: "See, e.g., the remarkable compendium edited by Andrew Wilson and posted on the internet at http://www.unification.net/ws/themel44.htm (available 30 August 2003)." as reference for "Virtually every religious tradition, for example, has some version of a "love your enemy" ethic" Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, apparently third party sources for "World Scripture" and "Andrew Wilson" include: [10], [11] (includes quotes from apparently non-Unification folks), [12] (one of six texts on the topic profiled), [13], [14], [15] (three examples--there are many more--of collegiate libraries linking to the online version as a reference).

Comment: in actual fact, a Google search shows up almost exclusively primary and/or UC-affiliated sources. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd already gone through and done the searching I re-did, it would have been considerate for you to have explicitly said that--e.g. "first 20 google hits look like primary sources." That would have saved me some time. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't previously as (i) I didn't nominate this AfD & (ii) I don't find (vanilla) Google to be particularly useful because of the large number of unreliable sources it turns up (G. Scholar/Books tends to be more useful in that respect, but does tend to clog up with a large number of non-"significant coverage" bare mentions). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You looked at Google Scholar, did you? Did you notice that World Scripture seems to be cited 18 times? I just did. Funny how that got overlooked in the rush to declare that no one had ever heard of Andrew Wilson, Ph.D. from Harvard. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilson's notability derives primarily from his having edited World Scripture, a 5-year project which I have seen praised a number of times in third-party publications as a major work in the field of comparative religion. This claim is made in the article, but is unsourced. This AfD is premature - a cite tag should have been put on that claim instead. So keep, but find third-party sources. A secondary claim of notability might not be enough by itself, that Wilson (a Harvard Ph.D. who is Academic Dean of the church's main seminary in the world) is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. -Exucmember (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS citations for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Andrew Wilson" + unification turns up zero hits on google news, whereas "Andrew Wilson" turns up a total of 10 pages of hits: including an associate professor of physics at the University of Otago and an archaeological scientist at the University of Bradford, but no professors of theology. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:BIO, but I'd be happy to change my opinion if WP:RS sources are provided which demonstrate notability to either of these standards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm a critic of the Unification Church, but I have to take issue with Pete Hurd's comment. Google News?!? Is that how we evaluate the notability of an academic?!? There are three main claims to notability. [1] Editor of major work in comparative religion, World Scripture - third-party sources need to be found for its importance, which is more difficult as it was published in the pre-internet era (patience is appropriate here, not rushing to AfD). [2] He is the Academic Dean of a fully accredited graduate school. [3] He is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. (This third claim is a harder one to evaluate. On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work." -Exucmember (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already made (1) above (and I asked for a WP:RS on it). (2) would appear to be an administrative position and non-notable. (3), even were it to be verified via a WP:RS is of questionable value -- as chief theologian of a church whose theological pronouncements many (in both the Christian and the secular communities) would often consider to be out-and-out bizarre. WP:FRINGE would appear to apply, and some independent verification that Unification theology is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all comfortable with your (3)--at first glance, it looks to be taking a stand on the value of Unification theology. Can you please clarify that point? Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be stretching credibility to suggest that most Christians and secularists (as well as most Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians and presidential historians) would consider claims such as this (cited in Sang Hun Lee) of beyond-the-grave endorsements from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and 36 presidents of the US to be, to say the least, well outside the ordinary. I would therefore like to see some independent evidence that Unification theology is considered to be a serious field of academic study, and not merely an apologetic overlay on the pronouncements of Moon and other senior UC members. On a more general note, I would suggest that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria applies, and that none of these criteria have, as yet, been met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the inherent challenge of finding RS for minority viewpoints and religions, I don't think Unification's religious prestige or lack thereof should be a consideration on whether this article should be deleted or not. WP:RS and WP:N already cover it sufficiently, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For any Academic their notability due to the prominence in their specialist field necessarily relies on the prominence of that field. I would note that the Unification theology article cites no third party sources. I therefore would suggest that the prominence (and even the bare notability) of that field has not been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding your arguments less and less convincing; each reply makes it more difficult for me to WP:AGF, both in terms of your disrespect for a minority religion, but especially in light of the dozen or more college libraries which link to the online version of World Scripture. Please demonstrate good faith by amending your clearly erroneous initial statement in light of the evidence brought forth, at essentially trivial effort, by myself and other editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unident>Then lets leave the Unification aspect out of this altogether. Is Andrew Wilson considered "by independent sources" to be an expert in theology? Is he considered to be an "important figure" in theology by "independent notable" theologians (if so, then by whom)? Is World Scripture considered to be "significant and well-known" (again, if so, then by whom)? These are the questions that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria asks. As to universities linking to it, (i) this is a very vague claim -- in what manner do they link to it? (ii) please provide verifiable information substantiating this & (iii) please establish relevance to WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to refactor, retract, or otherwise amend (which can be as simple as "the information since added to the article renders this statement now incorrect") your initial false statements. After all, shouldn't the presentation of accurate information in an AfD take precedence over such minor points? Still, both the article and this page have the information needed for you to answer the university linking question. If you'd like more, Google this string ("andrew wilson" "world scripture" site:*.edu) and peruse the results, adding them to the page as you see fit. As to the WP:ACADEMIC criteria "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]." citations by a dozen university websites (many of them libraries), including UPenn, GMU, Temple, and Emory would seem to establish that pretty firmly. If you'd be so kind as to change your vote, I'll count that as self-repudiation of your initial incorrect comments. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refactor it if somebody demonstrates it to be inaccurate. I am not repudiating the underlying theme of my previous thread of argument: that at some point "minority religion" becomes sufficiently small and sufficiently idiosyncratic that its study is no longer a significant field in theology (just as would apply to any other sub-sub-sub-field in academia), and that which side of this boundary UC sits on has not been established. My reframing of the question to theology generally was to avoid this (apparently contentious) issue, not a repudiation of it. Google hits turned up references that suggest that World Scripture is merely a collection of scriptural passages, organised thematically -- not that it is a major piece of original scholarship. As to my vote, let me clarify it: Delete: as there still has not been presented even a single WP:RS that attests to the topic's notability (per WP:NOTE, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll demonstrate how your statement is inaccurate: "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Note that since the second clause is qualified, twice, and the first statement is not, hence absolute.

"No third party coverage"--The article now has third party (i.e., non-UC) coverage.
"no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Now there is.

If you still don't see the need to refactor that statement as demonstrably incorrect in light of the current state of ther article, then I really have nothing further to say in response to such intransigence. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state that the article was in when I made my original comment. It could accurately be described as containing "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him". Yes, third party sources have been provided since, but they are very poor quality as (i) they, or the statements attributed to them, score the trifecta of violating WP:NPOV (opinion stated as fact), WP:NOR (synthesis) and WP:V (referencing uncited quotes), and (ii) do not give the "significant coverage" required by WP:NOTE (nor meet the equivalent standards of WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). There is thus no basis for either a retraction or a change of vote. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you didn't say there was no third party coverage referenced in the article. By excluding the qualifier from that statement, and including it for the latter clause, you said that no third party coverage existed at all. You're now reinterpreting your statement to present it that that assertion was never made, but you're clearly unwilling to apply the same standards of exactness you apply to the article to your own statements. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case of Dr. Wilson is pure ignorance or bias. World Scripture has sold over 25,000 copies and has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC. I would say that objectively he rates an entry more than a lot of people in the Wikipedia. If he doesn't merit an article of his own, at least merge the information about him into Unification Theological Seminary. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: last I checked WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria did not contain a sales-based criterion. Thus this figure, even if it were verifiable to a reliable source (which Ed fails to provide), is irrelevant. As to the claim that it has "has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC", where is the WP:RS? This is not a "case of ... pure ignorance or bias" it is case of repeated bare assertion, rather than making any attempt whatsoever to meet WP:PROVEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment I have run the Google search referred to above by Jclemens. This gives 13 hits. I have looked at all of them. Almost all (3 exceptions) are simple lists of "online web resources". The other three are texts citing this work (one in Russian). Google Scholar gives also about 13 hits and indicates that this work has been cited about 20 times. Many grad students get more cites... Hrafn is right, this does not meet WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You meant comment, right? You already !Voted delete. While you're commenting, though, could you look at the Google Scholar ones I posted above, too? Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which ones you mean. The 18 citations that you refer to above? My former grad student (defended his PhD less than 4 years ago) has almost 150.... 18 is simply not very impressive, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the magic number? Is it the same from field to field? Note that he's not "just" an academic--he's a seminary professor, which means that he's likely been more involved in training Unification Church clergy than in publishing original research. I do know he's more cited than the vast majority of clergy are. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that citation rates vary a lot between different fields. In the life sciences, I don't start getting impressed below 1000. However, I cannot imagine that 18 citations would be above the mean in any field, theology or other. Of course most clergy are not cited because they do not simulteously work as academics. The correct comparison is with other seminary professors. As for "just" an academic: almost all academics teach and train, for instance, new scientists. Nothing really special about that. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the pull quotes, Google scholar citations, etc., please take a look at the current state of the article and let me know 1) is there anything else that you see that should be added to change your vote under WP:ACADEMIC, or 2) is there another established notability standard that you believe he meets, given the information in the article now? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but given all the evidence (of lack of evidence, actually) presented so far, I think it has been shown clearly that this article does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hrafn just tagged three trivial corrections for cleanup. I addressed each one, but the tagging of issues that could have been easily fixed by any editor raises additional questions of good faith on this editor's part. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five more, even more trivial, tags have been addressed. Only one required a change. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After assessing Jclemens claims, I have to agree, there are notable sources (as he points out). It's a good start and Jclemens is demonstrating a good faith attempt to remedy the objections. Therefore, I strongly urge that this be kept. I would only say that a photo would be nice. Note that WP:ACADEMIC is merely a guideline and does not have the community's consensus to be a policy. As such there is plenty of room for leeway. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have personally seen praise in print for World Scripture from well-known people in the comparative religion world, but that was effectively before the web, so those comments are not on the web. It will take some time to find such additional sources commenting on Wilson's major work. Comparative religion is a much narrower field even than theology. As has been pointed out by me and others above, there are other factors that contribute to Wilson's notability, which are now covered pretty well in the article, but weren't when this AfD began. All of the reasons given directly after "delete" arguments above (well I guess there are only 3 people making such arguments, including the AfD nominator) have now been addressed in the article. -Exucmember (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin Please take a look at the edit history of the article. Hrafn has been actively removing material which I and Exucmember believe establish notability for Wilson's work, such as the fact the online version of his notable work is linked to by multiple college/university libraries. I intend to pursue dispute resolution processes, but I do not want my failure to edit war over these material removals to impact the resolution of this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that lists of links establish notability just by including this work. --Crusio (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate your candor throughout the process, even though we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further I am now not reverting the article in question until I've had a neutral party appraise whether doing so will violate 3RR. I have been unjustly accused of Coatracking, despite WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack--as the book is Wilson's biggest documented accomplishment, it is allowed to take up disproportionate space in the article. Further, I have been unjustly accused of Gaming the AfD, simply because of my concerted effort to include material to demonstrate that Andrew Wilson meets the criteria of having published a major work in his field--that work being World Religion the alleged coatrack. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands this is a very bad article. WP:COATRACK applies in the extreme - i.e. the article is just an excuse to write about his book. The article contains no biographical material. No birthdate, no other jobs, no history. Unless the article is substantially improved I have to say delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete major portions of the text in the middle of an AfD. The reason the section about World Scripture is so large is to demonstrate notability. Quoting Exucmember above "On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work."" The current AfD is the sole reason that portion of the article has grown out of proportion to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes DJ Clayworth, your removal of this material quite cruelly undercuts Jclemens' attempt to WP:GAME this AfD by loading the article up with spurious, trivial and/or tangential citations, none of which give Wilson (or even World Scriptures) "significant coverage". Shame on you. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree that the edits I and exucmember have made improve the article enought to meet WP:HEY, then leave them alone and let the AfD process kill the entire article. By actively removing content, you're demonstrating a lack of faith in the closing admin: If our additions are BS, then the article should be deleted, as the closing admin should not be influenced by inferior additions. Given that you hold the position that the article should be deleted, what do you hope to accomplish by pre-deleting parts of it? Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not carte blanche to load an article up with WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and spurious citations. New material that does not meet policy can be removed at any time -- and doing so before the sheer number of them you are piling in willy-nilly get mistaken for "significant coverage" (which they are not) would appear to be timely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you fear that the inclusion of the material (which you disagree meets policy) could be seen by a community-selected admin as significant coverage? Is that not, then, the very definition of gaming the AfD? I'd think it also reflected poorly on your WP:AGF of the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I am saying is that commenting editors will generally not track down every citation, so will tend to voice an opinion on the number of citations, and thus might be misled by the insertion of a large number of spurious or tangential citations. The closing admins role is to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to impose their own opinion on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep, pending further research. Here's a newspaper article about Wilson.John Z (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News gives an NYT article quoting Wilson in preview, on graduation at top, the third article from the Frederick Maryland News looks like it could be an interview with his parents about the deprogramming.John Z (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I've added the Crimson reference, and will look to see if I can get full text for the other articles. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Edits Please see Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits for details. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm among those who've contributed to answering, to a degree I think most people would find very reasonable, all the criticisms made by Hrafn in his extremely aggressive attack on this article (see above and recent edits), and have made several compromises as well. Though I don't favor his editing style, I have to say that the article is vastly better as of writing than it was before the AfD. Then again, the same result could have been accomplished more calmly, but over a longer time frame. -Exucmember (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - being the dean of Unification Theological Seminary comes close to notability, but not quite there --T-rex 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind reviewing a more complete version that speaks to the notability of Wilson's magnum opus, I think you'll find enough additional notability aplenty. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by T-rex and at least one other "delete" editor above seem to be ignoring the fact that various reasons for notability can be cumulative. For example, T-rex's comment appears to ignore [1] "leading Unification scholar", [2] editor of the main academic journal of Unificationism, and [3] translator of the main scripture of the Unification Church, in addition to [4] his magnum opus, the significance of which was illegitimately deleted from the article, but has now been restored. -Exucmember (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for his notable book, whic makes him notable. Better sources would still be nice thoughYobmod (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that the book is notable. Being included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs is not really a ringing endorsement by the academic community. I see above that some feel that Wilson might be notable as a "deprogrammation survivor". If that indeed would be the case (and that still is a very big if), then the article should be rewritten to put the emphasis on what makes him notable (i.e. the deprogrammation episode) and renamed from "Andrew Wilson (theologian)" to "Andrew Wilson (deprogrammation survivor)". I think it has been shown over and again that Wilson is not notable as an academic (sorry Exucmember, but your arguments just don't cut it for me). An "Academic Dean" at a major research university or a major seminary might be notable, but from nothing that I see does it look like that the seminary where he works is even average. It is only notable for being the main Unification Church seminary. I still think this article should be deleted, although this AfD seems to be heading to "no consensus" (which I think would be the easy but wrong way out for the closing admin). A compromise might be to make it a redirect to the seminary page, where Wilson could be mentioned as Academic Dean with perhaps a footnote mentioning his deprogrammation experience and his authorship of the oft-mentioned edited book.

I think that this discussion is becoming increasingly sterile, with people digging trenches instead of listening to arguments, so this will be my last contribution to this AfD. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Crusio's characterization "included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs" grossly misrepresents the article. Of course, if the statements by professors praising the book are repeatedly deleted, someone who doesn't look carefully enough might believe the characterization to be accurate. Also, it not "the easy way out" to acknowledge the obvious lack of consensus here, especially when it's clear that the early objections have been addressed. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, show me a single blog that has been added as a source by those advocating keeping the article. That is essentially an unfounded accusation that those of us supporting Wilson's notability have been padding the article with unreliable sources. Hrafn's critique, focused on the triviality of such mentions, has more merit than an attack on the reliability of the sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let me try to make what seems to me to be a perfectly obvious point (but that others don't seem to get) in a different way. In a Venn diagram of overlapping circles, unless there is complete, 100% overlap, each circle contributes to the total shaded area. If a numerical score is given for each of a group of factors (i.e., grade point average, standardized test score, essay score, legacy score, etc.), they can combine to predict some outcome (i.e., performance in college). Unless the factors are 100% correlated, the variance explained by (total mathematical predictive value of) adding each factor is increased. The same is true for Wilson's various sources of notability. You can't take just one source of notability and say it doesn't quite reach the bar, ignoring that the others added in put it well over the bar. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After all the editing the article's been through over the course of this AfD, it still comes out looking like an ad for his book. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment misunderstands the role of a magnum opus in the life of an academic. Also, the book is still under attack as not sufficiently notable by itself! Other portions of the article can be beefed up. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits by DJ Clayworth deleting references to contribution to comparative religion of World Scripture, the notability of which has been challenged [16][17][18][19]. See also questionable edits by Hrafn described by Jclemens at Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits. -Exucmember (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - based on coverage in sources, just about notable. Possibly should be rewritten so it's primarily about the book. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability, although extremely marginal, is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 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 keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

non-notable podcast. Requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources to meet our inclusion criteria and these appear to be absent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "As of June 2008, more than 35,000 listeners download the show each week. It is typically in the top ten listings for science podcasts on the iTunes store, and is currently ranked #1 on Digg in the Science Podcasts category:" There aren't that many notable podcasts, but this is one of them. Why is there a box here linking back to this discussion? Nick mallory (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bos ie so all AFds are linked. If this is notable then there will be reliable sources that discuss the podcasts in a non-trivial way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'bos' only links back to this page. Usually you only put a box in for previous AfDs. What's the point of it here? Oh, and, you know, Jimmy Carter. Nick mallory (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's third party coverage from reliable sources of Jimmy Carter's UFO interview on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. [20] [21] The list of guests and it consistant rankings on Digg and iTunes also help. That said, in general I would err on the side of "Not too many podcasts, please." Vickser (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SGU podcast is very notable. --Kvuo (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SGU is notable. --Ppgardne 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs)

Loads of interviews with notable people and a solid top 10 itunes ranking. This however is not good enough for the web notability, and further evidence there needs to be criteria for podcasts.Mindme (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of the show, I don't think that I'm impartial enough to say whether to keep or not, but I would like to say a few words in its defense. First of all, it has consistently been a top rating show within the Itunes science category, and it is currently one of their featured podcasts within that category. In addition, they are notable enough that have been able to draw a number of high profile people to interview on their show. Examples include famous skeptics such as James Randi, entertainers such as Adam Savage and Tory Belleci from Mythbusters, and even President Jimmy Carter. Personally, I would say that this show meets any reasonable notability standard and this article should stay.Ricree101 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) The SGU is among the most popular podcasts and consistently ranks highly on iTunes and websites as Digg, (2) The SGU is produced by two notable organizations, the James Randi Educational Foundation and of course the New England Skeptical Society, (3) The SGU has had many notable guests on, including president Jimmy Carter, and MythBusters' Adam Savage etc. (4) Various other articles link to the SGU article, including James Randi, James Randi Educational Foundation, New England Skeptical Society, Skepchick, Steven Novella etc. (5) The SGU podcast is mentioned in other news sources, example: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-New-England-Skeptical-Society-788703.html Stefan Kruithof (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --JMA1 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The SGU podcast is one of the highest ranked science podcasts, and has a listenership of over close to 40,000 people worldwide. In addition the SGU is at the forefront of the skeptical movement with the likes of James Randi, Phil Plait, PZ Meyers, and frequently has notable guests. While I agree that every podcast doesn't need a page, if requirements are so strict that an influential podcast like this one is excluded, then they need to be revisited.MArcane (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone have any sources or are we going for notability by assertion? Do we no longer need to verify information in our articles? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few mentioned, such as: [22] [23] Vickser (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading this page? Various people have already mentioned the SGU's top rank on Digg and iTunes, which you can easily verify for yourself. Similarly, there have been links to the news articles in old media mentioning the SGU.Stefan Kruithof (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both above having a nigh itunes and digg are not going to establish notabiliy. The first source you provided was a press release and we don't count press releases as evidence of notability, the second is a blog and that is also not evidence of notability even from the heraldtribune. See WP:RS. Also see WP:V. None of the information is sourced to a reliable source. Please stop taking pot shots at me and consider the points I'm making. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the point that eleven people (so far) disagree with you and nobody supports you? Nick mallory (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of decisions on Wikipedia aren't made by majority rule, and besides, the only people who have responded are those who care about it the most, i.e. the listeners. The fact is that Spartaz correctly pointed out that this article had not met the notability requirements, and that many of the initial attempts at meeting those requirements fell short of Wikipedia's standards. Complaining that he's being mean is pointless. I happen to agree that the SGU is notable, but I decided to find reliable sources that mentioned it in a non-trivial way.

Even if there weren't any evidence of its notability, it wouldn't be helpful to get angry at the person implementing policy. The better thing to do would be to point out that the policy needs revision. As the amount of web content increases, the ability of traditional media to mention notable content will decrease, and Wikipedia's reliance upon them will be increasingly insufficient. Dhawkins1234 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable source examples says blogs run by newspapers are acceptable. I've never actually listened to the podcast, I just found this debate in AfD and did google research. Let's keep trying to WP:Assume Good Faith from both sides. It's true that this isn't majority rule, so it's the discussion that matters, not the Keeps with no context. Vickser (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if a podcast that's an iTunes category leader, has a long track record of having on notable guests (notable people don't go on podcasts they judge as non-notable), and has more listeners/itunes reviews than some notable media productions, gets noted as notable by iTunes, and yet just hugs the web notability requirements, it seems manifest to me that there needs to be either a set of podcast notability criteria or, in the short term, sysops need not to be so dogmatic about notability criteria for podcasts until something better comes along. Trying to find podcasts given the thumbs up by dead tree and major media to demonstrate notability is a bit like arguing Beethoven is not notable because there are passingly few references to this crazy Ludwig guy in heavy metal magazines. Podcasting isn't going away. Podcast fans are going to bum rush wiki in increasing numbers and unless you get in place some more reasonable guidelines, wiki is going to create some horked off newbie editors who might otherwise make good future contributions. Mindme (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few other sources [24] [25] [26]. I'd also like to point out that the notability guideline isn't inflexible - the notability page indicates that the criteria should be applied with common sense and the occasional exception. The fact that there are media references, albeit brief, and that several notable individuals, including a former president, have appeared on the podcast should be enough to invoke common sense. Furthermore, you discount the blog that appears on the Herald Tribune, but the page on examples of reliable sources indicates that a blog published by professional journalist and hosted by his or her employer may be considered a reliable source. Dhawkins1234 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wikivir (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would anyone want this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evileyem (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a few other notable mentions from the Nature Networks Editor among other notable place. [27] [28][29][30].Skeptic sid (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edd (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:SkepticalBelg —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt about it. --TheAlphaWolf (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it will be prudent here to Merge the "New England Skeptical Society" article into "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" podcast. This podcast is the podcast of the "New England Skeptical Society" and has since become much better known and more note-worthy then the organization that formed it. I do however think that the main article should be "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe", since that as I said, is more noteworthy. -- Protesilaus 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have been looking into Wikipedia for a little while now and can't find any articles on any podcasts. I don't even see a classification that spawns a list of podcasts that have articles on Wikipedia. Which podcasts meet the prerequisites for publication on Wikipedia? -- Protesilaus 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.48.134 (talk) [reply]
Keep -- would seem to meet WP:WEB by being in the Featured list at iTunes, a respected independent distributor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been mentioned in Swift publication, Skeptic Magazine and a number of radio programs. Opcn (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Digg and iTunes rankings justify this Marcfarrow (talk) 23:10, 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. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hendricks[edit]

Non-notable. Only mentioned in primary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man appears to be notable enough within his sphere (the Unification Church). Although that church is not popular with many other people around the world, the fact that he is a co-president of the US arm seems notable - certainly as notable as the multitude of soccer (I mean football) players that this site is blessed with. Besides, look at all the articles he has published, and the fact that he has released some music albums. Just sayin' . . Raymondwinn (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - served as president of a large religious group. Looks like notability to me --T-rex 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a critic of the Unification Church, but I have to say Dr. Hendricks is also the current president of a fully accredited graduate school.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptoid[edit]

Article lacks reliable sources and appears to be a non-notable webcast. Only meets inclusion criteria if it has been written about in multiple non-trivial reliable sources and that doesn't appear to be the case Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is mentioned by at least one reliable source, included in the external links section of the article. Seems to be notable and important enough for a WP article to me. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources mentioned in the article appeared to meet WP:RS and the standard for notability is multiple. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Thousands of ghits but mainly blogs and the like. wp:n and wp:rs are currently not clearly met. Google news has 1. find articles 0. Faradayplank (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known within its community, or so Google would have me believe. I see two references to it in The Hanford Sentinel in July of last year, and I have no doubt there are more newspaper references that that, but I no longer have access to the right search tools for that. --BenBurch (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link?Geni 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/HNSB/lib01585,11AB20B91BE2C370.html - Jul 28, 2007

http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/HNSB/lib01585,11ABCA290ECC2D70.html - Jul 30, 2007

--BenBurch (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link lead anywhere. The caption is something about bigfoot. Confused... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta buy the articles. --BenBurch (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who don't have subscriptions can you make the contents temporarily available somewhere or e-mail the contents to me? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sorry. --BenBurch (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skeptoid appears to be very notable, a quick google finds several articles about Skeptoid. What definition of 'non-trivial reliable source' and 'non-notable' are you using? --Ppgardne 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs)

The usual definition. Please can you cite specific RSs for us to consider as just pointing to google is not very specific. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Now why is the burden of proof on other Wikipedians? You marked the article for deletion hence maybe you should do a little research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - assertions of notability, but not much in reliable sources. If you can't strengthen it, it's gonna fail the verifiability and notability tests alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "notability", "multiple", "non-trivial", and "reliable sources" are such subjective terms as to be almost meaningless. IMO, Skeptoid is a very notable podcast. --TheAlphaWolf (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the main skeptical podcasts and is therefore of note. It is currently ranked number 13 in science podcasts on iTunes. This is a major venue for people to download podcasts and I think that it demonstrates that even among science podcasts it has enough listeners to be notable. —Fiziker ^t 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptoid is an official testing org for the Randi Challenge. Not quite the "major award" criterion in web notability but a notable achievement all the same. It is also the podcast counterpart to a commercially sold book:

http://www.amazon.com/Skeptoid-Critical-Analysis-Pop-Phenomena/dp/1434821668

Mindme (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on this deletion debate, but that book is published by "CreateSpace - on-demand self publishing", and thus is no assertion of notability at all. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided to keep skeptoid, then Dogma Free America should also pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindme/Dogma_Free_America

Mindme (talk) 15:00, 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 merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Children[edit]

This is Unification Church jargon for Rev. Moon's children. If they are notable they should have articles under their own names. If not they should be mentioned in their father's article. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable third party sources, so does not meet WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article on the Moon family, True Family which has much more information. No need for this article too. On the question of in how much detail WP should cover Rev. and Mrs. Moon's family I will remain neutral since I am a UC member. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - repeats information from other articles. -Exucmember (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to True_Family#The_True_Children. No need to duplicate this information, but it could have value as a search term.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: agree with Fabrictramp - leave redirect (valuable as a search term - key idea in Unificationism) -Exucmember (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to True_Family#The_True_Children. Redirects are cheap. Merge whatever non-redundant information into that article. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:54, 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 keep. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jenkins (Unification Church)[edit]

Non-notable. Only mentioned by primary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Google News and Books searches show plenty of WP:RS coverage to establish notability, both positive and negative. He's a top leader of a significant religious group in the U.S. and he gets the attention the comes with it. Fix the article, don't delete it. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could certainly stand expansion, but I'm finding 264 news articles that quote him. Plus, as president of a well-known religious organization, he's notable IMO. (The unification church was once known as the "Moonies")Hobit (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is president of a large religious group. Looks like notability to me --T-rex 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: actually, it appears not be "a large religious group" -- highest credible estimate is "about 40,000 members in the U.S." (with credible estimates as low as 5,000). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1 President of a church of 40,000 folks is notable IMO. #2 The USA isn't the world. Not sure if he's the president of just the US branch, but that same site put membership in S. Korea at 1.5% of the country if I'm reading it right. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i) 40k is the highest credible estimate -- lowest was only 5k (smaller than many individual megachurches). If you had actually read the article you would have seen that he is "the president of the Unification Church of America". Therefore UC membership in S. Korea (or anywhere else in the world) is completely irrelevant, as he's not the president of other branches. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had read it, but got it in my head it said pres of the whole thing. Still think he's notable given the number of times he's showing up in RS. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 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. — _Maggot^Syn 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Sabancı Dinçer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, reads like a resume or copyright violation Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a new entry and It will be edited.MuratGollu (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In reverse order of the nom's objections, there is no evidence of a copyright violation, problems of style are fixable by editing, not deletion, and she certainly passes WP:BIO by being profiled by the Financial Times as one of Turkeys "top people[31] and referred to by Newsweek as one of "Turkey's top tycoons"[32] and confirmed by Bloomberg to be "managing director of the second-biggest listed bank" in Turkey[33]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Phil Bridger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auawise (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinead Desmond[edit]

Possibly notable, but rife with WP:MOS and WP:TONE issues Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content issues are not a criteria for deletion. tagged the article for clean up. --neon white talk 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable (see these sources, for example: [34], [35], [36], [37]). There are some issues with the content, but nothing that can't be fixed, and the article has only just been created. Silverfish (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my Keep. The original article seems to be mainly a copyright violation. The only parts of the original version of the article that do not seem to be from this article: [38] are the bit that says she "did some modeling shoots none topless" and the sentence that "He as grown hugely in he job as TV3 from a frumby dressing presenter to a stylish dressed and with the mix of weight loss has attraced a fan base of boys, men and pensioners". We will need to remove the copied material. I've created an introductory paragraph that should provide the basis of a stub. I'm not sure if we need to delete, as the violating material would still be in the page history otherwise. Silverfish (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a solvable content issue and not grounds for deletion. --neon white talk 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material, and restored my keep. I think copyright violations are more serious than other content issues as they potentially lead to legal issues. However, in this case it was straightforward to deal with this. Silverfish (talk) 16:03, 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 - strong evidence of notability, but needs expansion, tagging. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Groendyke[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO Madcoverboy (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not finished with the page yet, but if you feel it nessicary to delete it go for it

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a wet trout to the nom for not doing a gsearch before nominating this article for deletion less than 3 hours after creation. Forbes profile is the first ghit; 681 gnews hits give a high probability of notability. Article just needs more work, not deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 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. Kurykh 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBS Treatment Center[edit]

Not notable, promotional, conflict of interest, original research. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is 1 google news hit from a WP:RS. Lots of internet chatter and forum comments. May indeed be notable. I know someone may come along and argue that this article is helpful for people with IBS, which it may be, but if you find it helpful please source the contents of the article with non WP:SPS sources. Since the article links to this page which is full of reliable, third party sources, it might make for a much better article if some of these were incorporated in a manner that doesn't create a COI Faradayplank (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- innatehealthfoundation.org seems to be related so I don't think it's a reliable third-party source. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability beyond any other clinic that treats functional bowel disorders. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability: It is frustrating and challenging not to have more and better news coverage of the IBS Treatment Center. It would be great to have a third party compare the patient outcomes of the IBS Treatment Center vs. any other clinic. The primary notable thing about the IBS Treatment Center is that it has effectively treated many, many patients who had not previously received effective care despite seeing a wide variety of previous care providers over years or even decades. Third party verification is difficult due to patient confidentiality, but news published includes: this newspaper article, and this magazine article . The fact that patients have traveled to the IBS Treatment Center from at least 30 states and from countries as far away as Thailand and New Zealand is notable as few other health providers in the world have drawn patients in this way, but it is true, though difficult to verify without access to patient records. Anyone interested in verifying this information is welcome to contact me to try and figure out how to do so without violating patient confidentiality. I am not sure how any third party would verify this sort of thing for any hospital or clinic. As to COI: Innate Health Foundation - Although founded by the same people, the Innate Health Foundation is governed by an independent board of directors. The information on the research page has no COI as it is all peer-reviewed published medical research. Full disclosure, I am not a doctor, but I am connected to the IBS Treatment Center.Renovator (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most treatment centers, including this one, do not pass WP:CORP. If someone finds more independent reliable sources than I did, these should be used to make this an actually neutral article. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of places effectively treat lots of patients. That doesn't mean that they meet WP:CORP or WP:V. We must have reliable sources. Otherwise, we've got a he said/she said situation on our hands, and no way for us to tell fact from fiction. They can try again later, after someone has written a couple of newspaper articles on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 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 merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winterfold House School[edit]

Fails WP:SCHOOL notability Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Chaddesley Corbett, the school's locality per WP:SCHOOL. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Chaddesley Corbett per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Tanthalas39 per CSD A1 as having not enough context to identify the subject. WilliamH (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrybrook village[edit]

Non-notable service station Madcoverboy (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. Non-notable shopping mall (the article does not say it is a mall) in the outskirts of Sydney, Australia (the location has been omitted in the article). Even if this article is kept, it should be rewritten from scratch. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:59, 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 delete. Kurykh 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francification[edit]

Contested prod. Recently coined term. The article originally stated that the term is used only by the person who coined it, but the author changed that to "widely used" after the article was prodded. A {{fact}} tag on that statement remains unanswered. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - the subject may be of only temporary interest as far as US politics goes, but the background (loss of dialect in a french province) could be of lasting interest. It could be of value in coming years to see how the term got transmogrified from one meaning to the other. The article could be improved for now, by adding examples from the current press of how the word is being used. Raymondwinn (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not about the concept. It is about the current and past usage of the term. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS that use the term (which surprises me) Hobit (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the preferred term is [[39]], which can be found at Wiktionary. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:04, 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 delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven standard social science text kerala[edit]

Contested Prod. Seemingly non-notable event, can't find any mention in other reliable publications. Though this may be because I don't really know what to search for... Alex Muller 13:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't look like a notable event. JIP | Talk 18:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources for the event: Khaleej Times, NDTV, IndiaEduNews, Hindustan Times, and Kerala.com. So, I think that is acceptable justification that this is actually happening. I don't know whether or not it counts as notable, though. At the very least, the article needs to start over from scratch. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low key event with minimal impact. Not something that will be remebered after 1-2 years . There are problems in all state text books. Some group or the other always has some reason to protest against textbooks. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:52, 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. We are not an image gallery. In addition, nearly every image in nonfree, and most lack a rationale for this article. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emblems of Indian States[edit]

This page is in violation of WP:NFCC as it only serves as a gallery for non-free images. ViperSnake151 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Flags of the U.S. states Delete I change my opinion. I just verified that the images used are non-free and not in public domain -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly worth keeping, minus the free image issue. Indian State Emblems are non-free? Could someone point me to documentation of that? Hobit (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nom -_T-rex 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that? Hobit (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as my knowledge goes, a non-profit forum aimed at educating the masses, such as Wikipedia, can use all of these images. Even if I write a book on Emblems of Indian States, I don't have to take permission from the Government for using these images. Shovon (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Galleries of images are not articles nor should they be major parts of articles per WP:MOS. In general galleries are discouraged especially since anything that is eligible for Commons will be seen as a gallery in Commons' category view. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or perhaps move, but definitely do not delete. In fact, as referenced in Image:Upgovt-logo.jpg, these might be considered public domain anyway.

WP:NFCC does not preclude a collection of these images or this page. §1No free equivalent, §2Respect for commercial opportunities, §3aMinimal usage, §4Previous publication, §5Content, §6Media-specific policy (high-resloution SVGs are not in use for WP:IUP#Fair_use_considerations), §7One-article minimum, and §8Significance all hold for each image.

§9Restrictions on location is where I believe the proposal is suggesting a breach. I am planning on using each of these images until better ones are uploaded on ISO 3166-2:IN#Codes and States and territories of India#States_and_Territories. If those images remain in place, it would abrogate the need for this page as a gallery. This page should however be worked upon to explain the history of each image, with the mythos behind each animal, plant, or symbol depicted as well as the emblems history of usage (royal seals, etc.) and their history of development; not deleted.

§3bMinimal extent of use nears breach in Image:Karnataka emblem.png at 181 KB with several colours and clear text but as long as we keep away from its 1.21 MB version, we should be fine. None of these are SVGs and many are under 50 KB and near monochrome. §10Image description page is met exemplarily in Image:Arunachalseal.jpg but Image:Goaseal.png, Image:GUJARATSEAL.jpg, Image:Jharkhandseal.png, Image:Sikkimseal.png could do with some work. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the kind of text about Karnataka's emblem that might make it more encyclopædic. More can be researched about the others and added. :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Images appear to be free, and thus the nom's concerns appear unfounded. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: All these images are already used in pages of individual states. This page now looks like a gallery, but once description about each of them is added, like the text on Karnataka emblem present in the page, it may very well be close to a featured list. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:38, 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 keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Metal[edit]

Non-notable documentary, no sources ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite I believe this passes WP:MOVIE. There appears to be notability here in news articles (1, 2, 3, 4). Though there isn't much else, and little to nothing outside of Canada. Lexis-Nexis isn't any help either. As to the article itself, that last sentence of the lead section has got to change; it's written in a very promotional tone. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mendaliv. There is sufficient independent coverage from reliable sources for Global Metal to pass the film notability guidelines. Now, there are sufficient sources on the article to make it viable. Poor writing on its own is not an indicator of non-notability. -- The_socialist ^talk? 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 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 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Twice[edit]

Unreferenced, unremarkable play. Fails WP:FICTION. Previously deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) with reason "Unverifiable" (doesn't look like that's changed either). I had PRODed, but IP removed it without resolving the problems mentioned (i.e., no assertion of significance and still no references); just added more unreferenced information. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable --Numyht (talk) 17:04, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Items in Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

1. Per various parts of WP:NOT. 2, and most importantly, Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Common features simply does a better job at explaining the subject matter, leaving no need for a separate article. Compare for example the "Chaos emeralds" sections in both articles. User:Krator (t c) 12:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sonic the Hedgehog (series)-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needless and unsourced article covered by the many (also mostly unsourced) articles on the Sonic series and games. --tgheretford (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is redundant to the series article. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outside WP:VGSCOPE. Fails to meet the WP:GNG because there are no reliable secondary resources independent of Sonic/Sega that cover these items, so this topic is non-notable. Also fails to meet WP:NOT since this goes beyond what is necessary for a concise plot summary. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is a game guide --T-rex 17:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more bad Sonicruft. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – arguably a game guide. In addition, this goes beyond the scope for what the reader needs to know about the Sonic series. MuZemike (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:46, 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. Kurykh 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network Science Center[edit]

Organization is an academic department. Triathematician (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Could you please now explain why it should be deleted? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article because there are little to no secondary sources referring to the Network Science Center at West Point, and the article cites little in the way of notable research. The two ideas cited to have been introduced at the center are Social Network Change Detection and the Network Probability Matrix, neither of which are cited in outside sources. The center produces a journal, but there is only one volume out thus far. Triathematician (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines including WP:N. This is also an incomplete nomination as the nominator has failed to specify reasons -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nom. SashaNein (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any big university will have hundreds of research centers of the size that this article seems to be describing. We don't usually keep academic units smaller than schools unless there is some external evidence (such as reliable third-party sources discussing the center itself in detail) that they are notable: "they exist" isn't a sufficient argument for keeping the article. I don't see any such sourcing here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and David Eppstein. The fact that the nomination initially was incomplete is irrelevant as nom has now provided rationale. --Crusio (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, sub-departmental level academic unit, delete unless evidence of extensive coverage of this unit, in independent reliable sources, is produced. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, this is a walled garden article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:02, 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 Nomination Withdrawn No oppositional delete !votes Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Carley[edit]

Academic does not meet notability standards. Triathematician (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Dozens of non-trivial ghits, gscholar, LexisNexis entries. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Google search returns 231,000 hits. Besides, Kathleen is also the author of an important academic work-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains numerous claims of notbaility. Could nom please explain why he considers these invalid before I waste any time checking them myself? --Crusio (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I grouped this articles with others that I felt worthy of discussion for deletion (all created by the same person and as a group very self-referential). I read the notability guidelines, and I wasn't sure they fit. Given Ravichandar84's comments above, I'm happy to repeal my nomination in this particular case. Triathematician (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of published papers, meets notability requirements. Nomination was likely done too quickly (albiet in good faith, I'm sure).--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCulloh[edit]

Academic does not meet notability standards. Triathematician (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Non-trivial list of papers, developed new technique, but weak on WP:PROF 1 & 2. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand it, he received his PhD in 2008 and is a first-year Assistant Professor. Academics at that career stage are rarely notable. In this case there is no apparent evidence of high citability of his publications; GoogleScholar returns very little[40]. No significant academic awards mentioned either. Fails WP:PROF for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing several published papers. Article could be cleaned up quite a bit, though.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having several (or even a large number of) published works is insufficient for establishing academic notability, per WP:PROF. One needs to demonstrate that these works made a significant impact in a particular area of research as evidenced, for example, by high citability, reviews, etc.

Delete. Nothing to indicate any greater claim to notability than the thousands of students and academics who publish papers as part of their work. Crucially, I could find no significant coverage of McCulloh.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this first-year assistant professor has not yet attained notability as established by WP:PROF guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar search does not inspire confidence in the notability of his research. (WSEAS must be more legit than it used to be if they are being indexed by ACM, but regardless, he has far too few cites, in an area that I would expect Google scholar to index well.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see him passing WP:PROF. Part of a walled garden written by many SPAs. I find the topic really interesting, but find it hard to trust articles within the walled garden (e.g. Network Probability Matrix due to these issues of puffery and poor sourcing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 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. No consensus to delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick I. Moxley[edit]

Academic does not meet notability standards. Triathematician (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article cites notability and importance repeatedly. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if nom could explain why claims to notability are invalid. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am having a hard time figuring out this case. Most posts and distinctions mentioned in the article come from within the Department of Defence hierarchy and it is not clear if any of them signify academic distinction rather than technical expertise. I search the Web of Science and found literally nothing for his name, which I found very surprising. On the other hand he is giving a keynote address at the 2008 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing [41]. Ordinarily something like that would automatically signify academic notability to me. But where are all the citations of his work? GoogleScholar does not return much either [42]. In the above link he is listed an a senior member of IEEE but not an elected fellow (which would have meant automatic notability). The IEEE site indicates that "The grade of Senior Member is the highest for which application may be made and shall require experience reflecting professional maturity. For admission or transfer to the grade of Senior Member, a candidate shall be an engineer, scientist, educator, technical executive, or originator in IEEE-designated fields for a total of 10 years. Individuals may apply for Senior Member grade online."[43] He is also listed there as a member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Again, not a fellow but a member, where membership is open to all the qualified individuals for a fee[44]. So all in all, I am fairly confused here. It could be that his notability is largely as an engineer and technical expert rather than as an academic researcher. In that case he would have to pass WP:BIO rather than WP:PROF and it is not clear from the info listed in the article that he does in fact pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep okay, not a lot of publications, but biodefense isn't exactly a field that's been around a long time--the uniqueness of that, plus the history of work in the field, leads me to land of Keep. I think it's uniquely notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the sort of subject where people publish in journals--especially the people who work for the agencies he does. We have the same problem evaluating scientists in industrial corporations. We essentially have to go by the positions. He qualifies. DGG (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NsK92 sums it the basic issues for me, I don't see him passing WP:BIO (no extensive coverage of him in secondary sources), and so it seems fair to evaluate the impact of his ideas on his discipline via WP:PROF. While he may be important within his organization, I don't see the reliable and verifible evidence of his impact. DGG's point is that there has to be considerable impact, even if it is not in verifiable and reliable sources. I suspect he may be right, but I don't think that suspicion is grounds enough to retain this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sign of notability I can find is a keynote speach at WorldComp'08, the current "partial list" of keynote speakers for that conference includes ten different talks, and I'm not convinced that this is a notable conference (the lack of major academic society sponsorship is worrisome). The publication record on his cv looks slim and I can't find a lot of citations to his work. I don't buy DGG's argument, which seems to be that he's in a field where we're not going to have reliable sources so we have to go merely by his job title and institution: my feeling is, if it's a field that doesn't prove its notability to us, it's not notable to us. By the way, participants here might be interested in a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Science Center. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pete Hurd's and David Eppstein's arguments are compelling. --Crusio (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally per DGG. Of course our article should be based on reliable, verifiable sources, which do exist for this person. The question is how we should evaluate the import of these sourced facts in comparison to more commonly seen WP:PROF standards. In light of the fact that his kind of work is not openly published, the best guideline for notablity is positions and appointments, which should thus be weighed heavily. They are the verifiable and reliable sources for "considerable impact." It is clear his work is thought highly of by his peers, that he is more notable than the average worker in his fields and institutions, that his positions are good evidence for prof criterion #1. Some of the fields he works in (e.g.. biodefense, counterterrorism) are highly notable to any human being, and hardly need to prove it to us. Notability and importance are not the same as notoriety and easy access to information. Some similar classified fields (I'm thinking NSA and cryptography) have or had the reputation of being clearly ahead of open academic science, even.John Z (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but clean up the peacock terms. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the compelling arguments put forth by David Eppstein and others. JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 5 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World of Masterpiece PC Games Union[edit]

Contested prod. nn "website gaming union". Large section is copied from GameSpot intro. Rest of article talks about the members who are also nn. Major POV issues. Author's basis for the article on talk page is: "I want to make a page about my union on Gamespot. May not be that important, but I want the world to know us." MrKIA11 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP is not MySpace or free advertising for the world's pet projects, conflict of interest and totally non-notable. Someone another 13:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable, unreferenced, self-promotion by a 13 year old. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is self promotion worse if its from a 13 year old? I thought it was a great page, just not notable and verifable. I think we should be encouraging him to participate in wikipedia by helping him along, definately shows some strong potential. He just needs some direction to help him learn what articles are appropriate for wikipedia and what isn't. Icemotoboy (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NFT. Most likely a G11 --Numyht (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Written as an advertisement, manifesto, or something like that. MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Agree it would appear to be a G11 candidate. An impassioned, yet misplaced, Wikipedia edit. A great article for the author to move to their own userspace as a sandbox article. Icemotoboy (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. -Rushyo (talk) 06:30, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Stopping Me[edit]

While some of these songs may exist in some form or another, there are no sources listed or found for this album. WP:CRYSTAL Wolfer68 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, unreleased album with no reliable sourced provided. --Stormie (talk) 01:01, 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 keep per cleanup and sourcing changes since AfD filed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party United Means Action[edit]

Besides the fact that the bulk of the article is an unsourced mess, none of the sources seem to establish the notability of this organisation. I would suggest merging this to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article. JACO PLANE • 2008-06-28 09:12

Strong delete leaning towards speedy via WP:CSD#G4 We've already deleted an article on this subject at least once (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUMA Pac). If I recall correctly, that article was better than this one. Additionally, I think the deletion of the previous article, the creation of this one, and the behavioral/contribution histories of the creators of each article are suspiciously similar. I just think it's fishy. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given previous outcome, current article's editing history of being a magnet for POV sniping and unsourced crap, and on-going inability to address numerous article issues, I recommend for deletion. Similarly, User:Cc83's most recent posting on Talk:Party Unity My Ass demonstrates clear issues of developing this article further under WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the strength of the CNN source --T-rex 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - this thing really doesn't pass the sniff test for articles written by the subjects or those with strong POVs about it. Until such time as this effort/group/movement can be properly sourced, it should be deleted or at least merged into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article as previously suggested above until such time as it can be given a proper well sourced and written article of its own. RoyBatty42 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm undecided about notability, but this should definitely not be merged into the Clinton campaign article. The organization is a Republican front group that has no connection to the Clinton campaign. The PAC was started by someone who backed McCain in 2000 ([45]) and there's no indication of significant support from actual Clinton supporters. JamesMLane t c 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concerns regarding WP:NOTNEWS notwithstanding, the article's surplus of unreferenced claims should be enough to warrant erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page certainly needs improvement and references added, but there is no question that P.U.M.A. is a grassroots political action group. There have been several news articles on the P.U.M.A. - need only to google it - and google recorded internet activity regarding the P.U.M.A. as "volcanic"^[1]. Recommend that the page not be deleted. Also, it should not be merged onto the Hillary Clinton page as it is not officially associated with the Hillary for President campaign. --Xyndua (X) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)— Xyndua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

come now. Even linking that graph google trends on PUMA shows that the decline was just as steep as the climb for this group. We aren't dismissing their existence. Just their notability. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete, and someone throw a speedy tag on it~~ PUMA Pac was deleted on the 25th. This article was created on the 27th. It is completely possible that this was a good-faith recreation of effort. Even so, the content is VERY similar and should be treated as an (accidental) recreation of deleted materials. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the PAc is no longer officially called Party unity my ass and if we keep the article it at least has to be renamed to whatever they filed w/ the FEC. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put a speedy tag up there. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated and consider semi-protection of the page in the meantime. I just caught a new user with the obvious single-purpose name of "Notapuma" blanking the references section. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CSD G4 tag removed w/ the edit summary of "let AfD do its thing". That's all well and good, but the page is previously deleted content under a different name. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article in progress. It appears that most of the criticism here is based upon disagreement with the political point of veiw of the creators. I would suggest reading this article before passing judgement: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.64.114 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable articles discussing an organization grant notability generally. I am bemused as to why there are claims they are not sufficient here. I fully agree this article is notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several modifications to the article, including linking the sources with claims. I am even more convinced now of the notability of this subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated Wenzi (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is a work in progress. The Hillary Clinton page is locked,so there is no way to link the HRC page to PUMA at this time. Political opinions should not drive what gets deleted on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajuncocoa (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that as the one who nominated this article for deletion I have no interest in this political debate whatsoever. I'm a Dutch guy living in Switzerland, and I really don't care about American politics. I just have not seen this particular organization have any independent media coverage. There has been plenty of coverage of disgruntled Hillary supporters, and those sources make up the bulk of the article, but this particular PAC seems to be rather non-notable. So please don't see this deletion nomination as some kind of politically motivated pro-Obama hit job, because it isn't. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-2 01:03

Fox News, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Daily can hardly be described as not independent media coverage. This article is not only about the PAC. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended whatsoever, but how can someone who doesn't live in North America and has no interest in American politics determine what is notable about the more nuanced aspects of it? As the article currently shows, there are several major news sources that have given specific coverage on them. There's also a June 23 article at salon.com that generally refers to the apparently disenfranchised female Clinton-turned-McCain voters as PUMAs specifically in reference to the group. I'm not sure exactly what my vote on this is going to be this second, but I currently don't see any reason whatsoever for it to be deleted; notability, references, and POV issues seem to be good enough for a keep at this point. 24.76.165.69 (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. It definitely needs revision, but this particular movement probably will be noted in a history of the 2008 US presidential campaign.--Soultaco (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this organization is growing and will become increasingly an important factor in the upcoming Democratic convention. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak Keep notability has been established at a marginal level. I think we are too soon to judge if this is recentism. I am willing to entertain a wager with the two !votes above as to this organization's overall impact in the election, which is likely to be 0. :) Protonk (talk) 03:23, 5 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.

References[edit]

^ Google Trends: party unity my ass, Jun 9, 2008

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specism[edit]

Non-sourced article of a non-notable religious institution. The article itself affirms its own lack of importance by claiming that specism has less than one hundred members. Althena (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per CSD A7 - the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Also, I couldn't help noticing that the link to its supposed founder is to a disambig page on which the only person listed is a baseball player who died almost 20 years ago! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per non and also CSD G1 Delete it please, horrible. --Numyht (talk) 17:11, 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 all except Sam Bowie. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Congoo[edit]

Junior rugby league player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE, not playing in a fully professional league. He has not played a match in the Cowboys first grade team in the National Rugby League. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - they all indeed fail WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Sam Bowie. - Sam Bowie debuted tonight (28th June) for the North Queensland Cowboys. Technically those others players do play in an Australia wide professional Under 20 competition. See National Youth Competition.Ssiww (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Sam Bowie. Now played in the big league and attracted sufficient news attention. All the rest are simply not written about by reliable sources- Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep Sam Bowie, will investigate others.Londo 06 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with exception of Sam Bowie. The others are under 20's players, no first-grade. I found team line-up references in local press only and some quotes from Ryan Carr as twenties team captain. No more than local coverage in Townsville Bulletin, nn. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Also coverage on rleague.com and QRL.com.au220.245.107.141 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. Junior level players. Moondyne 02:10, 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 merge. I have redirected to Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. There are several places where this content might be appropriate, such as Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain or Plug-in hybrid, but this is the best target for the article. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids[edit]

Trivial subject, not really encyclopaedic content, little long-term relevance. Should either be deleted, or merged into another article about the US elections. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Beagel (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Brusegadi (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete or merge or something. per nom. Doesn't really merit an entire article. Maxa megalon 2000 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Plug-in hybrid; I don't think it's trivial, given McCain's proposal this week for a $300 million "prize", but even that doesn't rate an article yet. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Plug-in hybrid and energy issues are dominating the campaign [46]. (Note: debate must only be followed here). People is opposing to deletion. --Nopetro (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- This is an issue within an issue. It has absolutely no relevance outside the USA, and will have no relevance within the USA a few months after the election. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plug-in hybrids are vital in the positions. --Mac (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nopetro. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Good information but not worthy of its own article. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:25, 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 keep. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Software[edit]

None of the three companies mentioned deserve their own article. Therefore this page should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stormfront Studios, as the article was originally created. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The does not solve the problem for users who wish to find the other two companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the UK, in particular, Beyond Software is far more well known that the former name of Stormfront. The question is, what harm does this page do? MrMarmite (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert into an article about the UK Beyond, publishers of Lords of Midnight and Doomdark's Revenge, it was a genuinely noteworthy publisher in 8-bit computer games. A hatnote pointing to Stormfront would do fine for that Beyond. Not sure about how relevant the other business is, either it is notable (needs an article) or all mention should be removed. Here's an example of possible sources for the UK publisher. Here's a magazine scan from a review of LoM: [47], "heralded as the first 'epic' game". Someone another 13:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I recognised the name instantly. Although not well known today they produced many quite popular games in the days of 8-bit computing. It possibly needs bringing to the attention of a suitable wikiproject for improvement. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some sources for the UK Beyond, scroll down to the "Features and Interviews" section. Miremare 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the ZX Spectrum company; the articles linked to from World of Spectrum show a wealth of material that can be used to expand the article (indeed I might do so myself.) Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 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 Deleted (non-admin closure) by Xavexgoem per CSD G3 as blatant hoax/misinformation: article stated it was made up. WilliamH (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugemon GX![edit]

Non notable Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a PROD on before this AfD, and as thus I would imagine the creator would take a lot better to a proposal of deletion as opposed to a plain and simple discussion of deletion. If the PROD was not removed, it is usually a good idea to leave it and see how it goes. Asenine 07:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Blatant hoax --Numyht (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator No Yahoo! hits either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:27, 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 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crusader equipment[edit]

Fails Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE SkyWalker (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also i want to bring this to your attention. Should this article be deleted List of Crusader enemies or merge to List of Crusader characters. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I worked on and like this article I endorse the delete vote since this is not encyclopedia material.--Fogeltje (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - excessive list on a subject that fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– Not a game guide. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as per WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE, and WP:GNG. Not notable, and too much detail on actual game mechanics to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 19:03, 3 July 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), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Clear editorial effort underway to improve, sufficient reader interest, and enough references that these three things combined demonstrate notability and potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you've ignored the first pillar, which is WP:NOT. You also said twice that this is notable, with insufficient evidence that it meets our notability guidelines. WP:INTERESTING and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not generally considered good arguments for keeping. This article is being nominated for deletion because it fails to comply with policy and guidelines. So address those concerns specifically. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is consistent with the first pillar, i.e. "aspects of specialized encyclopedias". It is notable, because it is covered in multiple reliable sources and concerns equipment and weapons that don't merely appear in one game, but multiple games. Interesting and Google Hits alone may be insufficient but as part of a larger argument, they are fine. The article passes and complies with our policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints of press releases don't help to establish notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:10, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense. (It could have been an A7, non-notable web content, but I didn't see a web site link.) Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ray Dalton's web site reviews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brandon Ray Dalton's web site reviews

It's a hoax/nonsense Mfield (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not really sure why this is here, it should have been speedied per G1. I found it in a new pages patrol.--Finalnight (talk) 05:21, 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 merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham bypass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pakenham bypass (2nd nomination)

The information is brief, there are very few references, and if you refer to the Princes Freeway article, you will see that the information for the bypass is there. There is no sufficient information in this article to be kept. Rom rulz424 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge- When does bypasses of a highway qualify for an article? Merging is the best option. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Princes Freeway An article about a bypass in a road does not qualify for an article, however, it could be a useful section of Princes Freeway. Anonymous101 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Princes Freeway (and don't delete; see WP:MAD). Bypasses can be notable, but this one is just a section of a longer freeway. --NE2 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, it's a notable part of the freeway and is likely a valid search term. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:56, 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 Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himmelstalund[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:45, 16 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- A borough of a moderately big city should be important enough. Much more info needed on this article, though. Failing this will merit a delete Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you do realise this is an entire borough, I take it? Since even the tiniest villages are usually regarded as speedy keeps, an entire borough is eminently article-worthy. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Himmelstalund is a borough and the fact that it is a short article does not merit deletion (unless there is absolutely no context, then it would fall under WP:CSD but there is context so this is not an issue). Maybe a Swedish speaker would like to translate sv:Himmelstalund (which I presume is about the same thing) which is significantly longer article (even if it is still stub) Anonymous101 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, site of major archelogical findings. --Soman (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Geographic locations are generally considered inherently notable. While the content in this article could be expanded, the lack of article size is not grounds for deletion Steve Crossin (contact) 09:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per this discussion. This is a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden - it's just not going to be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Large borough in major city and historical significance. --Oakshade (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real-world places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 19:00, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!! 04:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saltängen[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:45, 16 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- A borough of a moderately big city should be important enough. Much more info needed on this article, though. Failing this will merit a delete Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you do realise this is an entire borough, I take it? Since even the tiniest villages are usually regarded as speedy keeps, an entire borough is eminently article-worthy. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Saltängen is a borough and the fact that it is a short article does not merit deletion (unless there is absolutely no context, then it would fall under WP:CSD but there is context so this is not an issue). Maybe a Swedish speaker would like to translate sv:Saltängen (which I presume is about the same thing) which is significantly longer article (even if it is still stub) Anonymous101 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Geographic locations are generally considered inherently notable. While the content in this article could be expanded, the lack of article size is not grounds for deletion Steve Crossin (contact) 09:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per this discussion. This is a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden - it's just not going to be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real-world places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 19:01, 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 Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindö[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:45, 16 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- A borough of a moderately big city should be important enough. Much more info needed on this article, though. Failing this will merit a delete Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you do realise this is an entire borough, I take it? Since even the tiniest villages are usually regarded as speedy keeps, an entire borough is eminently article-worthy. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lindö is a borough and the fact that it is a short article does not merit deletion (unless there is absolutely no context, then it would fall under WP:CSD but there is context so this is not an issue). Maybe a Swedish speaker would like to translate sv:Lindö (which I presume is about the same thing) which is significantly longer article (even if it is still stub) Anonymous101 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Geographic locations are generally considered inherently notable. While the content in this article could be expanded, the lack of article size is not grounds for deletion Steve Crossin (contact) 09:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per this discussion. This is a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden - it's just not going to be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real-world places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 19:01, 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 Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klockaretorpet[edit]

The subject doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:22, 16 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you do realise this is an entire borough, I take it? Since even the tiniest villages are usually regarded as speedy keeps, an entire borough is eminently article-worthy. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Klockaretorpet is a borough and the fact that it is a short article does not merit deletion (unless there is absolutely no context, then it would fall under WP:CSD but there is context so this is not an issue). Maybe a Swedish speaker would like to translate sv:Klockaretorpet (which I presume is about the same thing) which is significantly longer article (even if it is still stub) Anonymous101 (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Geographic locations are generally considered inherently notable. While the content in this article could be expanded, the lack of article size is not grounds for deletion Steve Crossin (contact) 09:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per this discussion. This is a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden - it's just not going to be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real-world places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 19:02, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kuwaiti companies[edit]

This is basically an advertisement page. StaticGull Talk 14:56, 17 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and establish Category page: That's what categories are for, afterall. Don't need a page for this. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an ad and Category:Companies of Kuwait serves this purpose anyway. Anonymous101 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Category:Lists of companies by country and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates#Lists. I wasn't going to vote, but too many votes here amount to "I prefer categories to lists", which isn't a valid reason to delete anything. The topic is notable, part of a series, and lists allow for expansion as well as annotation.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There's massive precedent for this article (as T. Anthony says, nearly every other country has one) and it can be used as a valid way of navigating between our articles on these companies. The external-links to companies without Wikipedia articles definitely need to go, but the article seems to me to be a valid use of a list. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, borderline advertising. Better served by a category. JIP | Talk 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's creator obviously forgot about WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've blown through it deleting all the external links and blatant promotional entries, if someone with more knowledge of Kuwait were to delete the redlinks that really aren't notable (as opposed to ones that could use an article), and improve the summaries of the companies, then I think it'd be a decent summary of the topic, far better than a category would be. Per WP:POTENTIAL I think this is an article that could be a worthwhile way of navigating the topic with more info than the category, and many current entries are perfectly valid. I don't see a delete really helping the encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 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 redirected, its makes a likely search term, so I am redirecting this one, as it has received no attention during a full AfD run anyway. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard Swears[edit]

Not notable enough. StaticGull Talk 11:40, 15 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, David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 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. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Wonder Woman[edit]

Per WP:NOT. There's some notable creator commentary here and there, but its mostly just plot summary of numerous story arcs involving the character written from an in-universe perspective. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination states that the article contains notable content and so its proposition that this content should be summarily deleted is manifestly absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few sentences that could easily be in the main article doesn't save the rest of this rambling plot summary. --Phirazo 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article has to be completely without merit for deletion to be acceptable since otherwise we must merge the good content in order to preserve the moral and legal rights of the contributing editors per GFDL#Conditions. Since both you and the nominator agree that this article contains content which we should preserve, you are saying that we should not delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in Wonder Woman#Character History. There is no need to merge. --Phirazo 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per nom. Biographical history of one of the oldest and most durable characters in modern fiction. Ford MF (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the point of having 35k of plot summary with only five or so cited real world references and commentary. Just reduce the plot summary and merge them to Wonder Woman. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTSEETHEPOINT is not a valid rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but my rationale is WP:NOT. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there an article for the Non-fictional history of Wonder Woman??--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes:- Wonder Woman#Publication_history. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the name to History of Wonder Woman, the word "Fictional" is going to lead to more AfDs. There are many books on the subject, so this article could be made into an FA with as many sources as we want. I'll add one for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a breakout article. In addition, there are plenty of sources and whole books on the topic. Clearly meets WP:N on its own. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summary. The broad strokes, especially from the 60's, can be covered in the main article. --Phirazo 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it about the 60s that make them less worthy of coverage? Ford MF (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm arguing the opposite. Delete this article, and cover the important points of her fictional history in the article. The 60's are important to her fictional (and real world) history, so they should be covered. However, a spin-out consisting entirely of plot summary is excessive. --Phirazo 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely. WW is a crucial and vital character, and this article mostly (probably needs some more work) conforms to the out-of-universe 'real world' tone required of such articles. The character has proven, long-standing notability, and requires a separate summation of her history lest the main article become unwieldly.
- This absolutely falls under the third level of the Wikipedia:Summary style#Levels of desired details guideline: #3 'For more information, see the tailored, lengthy summary-article.'
- If doubt still exists over the core validity of this page, then the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#List of exemplary articles offers Pauline Fowler and Padmé Amidala (among others) as templates. This article on Wonder Woman is almost to the level of those two - infinitely less notable and important - fictional women, and should with a little bit of work surpass them. ntnon (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Niether Pauline Fowler or Padmé Amidala have separate fictional histories. Part of the reason I was opposed to the FA nom of Pauline Fowler was due to its overly long plot summary. --Phirazo 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a model of what fictional biographies should be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As this is a WP:Split form the Wonder Woman page. This page was originally split off due to size reasons, and while clearly some trimming could make the size more managable, there is no reason to delete a this page specifically due to the iconic nature of the character. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned here, summary style is not a free pass. --Phirazo 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the current consensus favors keeping this article, keep in mind this doesn't mean that it needs to stay unchanged. It has to be rewritten to comfort with a non-in-universe perspective as perWP:WAF. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT, if you want to team up I'm willing to help. - 15:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notable info on a notable character? No brainer. --mordicai. (talk) 18:16, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 19:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts: Realm of the Dissouled[edit]

Hoax Article - It's about a game that doesn't exist/won't exist. It was a hoax created about a month ago and the article is claiming it as fact with no sources or reliable links SilentImpression (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No official sources are cited in the article that proves of the game's production. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant Hoax --Numyht (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.Unrefrefrenced, a hoax, KH3 hasnt even been announced, and such an article dealing with the future of the series needs to be heavily refrenced.Gears Of War 13:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Ford MF (talk) 14:03, 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. Cleaning the article up is an editorial issue, not a deletion issue. Shereth 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

Per WP:NOT. Same reasons as Fictional history of Wolverine. Another in-universe "Fictional biography" with no real world context. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is actually what people looking up Spider-Man would probably be in part looking up. 70.55.86.157 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The various Spiderman storylines are notable as can been seen from a quick search. This article has been spun off from the main Spiderman article for reasons of length and style so the only sensible alternative is to merge it back there. This would be pointless and disruptive churning so we should just focus on improving the article per WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main article is a massively broad subject that justifies the numerous articles spun off for length and style. Ford MF (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plainly a breakout article, and as there are whole non-fiction books written about the character, I have to imagine that sourcing this is easy. Hobit (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a pure plot summary. That can't be edited away. --Phirazo 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is merged, it will clutter the main article, and if it's deleted, much valuable information will be lost. S. Dean Jameson 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are both arguments to avoid, specifically better here than there and Wikipedia should be about everything. You should demonstrate how this article meets the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, not simply argue that "the information will be lost". --Phirazo 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've brought it up several times, but "arguments to avoid" is neither policy nor guideline; it's merely an essay. It is very often helpful in AfD, but is by no means definitive. Ford MF (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I've only been visiting AfDs for a short time, but this is the most commonly overused reasoning for a "delete" comment. We can't confuse essays (no matter how much sense they make) with actual policy. S. Dean Jameson 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many people agree with WP:ATA. It isn't a policy or a guideline, but it is good advice. Besides, "better here than there" is always a bad reason to keep an article; we shouldn't be creating articles to act as rubbish piles for other articles. --Phirazo 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And the fact that you think this article is acting as a "rubbish heap" shows why we don't treat essays the same way we do policy. S. Dean Jameson 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Large articles will have natural outgrowths as they attain an elephantine size undesirable in an encyclopedia summary. That doesn't make those new articles "rubbish". Ford MF (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Wonder Woman and Wolverine, Spider-man is an icon in his own right, and his history is notable on its own merits. There's precedence for such articles at Jason Voorhees and Pauline Fowler, etc. and Spider-man is far more important and iconic than those two characters. Clearly the page as-is needs retooling to include a "real world" tone, but even if it were just a collection of chronological links to the individual storylines, it would be serving an incredibly valid purpose... ntnon (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the current consensus favors keeping this article, keep in mind this doesn't mean that it needs to stay unchanged. It has to be rewritten to comfort with a non-in-universe perspective as perWP:WAF. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's anything about a consensus of "keep" that implies the article be frozen in time. All Wikipedia articles are open to improvement. Ford MF (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- & someone else said it, but WP:SOFIXIT. Instead of slapping deletion noms on the article, make the change you want to see. --mordicai. (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the consensus-- breakout articles with notable info on notable characters add to Wikipedia. They don't subtract from it. --mordicai. (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge back into Spider-Man. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 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 (non-admin closure) by Athaenara per CSD G3 as blatant vandalism. WilliamH (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mufamie Yakatorie[edit]

Probable hoax. No hits on Google or Google news. Jfire (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree tagged speedy as a hoax LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:32, 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. Shereth 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Wolverine[edit]

Nominated per WP:NOT. Basically an overly long mostly in-universe plot summary of numerous story arcs centering around Wolverine with no real world context. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Leonard^(Bloom) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is actually what people looking up Wolverine would probably be in part looking up. 70.55.86.157 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 48 KB of plot. A great number of things will happen to any comic book character. Good articles about comic book characters should not recount everything, but cover the important stuff in 200-300 words (see for example Batman). This was moved out of Wolverine because it was overwhelming the rest of the article, so do not merge this back, just delete it. I'm sure that a link to one of the many sites that recount the plot of comic books can be inserted for readers interested in a plot summary. --Phirazo 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge 200-300 words won't do for a character like Wolverine. There will be masses of secondary comment on these many and various storylines in reviews and such, so the article has much potential. At worst, one would merge back into the main article but I suppose that is already a good length. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman has been in comics twice as long as Wolverine, and yet Wolverine's character summary is three times longer and its own article. This is far too long, and is pure plot summary. --Phirazo 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biographical history of one of the most notable characters in modern fiction. As with other, similar articles, this history cannot feasibly be fit into the main article. And I'm a little puzzled by suggestions to "send people elsewhere" for the information. The article could also use some tidying, but that is in no way a rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't be writing "biographies" of fictional characters. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --Phirazo 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the 40 cited references in the article, only two are real world commentary on the stories. The rest is just the in-universe "fictional biography" of Wolverine. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not as notable as Spiderman or Wonder Woman, this character too has had at least one non-fiction book written about him (mainly centered on his "fictional history" I suspect). Clearly meets WP:N, and (if anyone cares) WP:FICT. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the reasons given for deletion are adequate ones. While it is safe to say that many comic characters have elaborate fictional histories, enduring characters like Wolverine deserve their separate entries. Trying to cram the hundreds of adventures and characters into the main article would be, at best, cumbersome. Entry deletions are best left for erroneous or false entries, not simply because someone feels it's overwrought. Badass-boi (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a retelling of the plot of several comic books, twisted together into a single narrative. It clearly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --Phirazo 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revise: Wolverine has been shown to be notable, popular and important to the Marvel Universe, and is - thanks in large part to Hugh Jackman - also now quite widely known. A "biographical" summary is therefore acceptable and noteworthy. As noted, this is likely to form a large part of what users will be looking for. As also noted, it tends to skirt - or flout - the guidelines on plot summation and in-universe style. However there is precendence for lengthy character summaries - see Padmé Amidala for a Wikipedia-highlighted good example. Moreover, a key phrase from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) is the word "rarely" in the following passage:

"Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic; either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles."

- "Rarely" is sometimes, and in this case - when a "topic has demonstrated its own notability." As Wolverine has.
- That there is a shorter summary for Batman is neither here nor there. Batman has multiple pages dealing with several comics, two film series', a TV series and several cartoons. That there isn't a page like this for the character implies that there ought to be, not that this should disappear.
- Wikipedia:Plot summaries simply suggests that it be rewritten to include real world terms:

“

Plot summaries can be written from the real world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels.

”

- However, the suggestion of a link to an outside plot-summary source is an interesting and potentially valid alternative. ntnon (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Batman is a featured article, and it covers 69 years of Batman plots in a third the space that this article does. That indicates to me that this is far too long. The essay you linked to, Wikipedia:Plot summaries, suggests plot summaries be 300-500 words. Even the plot summary for War and Peace is shorter than this. --Phirazo 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the current Batman page being a featured article, I will also point out that there are a dozen other Batman-related pages, so the "Batman" article can have an added level brevity because it not the sole article to deal with the fictional history of the character. And I say again, both Batman and Superman (in my opinion) need an article like this..! Good example - but of course War and Peace, legendarily long though it is, is still dramatically shorter than the continuing adventures of Wolverine...! W and P is (at least here) easily separable into five sections - Wolverine's story has many more sections to deal with. ntnon (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his article. This history is an excuse to put every known "fact" about Wolverine somewhere. I disagree with the premise that users will use this as a resource; it is far too long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk • contribs)
Keep - As this is a WP:Split from the Wolverine comics page. This page was originally split off due to size reasons, and while clearly some trimming could make the size more managable, there is no reason to delete a this page specifically due to the iconic nature of the character. The split was tagged with no contention, and consensus formed on the talk page. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary style isn't a free pass. --Phirazo 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can be. But in this case there exists books on the character. Those are more than enough to meet WP:N for his fictional history. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of these books are cited in the article. Wolverine is notable, but that is no reason to write such a long plot summary. --Phirazo 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the current consensus favors keeping this article, keep in mind this doesn't mean that it needs to stay unchanged. It has to be rewritten to comfort with a non-in-universe perspective as perWP:WAF. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you're volunteering? Ford MF (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article isn't perfect, trim it. I'm all for that. Being said, & having said it before, I'll say it again: notable info on a notable character. The article improves the project. --mordicai. (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge back into Wolverine (comics). BOZ (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into original article, but with massive trims. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:37, 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 merge. Merges should be discussed using 'mergeto' and 'mergefrom' tags rather than coming to AFD. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-cycle[edit]

Fails WP:NOTDICDEF, mostly. However, the article is a patent falsehood- "cycle" is not a suffix, but a stem. The very basic information on transportation and frequency/periodicity should be merged into the Cycle disambiguation page. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the cycle disambiguation page per nominator. Perhaps this should be closed early, as a merge is not something that requires an AfD to decide nor an admin to perform? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 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 no consensus. Allow me to clarify a couple of things - "delete and merge" isn't really a viable option, per our license. Either they are deleted, or they are merged, not both. Also, it seems that the main discussion here is really whether these albums have standalone notability, and even the nominator says xe would not necessarily want to "lose" the information, hence we don't really have a deletion discussion here, we have a merge discussion. Merge discussions are for the talkpages of the article, usually the parent article. Find consensus there as to whether these should remain standalone articles or be merged/redirected. FWIW, if they are unlikely to have any prose in them, sourced independently (i.e., reviews, reactions, charting, impact, etc), and are more likely to stay simple track listings, then per our clear guidelines and precedent should be merged. Again, that's for the talkpages to sort out amongst interested editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die volle Dröhnung[edit]

No notability asserted per WP:MUSIC. Prod will undoubtedly be contested considering the fervour with which my changing the article to a redirect was removed. I suggested to the author that this and the other album articles for this artist should be merged into a single discography page, but this has been seemingly construed as a request to create an additional page for a discography. I requested help over this issue at Editor assistance/Requests, and was advised to bring the issue here. I know opinions on music notability can be sharply divided, so I would like to ensure I'm following the correct policy. CultureDrone (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages by the same artist - again, no notability asserted:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question WP:MUSIC states that in general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. I get the impression that these albums are solo works from Tom Angelripper with some sort of moniker used in front of his name. From the discography page, I see that at least two other notable individuals were involved in recording one or more of these albums, namely Axel Rudi Pell and Jörg Michael. There is also one other release listed in the discography page that you have not included in this afd: Delirium (single). A google search further revealed that these albums were released jointly by Drakkar Entertainment and Bertelsmann Music Group (now Sony BMG) under the G.U.N. Records GmbH imprint: eg. 1, 2. You state that the albums listed above are not notable but that is a rather vague and general statement, one that is generally expected at any Afd. Could you explain further as to why you think these albums are exceptions to the general guideline above? More specifically, why you think these albums are not notable enough for individual articles but yet notable enough to merge onto a discography article as you suggested? --Bardin (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as you say, WP:MUSIC says "...then officially released albums may have sufficient notability ..." (my italics) - as with every album, single or song article (and everything else in WP), notability generally has to be established for the album, regardless of the band/musician - except possibly in the case of musicians so well known that anything they do is considered notable. I haven't been able to determine any notability for the albums mentioned in terms of reliable third party coverage, a high chart position etc. WP:MUSIC says "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage", yet I can't find any - though I'm not saying that there isn't any, and also states that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" - since the articles mentioned are nothing but a picture of the cover and a track listing, and because of the lack of verifiable third party references, I believe they fall into this category - a track listing is not (imho) encyclopedia content, and is readily available from dozens of other sources. As stated at the beginning of WP:NOT, "merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Since the musician is notable in his own field, and since the albums may at some point develop into something more than a track listing, I believed the most effective approach in this case was to suggest the editor create a discography article to hold the relevant information (along with the other 1,183 articles in that category), and redirect the individual articles to the discography. I'm not disputing the notability of the musicians or their bands, merely these particular articles in their current form. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also probably add that (again, imho) keeping the articles in some form is better than a simple delete because the musician is notable in his field - if the articles were simply deleted, then we'd probably end up with the same virtual stub articles in a few weeks/months. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. There does seem to be a shortage of sources in English for these albums so delete and merge with Onkel Tom Angelripper discography with no prejudice towards recreation if the articles can be expanded beyond a mere track listing with verifiable sources. --Bardin (talk) 05:05, 28 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, 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge per above. Not notable on their own, but ok for discography article sections. Make into section redirects, then no info lost, and just as easy to find.Yobmod (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already mentioned here, and that is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge all into Onkel Tom Angelripper discography without loss of information. I think that these albums are notable within the spirit of WP:MUSIC, that WP:MUSIC is ambiguous enough that virtually any album may or may not be notable under the mere letter of the guidelines, and that we should err on the side of preserving the information in these articles. If there's a consensus objecting to the articles' simple independent existence because they may not pass the music guidelines, I don't see anything wrong with merging the information in them into the discography page. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:18, 6 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. There definitely isn't a consensus to delete, and the independent IGN coverage would seem to show notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avlis[edit]

Does not, as far as I can tell, meet the notability criteria for web content, i.e. it meets none of these:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

I know that Avlis is notable within the NWN-community, but this is a normal Wikipedia, not NWN-wiki. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally put this up for WP:PROD, but that was removed. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not going to make many big arguments about this. Basically, I'm probably the only one on Wikipedia who has played this game, and I remember it being covered in reliable sources when I did so. For example, it has been on the frontpage of Bioware's site a couple of times, which is reliable (bioware's editorial standard) and independent (not connected to Avlis). These links are inside the article. User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... (Finger raised and about to say something.) I must immediately object to WP:WEB, because Avlis isn't a web site as such. Anyway, I'm not so sure what to do now: I know Avlis has gotten some coverage; Bioware and NWVault/IGN coverage is pretty serious. I'd be inclined to say Keep now, but I don't know if NWN Persistent Worlds are as such notable enough for articles, especially if we have a perfectly working NWN wiki in existence; if we had a "List of Neverwinter Nights Persistent Worlds" (limited strictly to PWs that have actually been featured in notable websites or magazines), this would be an instant trimming Merge material, along with the rest of them. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the Web notability page states, Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. So this qualifies as Web... -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm a bit hesitant to apply it, still. Among other things, NWN itself isn't purely web-distributed... and using WP:WEB for clearly non-website content should be used carefully, or otherwise, you could apply WP:WEB at whim on any "content" product that's sold through Internet alone. But that is beside the point - I still maintain that Avlis satisfies the general notability guideline (#1 above) due to independent web coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are a few pages like this. I have one would it make more sense to add them into a CoPaP article? As a world elader of CoPaP myself I know there are several currently worlds and several in the works. CoPaP has been listed just as many times if not more then Avlis on bioware and such. Terryrayc (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, I'm not sure about that. CoPaP itself, while admirable, has received less coverage than Avlis I believe. Oh, and hi :) User:Krator (t c) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, I'm just thinking of ways to make the articles notable enough. I'm just not sure they stand on their own. Though I know Avlis might be. Seeing how they have a company or 2 based around it. They've been cited on several websites and they are in the process of publishing source books, they probably good enough. Terryrayc (talk) 17:11, 19 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, 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find one source on this in Google News, Books or Scholar. There is a company involved in nuclear weapons that gets all the hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Avlis, and the projects that have come out of it, such as NWNx, are major components of the NWN community. Not only has Avlis received a BioWare Wednesday entry, but so have the Neverwinter Nights Extender and the Confederation of Planes and Planets, two closely related projects. Avlis is also mentioned repeatedly on the NWN Vault - not going to link them all; search for it. Avlis was responsible for the development of a persistence system without which many other persistent worlds would not even exist. If Neverwinter Nights is notable, then Avlis should be notable. Zebranky (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— Zebranky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'll point out first to the Bioware Wednesday mentions (June 2, 2004), mention of course that it was originally the PW that NWN-eXtender was written for, and the Confederation of Planes and Planets mention/interview dated September 8, 2004. there's also the Hall of Fame inclusion (which I grant you isn't all that hard to get) at the NWVault. Second, I'm not entirely sure Avlis fits entirely as a "web" phenomenon, in that we do have a set of community based world-wide meets in diverse locations ranging from the midwestern US to western Europe to Tokyo. Third, we had a publishing contract with Sylvan publishing for an actual published Avlis Campaign Setting sourcebook (which unfortunately went away with the loss of the publisher but eh) Final point: D&D Living Campaigns are also placed as an entire separate category and have their own individual entries, even those that are not RPGA sponsored. Given the size and scope of Avlis, and what is essentially a living campaign setting, it seems strange to delist it on notability purposes while retaining those. NobAkimoto — NobAkimoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep Avlis is not just listed in web publications and online articles. Avlis was featured in a full magazine spread for a printed publication in Greece called "The Strange" back in December 2003. Therefore, there are published sources independent of the internet that can be referenced on this. Orleron —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC) — Orleron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep For the reasons outlined above by Orleron, Nob and Zebranky, Avlis should rightfully remain where it is. MadKitty (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— MadKitty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I think things like Avlis are beyond the scope of WP:WEB. That said, this campaign setting has generated a decent amount of non-trivial, third-party attention and therefore meets the general notability requirements. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:39, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist International[edit]

De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have followed the rules on Wikipedia and added the following to the Anarchist International Wikipedia page today:

It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see [48] and [49] and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see [50].

There is no "discussion" at this link. The page appears to be an unsourced attempt to smear the Industrial Workers of the World and a few specific anarchists as marxist, or even fascist. Substantial searching has revealed no actual chapters of the International Workers of the World, which is pretty strange in an era where a small infoshop generally has significant web presence. Given Wikipedia standards, a possibly nonexistent union can hardly be used as support for the notability of a possibly nonexistent organization. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link [51]

The links on this note should prove without doubt that the Anarchist International is quite a large network.

The links all appear to have nothing more than contact information derived from the AI website. These is nothing that independently verifies the large claims made by the article. This is an open-and-shut case for deletion. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable person in Norway (Oslo) he/she can come and see that the AI-network has about 2000 valid e-mailadresses, networkmembers/subscribers for anarchist groups and individuals.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

Those are all from your own website. I'm not sure if that counts as reliable. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

They are external links, not the link-site of www.anarchy.no ... You can check that the external links are valid - try them.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

I either vote for deletion, on the grounds that the page is nonsense or an objective article that reflects the nonsensical nature of the "Anarchist International".--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you vote deletion? If so, put it up in bold, like this Zazaban (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I officially vote for deletion.--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The homepage of the Anarchist Internatonal, www.anarchy.no , is not nonsensensial. Try to prove it and you will fail. The article Anarchist International on Wikipedia is objective and to the point.

The organizations/networks associated to the Anarchist International are found at the link-page of www.anarchy.no , and then there is a big network of networkmembers/subscribers related to the different organizations/networks.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant Hoax and Possible G11 --Numyht (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anarchist International is no hoax. You are not matter of fact...

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist

Delete, and create another article on the Anarchist Federation in Norway, the sole component of the imaginary AI. --Soman (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a Norwegian page of the Anarchist Federation in/of Norway (AFIN) and the Northern Anarchist Confederation (NAC)/Anarkistenes Organisasjon i Norden (ANORG) for several years. We have had an English Wikipedia page for the Anarchist International for several months, and this is going to continue. The Anarchist International is probably the largest anarchist network in the world, and it would be a shame if some ochlarchists from Anarchism.net and a few leftist marxistoid persons should stop this. You know nothing about the Anarchist International...

As for Zazaban I have problems with taking him seriously. In a discussion on Anarchism.net he answered with the following "intelligent" and a bit ochlarchical statements: "You're one to talk. - And, just to see how you react; FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK." Source [52]. I would not put too much weight on what he means. I don't think such comments are funny.

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mainly because sense hasn't worked with you, so I tried nonsense. But really, ad hominem attacks have no place here. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails the usual test of notability, which is whether there is coverage from independent sources. Having an international organization of anarchists is like having Alcoholics Anonymous as a brand of beer. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that there is no coverage from independent sources, se link to independent, external, sources, covering AI, at [53].

You don't seem to understand. True anarchism is a.o.t an accumulated updated research front of libertarian research, that is just what www.anarchy.no is. If the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is deleted, it is a severe attack on free research and publication of free research. I ask everybody that are for free research to support our claim that the AI-page should not be deleted.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist --Anna Quist talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.147.184 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might not understand free research, but I can recognize freeloading when I see it. Anarchist International will continue to exist after its Wikipedia page is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 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 keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant to also mention that it is generally discouraged to do renames during a deletion discussion, besides simply for being a waste of time/editing if in fact an article ends up deleted. Please use the talkpage of the article for deciding on proper naming of the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Made Huckabee" feud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per non-notable, WP:RECENTISM. This was a sketch that occurred for short period of time, whats makes it notable? Wheres the long-lasting real world significant in this? This is sketch was very minor compared to other recurring sketches, like the ones found in Colbert Report reccuring themes and Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Conan has recurring sketches that have been going on for 15+ years, this lasted less than a month. The fact that it wasn't real, it makes it less significant. Some of what is mentioned in this article dosn't really have anything to do with the sketch. The entire "reception" section just mentions the raiting. Other section discuss the writers strike. This should be mentioned in maybe a paragraph in each show's article, but not a full-fledged article.--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep my heart is with nom. but this seems to be sufficiently well documented that I think it passes on a technicality. JJL (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Essentially what JJL said. Though, I'm gonna say that it needs a better name. I might have to jump in a move it... hm... Leonard^(Bloom) 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per aboveMyheartinchile (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge oh come on. this can easily be merged into one of the Colbert-related page. come on, i oppose deletionsim as much as the next guy but this subject can easily be included in its entirety with al of the work preserved iwthin an existing page naturally. Smith Jones (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, why only Colbert? wouldn't it have to be repeated on O'brien and Stewart articles too? why repeat it so much?Myheartinchile (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ot could work out!!! Give it a chance, dude. I meant, you dont know what might happen if we copied it three times. It ha a common root based on WP:BLP1E, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:D. those guidelines and policies all back up this view of agreement. Smith Jones (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, renaming it "Who made Huckabee?" makes it clear why it must be kept. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly? Algebraist 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title takes it out of the realm of a fictional feud and into the amazing fact that together, they made Huckabee. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are there any szouces calling it "Who Made Huckabee"??? If not, then it will go back to the name it had before, or else. Smith Jones (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's what the three comedians called it while they were involved, so the title change is appropriate. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely and I found this source : "Indecision 2008" site confirming my name-change. Smith Jones (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your source on something related to the Daily Show and the Colbert report is the Indecision '08 blog? How is that reliable or independent? Protonk (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dont piss on me. It was Cinemaniacs source. I took it from her on the Who Made HUckabee talk page and past it off as my own discoverie (which i now admit was wrong; i just wanted to look smart okay????) Smith Jones (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to piss on you. Just asking questions. Protonk (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Smith Jones, I'm a guy. d:) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News, The Associated Press and The New York Times also referred to the feud as "Who Made Huckabee?", so I think the title change is best. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the encyclopedia title should be a little more dispassionate and descriptive. "Who made Huckabee" can redirect to it. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible delete The subject is ummmm....kinda barely not notable. But the article is well sourced, well written and clever. This article is written in the fashion I would like to see other, more august articles written. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks; I'll take that as a compliment! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was meant as one. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't possibly imagine that renaming this article "Who Made Huckabee" follows the MOS in any serious sense. It needs to be returned to the name it had at the beginning of the AfD. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Comment - I would have to agre with you that the name violates WP:MOS. i will revert my namechange imminentl.y Smith Jones (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the sourcing verifies it but it's notably could be better argued/worded in the article. Fair use images should be reduced too. Otherwise, well written and sourced: to delete an article of this quality would work against promoting quality editing on wikipedia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say, thanks! I'll take that as a compliment! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep -- you are absolutely write about the name. I have restored the name "Who MAde Huckabee". Smith Jones (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a very well-written article and well-referenced, but looking through the footnotes it appears that there are very few secondary sources which relate directly to the feud. About three quarters of the references appear to be related more generally to the comedians, their shows, the WGA strike and Mike Huckabee's presidential bid, with only a handful of articles and TV reviews dealing with the subject directly. It was an extremely funny but ultimately non-notable series of sketches with no lasting significance for anybody. I agree, WP:RECENTISM applies. As detailed and well-written as it is, this article simply isn't notable. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It relates to many notable circumstances of the 2008 television season, the presidential elections, crossovers in fiction, etc. Perhaps more links to the page from articles involving these subjects would enhance its noteworthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.156.204 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in strongest possible terms. This article should be featured. If it passes AFD, I seriously will nominate it for Fa. What was the OP thinking?? JeanLatore (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The OP makes a pretty strong case. While the article is wonderful, the notability is borderline. We are talking about a series of sketches here. I'm on the fence about the notability in general myself (as the news links prove that something is there, or prove that we report on meaninglessness), but I can see what the OP was thinking pretty clearly. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shoemoney2night. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shoemoney2night pretty much nailed it. Can't see any lasting notability nancy ^(talk) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to make things clear - WP:Recentism is NOT wikipedia policy and so should not form the basis of an argument for deletion. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per Shoemoney2night. In Hindsight, Huckabee wasn't really made anyway. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly, which is why the "feud" is so admittedly silly; it was done in an effort to fill time and garner more viewers for all three programmes via cross-promotion. You've got to admit, though, Huckabee probably was overjoyed he became such an unlikely source of material for late night talk shows. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:28, 7 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific spirituality[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources and lots of original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a barely coherent personal essay in violation of WP:NOT#OR point #3. The article contains this sentence which, on top of the WP:NPOV issue is invokes, looks to be its thesis "The union of science and spirituality is destined and must happen." The only directly referenced statements are quotes taken from other works, and the rest of the work is tangential argument in support of a point of view. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep HOLD ON lets give it a chance its promising.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Aubrey as article is OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It may have potential, but that's if it was a legitimate topic. Also, as said above, "WP:NOT#OR point #3". The article is just a biased essay. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per WP:NOT#OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, personal essay. JIP | Talk 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. That's not even an article; it is an essay. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a very inappropriate essay tone that is largely based on opinion. Sentences such as "We cannot believe life without it..." clearly indicate that this article is original research. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The interface between science and spirituality is undoubtedly of immense importance, and I'd say that it most certainly deserves an article of its own. What we have here, however, is not that article, but rather an essay that might as well have begun with, "Hi, I'm a WP:OR violation." Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per my comment (along with Shirahadasha's) below. There is already a Wikipedia article on this subject. We don't need a WP:OR-violating essay on it for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this article is essentially an essay advocating a view. There are currently a number of more neutrally toned and reliably sourced articles on subjects related to the Relationship between religion and science --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, so the science-spirituality interface does already have a decent article of its own. Excellent. Well, then I don't see the need to "hold on" to this one whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep HOLD ON The article is can be changed to remove any violations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheart24 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This vote by a new editor is their ONLY edit done on wikipedia. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Suter[edit]

Local radio traffic reporters are not notable without significant outside coverage. Such does not appear to be the case here. Merely competing in a state level pageant is not the same as actually winning one.Sources provided are all either bios or program information provided by subject's employers, and are not independent of the subject. Original author is by all accounts the article's subject. DarkAudit (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, there's a lack of sources cited in the article. While being a radio report asserts notability (i.e., the article is not eligible for speedy deletion), it falls short of meeting the required notability to keep the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not meet WP:N, fails WP:V, and is a conflict of interest because User:Giannasuter (talk · contribs) created it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:COI. An autobiography of a non-notable person Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources that establish notability.--SJP (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete of local note only, and not very even there.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which criterion of the speedy deletion policy? —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this definitely is not a speedy but I agree with the nomination and endorse removal of this page. JBsupreme (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local traffic reporter, with a possible conflict of interest. Unreferenced and does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A biography of a non-notable reporter...created by the reporter herself. Artene50 (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:BIO, lack of available 3rd party sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:53, 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 Redirect to Beer pong. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brimley Ball[edit]

Non-notable variation of beer pong. Only 9 Google results for "Brimley Ball". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to beer pong. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The {{prod}} was contested by an anon IP whose only edits were in the article and in a link to it. The 9 google hits consist of the wikipedia article, a Ball (dance) in North Carolina, and a Halo (game) forum. None other than the wikipedia result refer to the drinking game. The reference in the article goes to the IMDB page for Wilford Brimley, and doesn't mention the drinking game. I can find no references to support this verifiably, so I can't imagine how it isn't WP:OR. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable Myheartinchile (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? --AW (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to beer pong, as said above. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to beer pong this is something made up in school, and the only refs say nothing about this game in particular, it's Wilford Brimley's biography and a beer pong rules wiki. --AW (talk) 17:58, 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 speedy delete under criterion G4. The article is similar enough to the prior version that the first AfD applies as justification of deletion of this version. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Rascal Gang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am concerned about the notability of this gang, it appears that there was a previous AFD, closed as delete. Marlith (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article has already been speedied today under A7. [54] Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 00:27, 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 Redirect and merge ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation web series episodes[edit]

Article was created by myself a few months ago, however, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I've worked on a number of Degrassi articles and even I can't establish notability. The article does have references, but they just verify the fact that they exist (press releases from the producers). Degrassi: The Next Generation##Complementary media does the job fine. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD-G7 may apply because most of the content in the article was added by the author of the page (and the nominator). Otherwise, delete as non notable <Baseballfan789 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with this. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge per above. Bt reformat so is not so ugly!Yobmod (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Degrassi: The Next Generation - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Degrassi: The Next Generation##Complementary media, per Leonard Bloom. This is an unnecessary list that already has a clear place in another article. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Degrassi: The Next Generation#Complementary media per above. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 00:53, 7 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 redirected by me. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual queen of the year '93 for further discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Queen of The Year '93: Yuki Uchida - La Palette[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - redundent to Visual queen of the year '93 which itself is up for deletion --T-rex 17:46, 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. Neıl 龱 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slappy the Dummy[edit]

I think that it would be better if there where only articles for each individual book (Instead of both articles for individual books and grouped into a character page). This character page is a mess and I doubt that it will be improved. Schuym1 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:FICTION; there is no "significant coverage" of this subject in reliable sources. Information on this recurring character is entirely appropriate for a subsection in the Goosebumps article, as well as the articles for the individual books in which he occurs. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. If as suggested above "Information on this recurring character is entirely appropriate for a subsection in the Goosebumps article" then we would merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. But in this case, there seems to be enough evidence to suggest verifiable notability as the character has even been spoofed by The Onion, which even The New York Times linked to as well as School Library Journal, has an official webpage with reliable information, and is signigicant enough of a character to have been made into a replica and to have a book with his name in the title (obviously reviews of the book would address the character). Thus, multiple appearances in the books, an actual ventriloquist doll, an official web page, being spoofed by a major "news" source, etc. all suggest notability. You can also find out of universe commentary on the character in interviews with CNN and in reviews of the books that can be used to expand the article as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find myself largely convinced by Le Grand Roi's research in this instance. Slappy appears to be a significant recurring character in a clearly notable series. The School Library Journal link is a start, and I agree that there must be reviews out there that could give more content and out of universe context to the article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I usually don't like to '<action> per <some other editor>', I can't add to Le Grand's analysis in this case. Frank | talk 01:31, 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 MOOTED BY A MERGE. I wish to be the little girl. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control Freak (villain)[edit]

There are no sources and the character is not notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some "Teen Titan characters" list or Teen Titan villains list. Reoccurring character in significant series. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or, fail that, merge per Hobit. Fails to assert real world significance or to demonstrate encyclopedic value or notability that would require an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 19:21, 28 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. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search and traffic statistics aren't good rationales for keeping. The generic language of WP:FIVE or essays linked from your user space aren't good rationales either. --Phirazo 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are better than "per nom" and "non notable" as reasons for deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cats are stronger than cockroaches; neither can pull a cart. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It depends how many we're talking about. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Hobit suggested. 86.131.102.228 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of DC Comics characters: C. There doesn't seem to be any "List of Teen Titan villians". And when I say "merge", I mean merge a very small bit, not the OR that's present in this article. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR? I'm seeing uncited claims of plot and development background, but not OR. What are you looking at? Hobit (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He is overweight, has long hair, and is uncleanly shaven- all stereotypical traits of a nerd." I'm not sure what "definition" of a nerd is being used here or where the author/editor got the idea that these are "stereotypical traits of a nerd". --Craw-daddy | T | 10:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series without the "Appearances" section. --Phirazo 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series, as this is a short, largely unexpandable article about a minor character in the Teen Titans animated series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into a list of minor characters. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been merged and redirected. Schuym1 (talk) 23:05, 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.

[1] Google Trends: party unity my ass, Jun 9, 2008

[1]