Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 1

< February 29	March 2 >

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Sheen[edit]

Lacks notability for Wikipedia NorthernThunder (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time per WP:Notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recognise the name, and was aware she had a very brief role in Underworld: Evolution as her mother's character Seline, but she appears to have only had two film roles essentially as an extra, and it's a stretch to call her a child actress. Nothing that couldn't be, or isn't already mentioned, in Kate Beckinsale. --Canley (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy 96 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of notability —αlεx•mullεr 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job vs volunteering[edit]

WP:OR essay. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly an OR essay with no references. -- Mithent (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic article, or even title. Pros and cons of volunteering can be discussed at that article. Malc82 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and "[sources coming soon]." Mr Senseless (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, and WP:NOR. An essay is not an encyclopedia article. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs on the op-ed page of a newspaper, not in an encyclopedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark tree[edit]

Reason: non notable creature with no outside sources. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is absolute crap. It has zero sources, zero assertions of notability, and zero layman info. Send it to the cemetery. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails Save vs. Death roll, completely made up Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a 2E guy here. I'm more used to seeing "fails Fortitude save." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, i grew up on the old 2E, and play 3E now, but it's a relevant reference, nonetheless Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFT. This article is completely un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because a mass-nomination comes across as someone on a mission and a rapier. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment surprisingly its not made-up as it appears on the Wizards page for Monsters of Faerûn. But its still fails WP:N with flying colors Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another super minor D&D creature that has an article for some reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oaken defender[edit]

Reason:non notable, orphaned, and unsourced. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, super minor Dungeons & Dragons monster that has received no third party (and little first party) coverage. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I like this; maybe someone needs to write-up a No Primary Source guideline. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, this article needs work or it will not likely pass its next AfD. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Community Sailing Center[edit]

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP; seems mostly self-promotional. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some newspaper articles about the center, and I think that notability is now shown. --Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local sailing clubs are inherently non-notable except in extreme cases. Royalbroil 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This one is distinctive because of its commitment to outreach to young people who would normally never get a chance to learn to sail. I think that is enough to satisfy User:Royalbroil's concern. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that is a laudable goal, that doesn't make it particularly notable, especially within our guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliable sources have written about it. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still not satisfied. Almost all clubs outreach into the community. I see little salvagable text in the article - it reads like an advertisement for the club. Except if it can be shown that it was the first club to do something big, I see no reason to keep it. Royalbroil 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete- Just doesn't seem notable enough to be encyclopedic, along with coming off like an advert. If more sources are found I would consider changing my opinion. Rigby27 Talk 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as sources have been added. faithless (^speak) 07:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, given the sources, seems to be just barely notable enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volodni (Dungeons and Dragons)[edit]

Reason: non notable obscure monster with no references or citation, and appearing in a single publication. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ig8887; this is non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm seeing no reason this is even close to notable. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First World War Countdown to war[edit]

This appears to be a personal essay which duplicates Origins of World War I. As the title doesn't seem to be a plausible search term I don't think that converting it to a redirect is appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for a redirect. Carom (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author obviously means well, but the article is redundant and written in a much too informal way. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, its an essay. Wikipedia is no place for personal essays Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, and considering this is not needed with you have this - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I say that because I am the author. I didn't mean it to be like an essay but that's how I am use to explaining history. I would love you to alter it. The reason why I created it was because I wanted to explain the start of the First World War and how started in more detail. I was going to edit the actual World War I page but it is semi-protected so I couldn't change anything on it. Also as I have just left school I know that many teachers talk more about the start of the war. The problem is the World War I page doesn't explain it very well. That's why I created it. But. It's not my decision. I would honestly prefer you all to edit it rather than delete it. That's all I have to say.Sergeant Expert 8:37 2 March 2008

You see, what you wanted to cover has already been covered in great detail on the article Origins of World War I, which basically says everything you've said in your article already. You can post this somewhere else, you can make a blog on Blogger dedicated to your essays or whatever, but Wikipedia is not your personal publisher. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any problems caused but when i typed in the search for this subject it never apeared. Anyway. I am more intent now in creating a page on the Young Archaeologist Club. I f any of you are interested or want to help pleases send me a message. Also. How do you send messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.236.140 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to other articles, which is why there is no point in fixing up the writing style. The style might be appropriate, perhaps, for a schoolteacher trying to impart a lesson to children studying World War One. However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and this definitely isn't in the encyclopedic style. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the Land[edit]

Minor Dungeons & Dragons creature- no real-world significance or third party sources. May have some level of significance in Darksun- I am unfamiliar with the setting, and so cannot comment, but the article does not indicate that it does. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fatality'd! I know of this monster (I have the 3.0 book it's in), but I heavily doubt it's any more notable than, say, a random nature kami or a random Native American spirit. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that. Surely there is a real world spirit in some folklore or religion that is called this? J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of; from what I know of those cultures (although I could be wrong) there is no one spirit responsible for the land, and if there is it is not referred to as the "spirit of the land". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Do not redirect this; see, for example http://www.spirit-of-the-land.com/; there are a lot of other ghits out there that would seem to have nothing to do with D&D. Ask me about namespace. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Police chiefs of major cities or their equivalents are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 13:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bettison[edit]

Non-notable individual, not enough independent sources to verify information and notability. -Nard 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has multiple references from credible sources which are independent of the subject (eg. The Times, BBC News, Liverpool Echo, Telegraph Newspaper). Additionally, as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (one of the biggest police forces in the United Kingdom), Bettison is one of the most senior British police officers serving today. On top of that, his role in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster makes him even more noteworthy. Finally, if there are concerns about the veracity of particular statements in the article then the way to proceed is with the use of ^{[citation needed]} templates. Greenshed (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well within scope of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (plenty of third-party newspaper accounts, "significant recognized awards or honors" and "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Plus British Chief Constables are generally viewed as notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the exact opposite of the nom. jon (blab) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the subject's notability and the independent sources cited which confirm it. — Athaenara ✉ 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the subject's notability. Why is this here? "not enough independent sources"? Of a Police Chief Constable of a UK geographical police force? is this a joke? this AFD should be closed. --Fredrick day (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as Keep Can this silly nom be related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Norman_Bettison and this news story? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot agree with the nom. Considering the article has around 16 references, it is notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) _{attack on subject article removed as per BLP policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy keep. Multiple coverage from independent reliable sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very notable, meets notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and biography of living persons policies and guidelines. The conflict of interest is the only problem with this article. EJF (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood woad[edit]

Reason:non notable creature with no citations or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability outside of D&D universe whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another D&D creature with no third party coverage or significance. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As identified in the debate there is a single reliable source on this. On studying the source, I agree that it is at the most trivial level - it is mere factual reporting and does not talk about anything that makes this farmers' market interesting, but it does reveal that it has a grand total of 15 (!) vendors; it is just a piece of local cover. The other points regarding the content of the article are also very true. I'm not sure this couldn't have been speedied as spam requiring a total rewrite, to be honest. -Splash - tk 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Park Farmers Market[edit]

Leaving aside the almost spammy advertising, this article is about a run-of-the-mill farmers' market. It's not the oldest, the biggest, the most colourful or anything that makes it anything more than just a farmers' market like thoudands of others all over the world. Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple sources, but they appear highly local in nature. There isn't anything notable here that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps not very colorful, but two good references. If the Washington Post thinks that the market is notable, it probably is. --Eastmain (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it technically does meet the notability guidelines as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. You could make an argument against some of the local sources, but the Washington Post article is fairly significant. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Washington Post article is headed "By Maya T. Prabhu, Gazette (??) Staff Writer", whatever that means. And it's about as trivial as it gets. Incidentally, the other linked article is by the same writer and in the same words, so not exactly multiple sources either. Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two sources given are written by the same person and contain the same information, some of it verbatim. I can't consider that to be multiple sources. faithless (^speak) 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy, both sources are largely identical to each other, so I don't really think this is "multiple" enough to confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A3 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nymphodorus[edit]

page has no content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Granite07 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged this for speedy deletion per A3 (blank page). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page history is confused, but Speedy delete A3 per Ten Pound Hammer looks about right. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnacus[edit]

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, Author requests deletion. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollis[edit]

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theocydes[edit]

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nexaris[edit]

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 USGS entry show it exists/existed, places are notable. Gnan garra 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri[edit]

Not a census designated place. Part of a larger hoax, although the place IS real. See WP:AN/I for more details. Has no significant references other than two that mention it in passing. All relevant other Wikipedia entries have been deleted or are on their way to be deleted, see Wettershaw Manor, The History of Shaw, Konrad VII von Tegerfelden, Shaw Preservation Society etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability isn't limited to CDP's and (non) notability does not transfer by association with a hoax. I have been unable to reach the USGS Geonames database today to confirm, but other editors say it is listed. If this is an annexed settlement, it is still notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep conditional upon it being a real place. We can check tomorrow morning, once the GNIS is working again; until then, I can't be sure, since it's not listed on Google Maps. Assuming that it's a real place, there's no reason to delete it: communities and localities are notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editor who created the article included a quotation from the book published in 1882 and described at http://lccn.loc.gov/rc01001356 which sounds plausible, but I do not have access to the book itself. The more recent references indicate that the place name is still in use today. All settlements are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?ei=T8TAR9XEHI7AiQHesay1CA&id=_PwBAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22history+of+boone+county%22&q=%22two-mile+prairie%22&pgis=1&hl=en --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell, this is based on the incorrect assumption that Two Mile Prairie Elementary School is named for a town near Columbia called "Two Mile Prairie, Missouri". Under the "all settlements are notable" theory, anything that you can possibly describe as a "settlement" deserves its own article, even if you can't find it on a map. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only Missouri map that I have, other than Google (hardly the most precise map!) is the standard Rand McNally road atlas, which is hardly a good source for small communities. The Atlas and Gazetteer series by DeLorme shows far more communities, and it may well be listed there — except I don't own a Missouri edition. It will likely be on the GNIS website, too, but that's been down for maintenance all day, and should be down for several more hours yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the genealogists haven't heard of it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the descriptor "an area in Boone County, Missouri northeast of Columbia, Missouri" is hardly precise. Even if an area has locally a name it stills needs some form of boundary or designation to make it encyclopedic (the 'all settlements are notable' is a convention not a policy). It seems pointless splitting every community into smaller and smaller articles; we are just splintering information and making it harder for the reader to find. Better to have fewer, somewhat larger pages and set up redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we seek to reject even a common convention? This is a recognised place; see the GNIS references I've just added. Now that there's a specific reference to the place provided, the nominator's rationale is answered. Let's treat this like any other unincorporated community. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.~~Weak keep with no objection to merge.~~ It's a verifiably real (and fairly big) place with ongoing interest over time per GNIS and others. I see book evidence that at least a few people settled near or at the place, ~~but evidence of a settlement seems inconclusive~~. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strengthening keep with better idea of what this place is, a land form that contains an inhabited place (Shaw). If missing "Columbia Township, Missouri" gets created, a merge might make sense. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With GNIS and a verified literary reference, there are no grounds for considering this article a hoax. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GNIS and a single unimportant reference do not establish notability, which is a requirement for inclusion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This would be a stronger nomination if it focused more clearly on the question of notability than on associating the article with others that have been called into question. -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should I need to point out something obvious to everyone? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, KeepI want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per above -Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this still seems an illogical approach to article building. There is no page for Columbia Township, a far more significant settlement. Surely the best way is to create a page for that, first, adding this material to it, and breaking this out if sub-pages for that article then seem sensible? This top down approach is our usual article building protocol. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at most townships in Missouri, you'll see that most are new; as with Iowa and Kansas, there's a gradual effort going on to create articles on the townships. There wouldn't be links for the townships on the county navigational template (see the bottom of the page) if there weren't plans to create the township article. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources, seems to be decent enough to meet WP:RS. A page can easily be created for the township. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Changed my vote. See below. A Google search designed to exclude mentions of the elementary school is the following: 'columbia township missouri "two mile prairie" -elementary'. This one still gets 42 hits, the most convincing of which is this PDF file. It shows the Boone County Commissioners in 2005 making reference to 'Wastewater Construction Planning for South Two-Mile Prairie Region'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hallsville, Missouri. That article asserts that Hallsville includes Two-Mile Prairie as an unincorporated settlement. Our current entry for Two-Mile Prairie suffers from not including any population or land area. We don't have enough data to fill up the kind of infobox we have for McBaine, Missouri, which is another unincorporated settlement that forms part of the city of Hallsville. Until we know the population (even if it's 12) I don't see justification for a free-standing article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think an unincorporated community, with what looks like a few residents, is not necessarily notable. The reliable sources only proves it exists, or existed. Is there any source that shows population? If it's just about a ghost town, I'd support deletion per my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, please note that the vast majority of editors disagree; a typical ghost town is generally considered notable, and the specific population (whether or not it has 12+ people) is not really relevant. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real, officially designated locations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all places are notable (or not non-notable) - this nomination appears to be sincere but grossly misdirected effort - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though it's no big deal if this is kept, the name is funny in that it appears to be quasi-legendary, or poetic. If you read the article to find out where the boundaries of Two-Mile Prairie are, there aren't any. It's a not-fully-defined town. So I agree if it were a real place with any population at all, or unknown population but defined boundaries, it would be OK. If you click through into the coordinates given it looks to be the middle of someone's farm field, and there is an entry in some list of old place names that the government digitized. The USGS entry says it is 'two miles long' (a deduction from the name?) and is located in Hallsville. It also observes Names were collected by students writing theses during the period 1929 to 1945. If someone offers to sell you land in Two-Mile Prairie, don't buy it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's confusing status could be discussed in the article. --Oldak Quill 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any such place has historical value. Eclecticology (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lankiveil and David Gerard said it. Places that exist are notable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Slip colliery[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio as well from [1]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability; gets almost no hits at all outside of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't realize name was misspelled. Definitely a notable incident. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's no longer a copyvio as the creator has rewritten it and removed the db-copyvio tag. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Over 100 miners being killed is significant. References are almost certainly available from newspapers of the time and (probably) books on mine safety, as well as the report to the Home Secretary mentioned in the earlier copyvio version of the article. Lack of Google hits is consistent with the mine having closed more than 100 years ago and does not argue against notability. --Eastmain (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's name is incorrect. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Park+Slip+Colliery%22& for the search results for the correct spelling, "Park Slip Colliery" --Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site of a major accident and there's lots of sources on the web to substantiate this. The name has been changed to the correct one. How can a mining disaster which killed over a hundred people not be notable? Nick mallory (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like notable, and it was a major incident. I think the nom might have thought of it as un-notable, because the name was misspelled. It is notable. See this - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated. No longer a copyvio; highly notable subject. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard J. Markey[edit]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent content fork of Howard Thomas Markey. Blueboy 96 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost certainly notable as a military officer, lawyer, academic and judge. Needs references, but the first few I found confirm the judgeship part. --Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to real name. --Eastmain (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an accidental duplicate article of Howard Thomas Markey apparently stemming from confusion over his middle name. One source calls him Howard J, though his middle name is Thomas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a duplication (in which case it should be deleted anyway), but in any event it's a totally unsourced obituary-style piece without even the barest hint of factual biographical detail (not even birthdate), and is thus unsuitable for WP. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If he's erroneously referred to by this name in at least one source, it's a conceivable search term and should redirect to the actual article. Carom (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except some notable Howard J. Markey may arise in the future, besides the name without a middle initial redirects to the other article. Not much point in having a redirect based on a single site messing up his middle initial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It evidently generated enough confusion that someone created this article. I don't really understand your first point - redirects are cheap, and can always be converted into articles on newly notable people, if necessary. Carom (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Howard Thomas Markey, per Carom. Conceivable search term. --Edcolins (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect suggest speedily. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashen Husk[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in only one supplement. No in-game significance, no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11.. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate inn[edit]

Non-notable, spammy, inadequate references. ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 as spam, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jermlaine[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster which has appeared in several supplements, as well as Dragon magazine, but which lacks in-game or real world significance, as well as third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as i was trying to add the AfD template! just a variation on a gremlin and non notable for anything within the game itself other than being just another creature. like Sirine it is just something renamed for the game with no special qualities. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dis grot's not gonna live long. Squash 'em. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing room play[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept is referenced in a book published by English Heritage, a government agency. --Eastmain (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It provides a reliable source and does appear to be notable as a type of play. A Google search gives online sources from Google books, mentions on Time magazine's website, an article in the New York Times on a drawing room play and so on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You can find mentions of the concept, or at least prototypes of it, in annotations of Jane Austen's novels. Definitely notable and capable of expansion into encyclopedic coverage. I'd be surprised if there aren't dissertations on the subject, given the sheer volume of stuff written on Victorian domestic culture. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Zarling[edit]

Less than 300 hits on Google for both "David Zarling" and "David A. Zarling". Not quite sure it meets CSD criteria - Article is long, but seems to be a non-notable scientist of some sort. Prod was contested by article creator. Esteffect (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem anything is particularly notable or special about the company or the individual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a living or recently deceased scientist or academic, a search at Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com can be helpful. See hits at [Google Scholar], with the first article cited by more than 100 others. --Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prostate cancer is one of the most common and deadly forms of oncology out there. Dr. Zarling got four drug candidates that showed high efficacy and low toxicity in pre-clinical trials. I was thrilled when I saw his presentation on his ROS-combating compounds and pre-clinical data showing high efficacy of these compounds in prostate cancer. I can not put an article on Colby and drug candidates right now, but I will do that shortly after they go public. If you don't like this article, please delete it, I just wanted to contribute to the cause. Other profiles I would like to contribute are: Mitch Finer, PhD (founder of Cell Genesys and Abgenix), Hirak S. Basu, PhD, Richard Zare, PhD (Chairman, Department of Chemistry at Stanford), Hasan Mukhtar, PhD (Professor of Cancer Research and Vice Chair or Research, Department of Dermatology, UW-Madison and Chairman, Department Of Defense Prostate Cancer Medical Research Program), who are also involved in prostate cancer research. --Dnamo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dnamo created the original article. Esteffect (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but in any case rewrite--This is very clearly not an A7, for some notability is clearly claimed as both a scientist and a businessman. However, I commend the nom for picking up the somewhat dubious features in this skillful PR job. His actual scientific career, and his business career are not exactly identical. He published some good work in biochemistry and biophysics as a relatively junior scientist, and then went into the pharmaceutical development business. It is not entirely clear to me what he actually accomplished there, because he did not apparently invent any drugs that have actually come into use. He seems to have been in some way associated with some candidate drugs that have not yet gotten approval. Most candidate drugs do not get approval. He may be notable when they do, if he actually has a large part in their development. There is an important difference between "developing novel small molecule Oxidative Stress Modulator (OSM™) drug products for treatment of prostate disease" and developing successful ones. I note that OSM drugs were not the field of his original research interest in DNA structures. The other people mentioned may in fact be notable. full professors at Wisconsin and Stanford usually are. He, however, is an Associate Adjunct Professor. I'll do a fuller analysis of his papers and patents a little later. Possibly he may have been of greater scientific importance for them than first appears. Researchers are notable for their research, developers only when they suceed in developing a successful product. I wish him good luck in that, of course, but the odds are against him.DGG (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is my first time posting at Wikipedia, but I googled David Zarling today and found this article. It is incredible that you are planning to delete his most complete biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.60.93 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Eastmain above. The subject of this article has written enough articles and been cited enough for me to be convinced that he's somewhat notable in his field. Article still requires cleanup to make it less spammy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - sincere but badly ill-researched nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of notability. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Chavez[edit]

Non-notable actress under WP:BIO. Rogreview citation is a self-published site with content heavily based on personal opinion (it's a reviewer site) and is not considered a reliable source to establish notability Vinh1313 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage apparent. Epbr123 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the relevant WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep and improve. You kept it folks, now please improve it so it meets WP:NOT.. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plinth[edit]

No more than a dicdef, can be no more than a dicdef, and even includes link to Wiktionary (which has more information than this "article". Emeraude (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the architectural stuff can be expanded similar to column. – ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it can be expanded--there is an immense architectural and sculptural literature available. DGG (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - unfortunately stublike, shouldn't be. Retain stub per DGG. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a dicdef at present, but there is vast potential for expansion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuficius[edit]

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Strider[edit]

Reason: non-notable creature cited as appearing in only one source. no other cites or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- minor Dungeons & Dragons creature appearing only in a book which is a list of creatures. No third pary coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kick it out of its pod. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agesistratus[edit]

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrus[edit]

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charias[edit]

Reason Granite07 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrew with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optics Valley[edit]

~~Never heard of this term before. Unsourced and a google search turns up absolutely nothing, likely a neogolism. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep; the article needs work, but I'm surprised to hear you say you've never heard of it or can't find sources. Here are a bunch of book sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a google search and came up with a hit from a Tucson site [2] that says that area has been known as Optics Valley since 1992, and that the airport has a sign that welcomes you to Optics Valley. It's the first I've heard of it though. The article could be expanded as more information is discovered about it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You found some sources, excellent, I'll go ahead and withdraw the AFD. Thanks for keeping me on my toes guys. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirine[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a few supplements, but of no real in-game significance. No evidence of third party coverage or real world significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. it iS a Siren just renamed for the game. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a one-sentence version of this one into Sirens, in the popular culture section. It's interesting as a variation on the theme of sirens, but has no notability for its own article. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable. Do not merge to Sirens, as is not the same. Do not mention in a list. Step away from the gaming manuals. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boobrie (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No in-game significance, no real-world sources and no first party sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other non-notable D&D characters listed for deletion today. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the page Boobrie on the mythological creature. A one sentence mention that the creature is used in Dungeons and Dragons wouldn't be amiss. Leoniceno (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Do not merge unsourced material. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Éditions Robert Laffont[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conserveI d' ont agree with this deletion idea. I have just writed one sentence, when the article was proposed for deletion. The Éditions Robert Laffont are one of the most important francophone book publisher, - its unbelievevable that it should diseapeer from the english wikipedia ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Go to www.amazon.fr and do a detailed search, putting "Robert Laffont" as publisher, and you get 11 108 returns! (See [3].)Even accounting for double entries, this makes it a major publisher, and the existence of articles in the French Wikipedia fr:Éditions Robert Laffont and Spanish Wikipedia es:Éditions Robert Laffont backs this up. This article is clearly new and needs time to develop, but deletion is a nonsesnse. Emeraude (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination as references given and signs of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre[edit]

Fork of Babi Yar Jd2718 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I thought it obvious when I said "fork" what the POV fork was. My error. This is an attempt to make a prominent list of Ukrainian Nationalists killed at Babi Yar months after the massacre. The names are (save perhaps two) non-notable. There is almost no possibility of learning the names of those killed during the massacre itself. So when I said fork, I should have said "typical East European nationalist fork." Jd2718 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of known Jewish victims, including those that died in th Babi Yar tragedy is available Here. Just go through them and find the more prominet ones Bandurist (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, turn to prose and Merge with Babi Yar. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect -- memorial/pov fork. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly agree to merge, BUT the AfD proposer (Jd) is the same one who was causing friction over the matter when it was still a part of the main BYar article.Galassi (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is not notable it is not notable. Setting up a separate article does not make it so. A list of 10 red links, a poetess (whose notability derives, in large part, from her murder at Babi Yar), and a mention of dozens of priests does not make an article. You've set up a blank section for Jewish victims, but we know it will not be filled. There were 50,000 - 100,000. The only reasonable course is to delete the fork and leave in the main article what is notable: that among the 100,000 Nazi victims at Babi Yar were some 600 members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Jd2718 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may take a few weeks but I will translate and port over the information on those listed from the Ukrainian encyclopedia. Bandurist (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a useful criteria here, because some of the victims were indeed notable (many OUN members were the cream of the nation), while wiki notability standard is never applied to pornographic film "actors", for example.Galassi (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, notability is always a factor, even for porn actors. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to put a notability tag on some porn article and see what happens.......Galassi (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally nominated articles on non notable porn actors for deletion, with success. Natalie (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trim, merge, redirect and move on. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Some of the people who died there were notable and made significant contributions to Ukrainian culture. Just because articles have not been added for the bulk of them as yet on Wikipeda is not a reason for wholesale deletion. The Babi Yar atrocity needs to be documented from all aspects rather than just one particular view. Bandurist (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Which should be easily done from the main article, with links to those notable people. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject (victims of a massacre) is highly notable, encyclopedic, and thoroughly sourced / sourceable. As the largest single massacre of the entire holocaust, one of the most atrocious events in human history, the different facets of the massacre certainly are worthy of separate articles in the encyclopedia. If the horror of the event is too great, complex, or momentous to be covered fully in the main article, it only makes sense to discuss different aspects of it elsewhere. The death of 33,000+ people, many of them notable and important to a nation's culture, is an issue in itself, beyond the act of killing.Wikidemo (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this list is too long to include in the Babi Yar article, then keep it as its own article. Ostap 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.Galassi (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLute88 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main article about the massacre remains Babi Yar, but not everything can or should be included under it, so this is a good way to include all notable and relevant information.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As I noted on the talk page, there is List of victims of Nazism and if the format says as a very strict minimalist list of names (with notable ones have articles), I think it would be fine. Given the number of victims, it is too probably large to be merged back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect This is barely an article. All of these facts should be in the main article. AniMate 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article had been up 3 days. It was first put up, listed for speedy within five minutes (under WP:NOT), and is now getting names and other information started. It deserve some time to build. Even the 33 people in the Virginia Tech massacre has a separate article, which could easily be merged back in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging would in my opinion negatively affect the main article Babi Yar by including information best presented in full under a separate entry. --Riurik^(discuss) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's not even really a borderline case. Any time you take tens of thousands of people from a major city, and massacre them, just statistically enough of them will be notable to write a meaningful, annotated list which contains details out of the scope of the article on the massacre itself. Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is only about Ukrainian victims who were members of the Ukrainian Nationalist Organization (there were some 600), and has no potential to grow beyond that, because the Jewish victims (tens of thousands) are anonymous. Jd2718 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not exactly true. According to Haaretz in 2006, roughly 10% of the Jewish victims were identified; it's a small number, but refutes your claim of anonymity. The second part that it "has no potential to grow" is true only if this article is deleted. Should the wikipedia community decide to keep it, it will have a chance to grow based on the 10% of names that have been identified so far.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article is large already to merge. But remove duplicate text, to avoid unnecessary forking, which is always problem for coherent maintenance of texts. Mukadderat (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To merge this with the main article would cause the main article to be unwieldy, which is the point of splitting off a list. Not every split equals a "fork", especially one like this. Bellwether ^B _C 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Sadly WP is not a WP:MEMORIAL, so just as the list of 9/11 victims was not permitted, so should this not be permitted as a memorial of the same type. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP NOT:Memorial policy does not disqualify death/murder of notable victims. Here is the policy verbatim: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Those listed currently in the article seem to qualify as notable. If there is a disagreement then any editor is free to challenge the notability of that particular victim, but the entire article itself should not be deleted based on the WP NOT Memorial policy.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives and, by extension political allies... This article is a memorial to non-notable members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, the "memorial" policy is there to guard against relatives or friends of the diseased who in order to honor them, attempt to immortalize the dead person by creating a wikipedia entry. This is not the case here. I agree that the OUN members were probably not notable, but they are not listed by name, which seems to be ok since under the Babi Yar article we mention Roma victims in the aggregate. Writers, poets and athletes are also mentioned in this article.--Riurik^(discuss) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Ohio State University. There is a clear consensus that this is not substantive out of its parent article. There is no consensus to delete outright, but taking together all those who would not have this stand alone, the situation is pretty clear that this is of primarily or exclusively local interest. I do not find it persuasive to say that because article A is long, all elements B-Z of it therefore earn their own articles. -Splash - tk 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oval (Ohio State University)[edit]

Outside of the context of the university in question, this is an entirely unremarkable bit of ground. If anything needs to be said about this on Wikipedia, then it needs a sentence or at most two at Ohio State University Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCAL and WP:HOLE, even though it appears to be filled in. Wikipedia is not a campus map or directory. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ohio State University. ArcAngel (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ArcAngel. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's more notable than this article suggest. It was simply started as a stub, and it certainly needs expansion. The events held there make it as notable as an arena. It's known to more than the OSU community. Also, note that I started it due to its presence on a wanted article list of topics concerning OSU. нмŵוτн τ 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only time it's notable outside of OSU is when Musburger mentions it on ABC during the OSU-Michigan game, it seems to me. Thus - I feel it could just as well being merged into the OSU article, rather than as a stand alone article. ArcAngel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OSU article is so large, however, that little other articles are needed (WP:SUMMARY). нмŵוτн τ 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ArcAngel. Some notable events may be held here, but that doesn't mean that the actual location is all that notable outside of a very local context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable location with verfiable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Cutthroat[edit]

Just something made up one day in some guy's basement, non-notable (fails the primary notability criterion), probably speedily deletable really, since it doesn't even assert notability (but I'd rather have an AfD record of this for precedential value), and a clear conflict of interest, as the principal author of article is one of the game's inventors. For directly relevant deletion precedents, see: pool bocce, Mexican pool, goof ball, beer-in-hand, flanges, Bjureez, etc. This one was {{prod}}ded and (after edits that did nothing to fix this article's notability problems) unprodded on February 4— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOT. Also, fails WP:RS, WP:OR. Possible transwiki to pool.variants.played.in.someone's.room.in.orem.utah.wikipedia.org. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baridhara Mohila Samobaya Samity, Ltd.[edit]

A search in any language reveals a wikimirror farm and zero RS coverage. While I acknowledge that internet coverage in Bangladesh may not be extensive, I'd expect *something* if it were notable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, a complete hoax or at least fails WP:CORP Doc Strange (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if more references can be found. This link[4] seems to support the claims in the article. Pburka (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Unverifiable, NN org. --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much original research. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Minor Dungeons & Dragons monster. Minimal in-game significance, and no evidence of any real-world significance. No mention of which books it appears in, and no soruces cited. J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a note about it already exists in the Shedu article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/redirect into Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Magical beast. BOZ (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable only as a pop culture reflection of the mythical creature, which is already noted in the main Shedu article. For that matter, the lammasu D&D srticle should probably be on the chopping block, too. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the mythical Shedu page, in itself notable. Clearly the same creature...actually that page needs a bit of a cleanup itself...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no assertion of notability outside of a game. Nothing worth merging to the main Shedu article, beyond the mention already there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Deli[edit]

Notability is not inherited from its customers and I see no reason to keep this article about one of New york's 4,000,000 delis. Caligirl1981 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources have written about it, so it's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the customers doesn't come into it. The fact that all of those reliable sources have written about the deli makes it notable. And, by the way, is that 4,000,000 figure verifiable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a deli. Any deli could have famous customers. Customers doesn't make it notable and it's been closed by the Board of Health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standatoms1985 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it was briefly closed by the Board of Health and a major newspaper from thousands of miles away chose to publish an article about the fact. Does that happen with all the other thousands of restaurants that get closed in the same way? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although most deli's would not qualify, this one seems to have made a name for itself, with verifiable sources pointing to its fame. bd2412 T 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, with creator bias. I created the stub, so obviously I think there's good reason for it to exist. The nom raises a good point about the deli's notability stemming from its customers but as an inanimate object, notability has to come from somewhere. Do I think the stub needs fleshing out? Absolutely. Do I think that's reason for it to be deleted? Nope. I think the deli is an important landmark in the Theater District and while fame!notability, I think it lends to it in this case. Am always open for suggestions on how to improve it, etc., but I think it's a valid stub. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of NYC's probably 4 or so most important remaining delis; even at the height of things, there were never 4 million. DGG (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, verifiability is established. EJF (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a landmark along with a few other delis in the city. It is the subject of may pieces on TV. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunk subculture[edit]

Copied from the talk page: This appears to be unreferencable? "Gunk culture" returns 2 unusable ghits, as does "Gunk subculture". Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ie. Neologism and original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Gunks typically are males, and usually the scrawnier type" suggests that this could be a hoax. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - complete WP:OR. Zero sources, fail WP:RS. Single-purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James William McGhee[edit]

Still no evidence of notability; the only source is an obscure court record about a patent case he lost; yes, had a few patents, but notability is about independent (which his patents are not) reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing cited has ANY coverage of the subject (neither the patents nor the court case say one word about the inventor, so they don't support notability). This is just one in a series of articles written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and also due to the fact this is the 2nd Afd for this article. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the inventor of the now-commonplace Drapery hook in itself indicates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that portion of WP:N; can you point it out? Besides, the cited court ruling says "we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty." Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a "must have invented the Drapery hook" portion of WP:N is just silly WikiLawyering. The introduction of WP:N has a common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be silly. I was asking for a part about having invented something "now-commonplace" which is what you've said implies notability. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer. Someone who was the originator or inventor of something that is now commonplace is notable per WP:N's common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like you're reverting to the "because I said so" argument. The only thing I see about invention at WP:N is in the footnote that says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Since McGhee has never anywhere been mentioned in connection with the invention of the drapery hook, as far as we know, and since the court said there was nothing novel in his patent, I wonder what version of common sense you are applying here. I think it makes more sense to fall back on the general notability requirement: "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; where are such sources? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court) doesn't magically make this person's invention of the drapery hook insignificant. Anyone who has installed or taken down drapes works with this person's invention, whether a judge called it "nothing novel" or not. That's common sense. That's why it's in the very first section of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the "common sense" exception is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but I don't see how it applies here. Are you saying that anyone who invented some little piece of commonplace hardware is thereby a notable person? Seems unlikely to me, but it's a point that could be discussed on the talk page of WP:NOTE. You want to bring it up there? Propose it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer yes. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no practical limit as to the number of articles that can be created. "Commonplace hardware" are in fact very significant to the daily lives of millions (and sometimes billions) of people. That's why they've become commonplace. --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade: what is your basis for "A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court)"? We have the district court finding the patent invalid, and the court of appeals (which would probably be three judges, although it could be more) agreeing. "With the lower court, we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty; certainly there is no invention in the hook member." Where are you getting the information that this was overruled by a higher court? If it were in fact overruled, I would be inclined to Keep, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that point. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better. Excellent court case, excellent invention still used today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been many months since the last time we tried to get some sources, but none are to be found, except for the court records of his patent suits. Those are not evidence of notability, since they are not at all independent of him. Dicklyon (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how court records are not independent of him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The court records are primary sources for activities that he was involved in, namely lawsuits; his involvement makes it not independent. An independent report, e.g. in a newspaper, about those lawsuits and commenting on what was important about them, would be evidence of something notable. Same with a patent itself; any inventor can get a patent, but if their invention never gets written up in an independent publication, and they never get to be known for it, where's the notability? The drapery hook may be notable, and if it would make sense to discuss the priority fight in an article about it, but an article about the obscure guy who claims to have invented it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOTE; or if does, please point out which criterion is satisfied. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was not previously aware that you had created the drapery hook article. Seems like a good thing, so I included in it the material about the patent infringement suit. As far as I can see, that's the entire sourced content of this article, so nothing will be lost if the article is deleted (except maybe his children's names, which you today indicated are sourced to the California birth index, but did you actually consult that record today, or sometime, or do you know them for other reasons?). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted today, I have a paid subscription to it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The final result in court appears to indicate that he lost. Is that correct, and does it mean that the courts judged him NOT to be "the inventor of the drapery hook?" Edison (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're told that he eventually won (but unsourced). Either way, the court's decision doesn't support notability nor lack of notability. But, since there's no evidence of notability, ... Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting a patent, or having a court case does not prove notability. Secondary newspaper/magazine/book/TV discussion of such a patent or case, which seems to be here absent, could prove notability. Edison (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting, informative and supported by reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that this is the second AfD only adds to the disruption. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. --Veritas (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the first one, too, which closed with "no consensus" even though nobody offered any evidence of notability. We gave it plenty of time for interested parties to find some sources, but it hasn't happened. I was originally attracted to this article by virtue of having list of inventors on my watch list; it gets random and vanity entries at a good rate, and this was one of those. The user who created it also made articles for three or four other family members; coupling them into one AfD confused the issue, which is another reason we needed a second AfD. I'm not sure what this disrupts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, "interesting" and "informative" are not notability criteria, and I don't see any reliable sources that establish notability. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many patents are there? Not everyone with one is notable.--Veritas (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One patent case, which he lost, and is not regarded as a precedent, in the absence of anything else, does not confer notability. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia thinks this guy is notable. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an article on someone whose only basis of notability is that he claimed to have invented a novel and non-obvious drapery hook. Two courts -- the District Court for the Southern District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- found that he did not. Unless there are some really extenuating circumstances, which don't appear present here, the entire basis for notability was vitiated 80 years ago. If the patent had been sustained, I'd probably be saying "Keep"; while not all inventions inherently result in notability, if the invention is in common and widespread use, and as well-known, as this one is, that would be enough for me. But what this article boils down to is: there was a guy who tried to patent a gizmo, and he failed. I recognize that he had a temporary success when the patent issued in 1923 before the district court tossed it out sometime between 1923 and 1929, but ultimately, this is just about a guy who tried and failed to get a valid patent, nothing more. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. I would strongly urge that the material be retained in a legal article on his court case rather than deleted from wikipedia altogether. There are plenty of legal articles on this website that are considered notable in the legal field but obscure to the general public, just as there are several articles on quantum physics which are obscure to those unfamiliar with the subject. As far as reasons why to retain the article, first, McGhee was the leading case in the 9th circuit clarifying the meaning of "prior publication" for invalidating a patent. This might not be apparent to those who are unfamiliar with patent law. Invalidating a patent can be as legally significant as upholding a patent. Second, this case is cited if a few textbooks. It is nice to have a source on the internet where a patent law professor can show a picture of the person who is litigating a patent's validity when illustrating how prior publication can destroy a party's chances of seeking a valid patent. A few articles on wikipedia provide illustrations or pictures such as Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon. It is more helpful to have a little more background about the parties that come to a case because it puts the case into context and helps us to remember both law and circumstances. Third, the case is the first in a line of precedent in the 9th Circuit that interpreted the 2nd Circuit's decision in Jockmus v. Leviton 28 F.2d 812 (1928), which is the most influential case on the meaning of publication in the early 20th century. We cite Jockmus because it was written by Learned Hand. McGhee is significant because it is the historical adoption of the Jockmus ruling in the 9th Circuit, which made it the binding precedent regarding prior publication (contrary to Rodhullandemu's contention). What I can conceive as a better solution is to Merge or redirect into a McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.. The Author of the article has an interest in promoting his ancestors, but this information is more useful in its legal context than in its biographical context. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.? Did it enunciate any important point of law, or provide a particularly scholarly approach to a legal issue? Although certainly some appellate cases are legitimate bases for Wikipedia articles, most of them are not. I don't even think every Supreme Court case is worthy of an article; and unlike the Supreme Court, any losing litigant may appeal to the appropriate court of appeals as of right. The vast majority of these cases, even the vast majority of the reported cases, are insufficiently notable for an article. Unless there's some special basis for this case, I don't see sufficient notability for an article. In addition, there's almost nothing about the case itself in this article. I'm against the redirect. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that the case is cited in several textbooks, and if someone has access to those books and can write the article, then they should do so. But there's not much in the present article worth saving. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee is the first case in the 9th circuit to "enunciate" the broad interpretation of "prior publication" in patent law. As I stated above, it adopted the holding in Jockmus. A prior publication may be as simple as an advertisement in a catalog. In some cases, it can even be a picture without any description. This interpretation does not necessarily follow from the 1836 Act. It is completely absent from the article on Novelty (patent). It is somewhat hinted at in Defensive publication. The author of the McGhee article intended to create articles of his ancestors. In the case of this article, his ancestor was involved in a 9th circuit court case that decided an issue of law for the first time in that circuit and on a point that is absent from wikipedia. What is notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co.? It illustrates a point of law not present on wikipedia. Legis Nuntius (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a book about this. Want to write it up? Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually not much more to that. The source is not a book, but a 55 page ALR article which has a single paragraph on the McGhee case in a broader discussion on publication. I'm not very familiar with this facet of patent law. It only came up when I looked into seeing if the case was notable. The case also pops up in a 7 volume treatise on patent law in the law library here. That entry briefly describes the facts of the case, the holding, and a very brief discussion of its jurisprudence. It is also in a patent textbook, but after a redacted entry on Jockmus. These entries aren't huge, but then again they exist. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability aren't very clear. McGhee is more than a footnote, which is much more than most circuit court cases, but there are many other court cases of far more significance which need articles. So, I believe the case is notable hence my vote, but I understand the votes to the contrary. I'm afraid that it would take a great deal of research for me to develop an accurate article, ergo it may not survive the Afd if no others pick it up to make better use of it. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the patents McGhee filed were not questioned or challenged and the drapery hook was also patented in Canada which was recognized throughout the entire British Empire, at that time, an area with more population than the US. The Canadian patent was never challenged or questioned. I think this is a great example of how a big business can beat up a little guy and steal his patents (ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegillus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Joegillus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I have to agree with Oakshade and Joegillus. I use this invention in my home as I am sure many people do - it's common sense to include the inventor - his Canadian patent is included in the article - that's good enough for me. That's why 'common sense' is mentioned in the very first section of WP:N.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.184.145 (talk • contribs) — 71.106.184.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoXer (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Orphaned since 2006. No label. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the German page for Joe Schocker here, it seems that there's some confusion as to whether BoXer even exists; Stenger is listed as frontman for both groups, and Schocker is still playing gigs. In any event, I can find no album info or other material that would put either BoXer or Schocker at anything more than a local act. Even no-name bands can open for big stars, and that is not in and of itself an indicator of notability. MSJapan (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and could find nothing. Delete if no sources are forthcoming. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - I thought about opening it up to delete all the peacocking, but this one's beyond me. Total press-release masquerading as a band article. Fail WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:MYSPACE, WP:PLEASEDESTROYWIKIPEDIA-BYPOSTING-ARTICLESABOUTYOURBANDS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Arms[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The pure volume link gives nothing notable about the band. Also, the pure volume shows that the band has a total of 8 fans. Not notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MSJapan (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also searched for sources and found nothing. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Paul Erik. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable figures of the 1980s[edit]

Any article with "notable" in the title is suspect. The first part about entertainers at least has a clear criterion for inclusion, though it doesn't make much sense to consider a singer or band notable in the 80's if it had a #1 hit in the US or the UK. Similarly, actors and directors are only notable if they won an Oscar or a BAFTA award. Notable sports figures seem to have been chosen arbitrarily. Notable political figures include Nancy Reagan, Princess Diana and spouses of Canadian prime ministers but no head of state of European countries besides Thatcher. Of course, one might argue: the list just needs to be expanded so that it is complete. But then, we still are left with an arbitrary cut-off for "notability" and we are likely headed towards a 200kb article. Pichpich (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a lot of work was put into compiling this, "notability" is the threshhold requirement for a person having an article on Wikipedia, so there would be thousands and thousands of articles that referenced a person who did something notable during the years from 1980 to 1989. Not just Ronald Reagan and Joe Montana, but Alfredo Rampi and Fawn Hall and Thomas Dolby and Marcus Serjeant and Lyle Kurtenbach and others who aren't well known today. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. This is an exceedingly broad list and seems to be rather pointless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history, it seems that the list was spun-off the 1980's article. This is the usual way that these lists end up being created but usually, it simply indicates that the corresponding content should have been fleshed out of the parent article. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This list is extremely arbitrary, it needs clear guidelines for inclusion, a lot of work/ expansion and possibly a title change, but I think this could eventually pass WP:LIST. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, completely abitrary inclusion criteria and unnecessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad to be useful, no clear inclusion guidelines. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creator OK, it's a bit shite. The number one artists list was my fault, and so were the oscar/bafta winners. The sports list I could do nothing with, not knowing what's the top achievement for various individuals ion most team sports, and not knowing (or caring) whether a particular pantomime wrestler was a worldwide figure or a local hero. I was just trying to tidy up the 1980s article, and I don't care whether this list of random stuff survives or not. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse Gatherer[edit]

non notable monster with only one source shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. D&D monster appearing in only one book. Of no real significance in-game, and no evidence of third party coverage shown. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fictional critter; try one line in a list, folks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuizotl (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in a single supplement. No third party coverage. Possibly deserves a brief mention in the article about the mythical creature, but I doubt it. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went ahead and added a mention to the article for the mythological creature, making this article as redundant as two Rings of Protection +1. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smite. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinder Cone (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources and no tours. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails WP:N, WP:RS, and so on. Created by WP:SPA, probably WP:SPAM. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little turns up on Google News archives. I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and did not find relevant sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pech (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Article does not mention any source books, but, from memory, they appear in Races of Stone and I doubt very much they have appeared elsewhere, unless it was copied from a book from an earlier edition. In any case, monster has minimal significance, and there is no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig8887 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; Ig8887 said it well. There are thousands of these bits of clutter. nb: It is my experience that combining AfDs tends to result in inappropriate keeps, so address them one at a time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - add a little of this to the Pech (mythology) article. Web Warlock (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that (and not incoincidentally, the reason most of these pages with "(Dungeons & Dragons)" in the title were created) is that mythology-folks don't want their pages cluttered up with pop culture references, and tend to remove that sort of thing from the mythology pages. A disambiguation page would take care of that problem, though. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's understandable, really. Why should the D&D monster get a special mention? These sort of creatures appear in all sorts of fantasy universes. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Either the subject is notable, in which case the article needn't be deleted; or it's not notable, and the mythology page needn't concern itself with it. BreathingMeat (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does what the mythology-folks want for their pages take precedence over what other editors want? I'm honestly asking. Why, if enough editors feel that the appropriate place for information on a D&D monster is a small mention in the mythology article, does that consensus get overridden with the desires of those who feel they "own" the mythology pages? Is it just because no one wants to get into an edit war over it? --Ig8887 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why include the D&D monster over any other? Such a mention would add nothing to the article; those who know the first thing about D&D would be able to guess there would be stats for it somewhere, those who don't won't care. Perfectly good articles are often ruined by huge arbitary lists of games, books, music videos, TV episodes, radio shows, blogs, films, fantasy universes... that whatever the article's about has appeared in. Either the pop-culture appearances have some significance to the subject, in which case they will have been discussed in third party sources, or they have none, in which case they needn't be mentioned. If you don't want to open the floodgate to include these lists, then why should the D&D incarnation be singled out to be included over all the others? J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fanaticism? Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize with the "mythology-folks". It's really a question of gravatas. Real mythology is significant to all humanity, whether individual members appreciate it or not. The various pop-culture entities, and D&D is one of many, are coat-tailing on and corrupting the general understanding of true mythology. This is why such bits get booted from the real articles and when they can't stand as separate articles, they die the AfD-death. Next. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Dungeons & Dragons Pech named Clacker plays a very large role in the book Exodus by R. A. Salvatore. Do novels in Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings count as secondary sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.142.155 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood hawk[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appears in a lot of supplements, but of no real significance within the world and there is no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Causevic[edit]

No record on Soccerbase, and the Saint-Étienne official web site doesn't even have a profile. On that basis, it is assumed that Čaušević has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He actually plays for Saint-Etienne B, his best claim to notability is being a Bosnian U21 player, but hasn't made a significant appearance as of yet - If his 18 appearances were for Barcelona B, then maybe. (For appearance history. Esteffect (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Esteffect BanRay 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTY/Notability. English peasant 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one should have been speedied. -- Alexf⁴² 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, it does attempt to assert notability as a professional sportsperson. Whether capped under-21 internationals are notable despite first-team appearances for a professional team is something that needs debate, hence an AFD listing. Esteffect (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe | Talk 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complex.h[edit]

Another editor has raised copyright concerns, but my reason for nomination is that this is material for a C++ programmer's reference manual, not for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. PROD removed without comment by the author. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per one, some or all of the reasons above :-) TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Newbie doesn't know this is an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyright doesn't apply to a list of function names, particularly given that they're part of the C standard library. We've got articles for most of the other C standard library headers (see {{C Standard library}}); although this isn't a very good article right now, keeping the set complete is valuable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Zetawoof, this is part of a set of articles. Rich257 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs help, but certainly encyclopedic. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with nom that this is material for a reference manual. "WP:NOT#MANUAL" says that wikipedia is not an instruction manual. To me, a lot of Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopedia as a whole set of interlinked specialist encyclopedias. The distinction between a specialist encyclopedia and a reference book is often less clear. I'm not sure whether this material is better here or on Wikibooks, but at present the distinction seems to be that Wikibooks contains the instruction manual and tutorials, while Wikipedia contains the reference manual. That doesn't seem unreasonable and I don't see any strong reason to transwiki this whole series of articles, which would be a lot of work and would certainly be too major a change to decide here. Qwfp (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I question how useful it is to copy into Wikipedia, for the sake of completeness, information which is available from the source only one click away - this case here. For one thing, what if there are changes to the original? Unless whoever copies it in is willing to take ongoing responsibility for future updates, there is a danger that WP will be left with out-of-date information. Better, in my view, just to have a pointer or link to the source. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The C standard library is a widely accepted standard, and will not undergo any significant changes without ample notice - I'd be shocked if anything were changed with less than a year's warning. Keeping this up to date is honestly not going to be a problem. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is more appropriate in Wikibooks. Axl (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can see no copyright violation, but detailing any specific library API normally would be out of the scope of Wikipedia. However, the C standard library is more than just another library, so I think articles on the single parts are ok. A mere list of all contained functions does seem out of place though - that indeed is only useful as reference material. In an encyclopedic article I'd rather read something on why complex.h was included in the standard (are complex numbers useful for something?), where it is used (like.. does my car or cellphone likely use this?), what it was based on (some history always is encyclopedic I think..), which implementations exists, differences between them, and so on, basically all the notable encyclopedic information available. I'm quite sure such information does exist in this particular case (could be proven otherwise though) - the current article is at best a stub though therefore my keep vote is quite weak. --Allefant (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need proof that it is a copyvio, and this standard library article is pretty helpful. STYROFOAM1994^Talk 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a directory listing of function signatues in a C library header file. This is definite wikibooks material, not encyclopedic. Quale (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Sager[edit]

Unsourced artist biography. Article reads like a PR piece. Severe conflict of interest, as the author co-owns the gallery where Sager's work is shown and where the artist is employed as a curator. Also I suspect the author is his wife. Gsearch reveals some local coverage, but notability is questionable. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N and WP:COI as noted above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously, per nom! TreasuryTag talkcontribs 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN so far in his career. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of notability. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Pike[edit]

No assertion of notability, despite source requests for nine months. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator suggests, intentionally or not, that the more exacting criterion WP:CSD#A7 would apply, but it does not. The citation of his roles in the two organizations, both with WP articles, asserts notability. Dhartung's evidence, below, shows that the article is non-deletable under even AfD.

No deadlines to expand exist, bcz non-expansion can result from either non-notability or failure of the appropriate editors to volunteer themselves into the editor corps.
--Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And deletability is not a property of the present content of an article, but rather of the topic and the article that could (or couldn't) be written on that topic.
--Jerzy•t 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N. Security consultants aren't usually famous, since they like to work so that others are unaware of them even being there. Therefore this person, to me, isn't that notable outside of the field he works in. ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first 'graph of the cited page says
The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity",....

so lack of fame is irrelevant to the question we are considering.

In fact, John Dee (a security consultant, too, i think) is someone i've only heard of (other than on WP) only once from a history buff and once incidentally in a PBS documentary. He has a featured article of 14 secns and subsecns (and a talk pg, with a wide variety of discussants besides a devotee or two). Not famous, but notable.

In the line of contemporary experts on national security issues (both with military rather than physical sciences background, as it happens), we have Edward Luttwak, Anthony Cordesman and Victor Davis Hanson whose visibilities are subjectively comparable to Pike's.
--Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notabilty is primarily a matter of lacking sufficient material. That must be determined by examining the material available. I have not done so, but to establish non-notability, someone must. There is no sign that the del-advocates have even glanced at the results of this Google test:
about 183,000 for "John E. Pike" OR "John Pike" GlobalSecurity OR "Global Security" OR federation.

(The unusual inclusion with the first hit among those 100s of thousands, of an annotation by Google with 8 lks, i believe each on a WP-notable topic, is also suggestive of notability. And this G-Test, within the site of the Federation of American Scientists, is at least provocative:
about 3,900 from www.fas.org for "john pike" OR "john E pike".

--Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pike is a frequent quote-generator for national security articles, and is known for founding GlobalSecurity.org. It's unclear what, if any, notability his private security consultancy has. unless there are sufficient sources, redirect to GlobalSecurity.org may be best. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That "quote generation" precludes deletion, per the third bullet point at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. That said, Dhartung's (unjustified) mergist-oriented proposal would set up no significant barrier to the right editor plowing into those G-hits and creating an article that suits that topic's potential, and would not be a big deal.
  --Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I was just setting up a fallback position. "Mergist"? --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Relax"? Yeah, i remember hearing of that before; i'll try & remember what it means.

Back in the Clone Wars, i'm never sure how many advocates it had/has, but there was a position between Deletionism and Retentionism that i understood as amounting to "when in doubt, make the disputed article a Rdr, and merge its content into that of the target of the redirect." (I generally call myself a Mergist with Deletionist tendencies. So i don't think i insulted you.) It just occurred to me that the perfect parody of the position may be "Well, extermination camps are crimes against humanity, but if you lock up all those n-n musicians inside their n-n bands, you've drastically reduced the noise level, and with no harm done."
--Jerzy•t 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable for his roles in two notable orgs, and his frequency of citation; also for the likelihood that the voluminous material available on-line will flesh out the bio nicely. Note details above.
--Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not notable outside of GlobalSecurity.org. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as CSD-I2 —αlεx•mullεr 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baradonai.pdf[edit]

Wrong way to upload to wikipedia. Possible copyvio. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the place to put pdfs, not ifd. A pdf is an article in a condensed form. Undeath (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article in the form in which it was uploaded, it's a binary image. It doesn't matter anyway, it doesn't belong here at all. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Pike (settler)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Moreover, WP is not a genealogical resource, and that is all this "article" is. MSJapan (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. He gets the odd mention as an early settler of Woodbridge, New Jersey (apparently his name is on the land grant), but even then primarily as an ancestor of Zebulon Pike.e.g. He was a judge and "governor" and later on Gov. Carteret's "council" but I'm not sure whether that's enough for an article. The vast majority of sources are genealogical, i.e. he is a well-researched ancestor, so GHITS are perhaps higher than they would be otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. In addition to the above he was elected to the colonial general assembly, firmly passing WP:BIO (even if New Jersey only consisted of a few hundred people at the time!). There is a problem in that the birthdates indicate this article was actually written about his non-notable (that I can see) father, and not John Pike (1606-1688). --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO, if a biography fails WP:N, as this one apparently does, then WP is not the place for said aticle aboutt he person. ArcAngel (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If being on Gov. Carteret's "council" is equivalent to being elected to a legislature or holding a cabinet position, then he is automatically notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Receiving a colonial land grant (that needs to be added and sourced) and being on a governor's council sound notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising. NN org, with no assertion of notability, and only links ot its own site for EL. MSJapan (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real claim to notability. Not exactly WP:LOCAL but primarily of interest to its own members or eligible potential members. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above - fails WP:N. Also seems to fall under WP:SPAM. ArcAngel (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kopru[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. Appearances in old and new supplements, as well as a rather significant module and articles in Dungeon and Dragon, but no evidence of third party coverage. Due to their prevalence in The Isle of Dread, a merge to our article on the subject may be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable and obscure. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N via references from 3rd party sources. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it, 68. Give us refs, links, etc. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/redirect to Isle of Dread, per J Milburn. BOZ (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this one into Isle of Dread. Since there's a convenient place for it to go that won't compromise that article, there's no reason not to do so. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mention at Isle of Dread We don't need another transparant Illithid clone stanking up the market. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mention on Isle of Dread - I always kinda liked the Korpu in a weird way. But that doesn't mean they are notable. Web Warlock (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Featured prominently in five different printed sources which are correctly referenced here. Meets WP:N via references from 3rd party sources. (If these references have been just been added we might need a recount) --SpockMonkey (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are also prominently featured in "Stormwrack" and I just added that info. --SpockMonkey (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources cited are two supplements, a module, two appearances in Dungeon and one in Dragon. None of these are third party- they were all published by whoever owned D&D at the time of publishing. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Isle of Dread. Non-notable due to lack of third-party references. They wouldn't be significant D&D creatures if it weren't for their presence in the X1 module. Too bad - I thought they had potential and never saw them as Cthulhu knockoffs. JoeFink (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Isle of Dread. The references aren't bad, on the low side of mediocre, but... They're pretty damn obscure, and outside of that original module they've never had much presence or importance. Not notable on their own.Shemeska (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable outside of a gaming manual. Recommend against merging - Isle of Dread could be brought to AfD soon as well. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree- the module has won small awards and has featured in numerous third party publications, through reviews and other mentions. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, no way - if you can get Gavin to admit that something is notable, then it's just not going to get deleted. :) See previous AFD for Isle of Dread. BOZ (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelf Darkhearth[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons deity, appearing briefly in a single supplement. As far as I know, and as far as the article states, mentioned no where else. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make like Cronus did to Uranus and Delete. Obscurity does not an article make. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, so much so it took 24 (1980-2004) years before he was introduced as the brother of Garl Glittergold? serious retcon here. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fictional deity passes WP:N. Consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons deities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable fictional character which fails WP:N. Inconsistent with an encyclopaedia and belongs instead on a specialised fan wikia. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently; I have seen material from the D&D Wiki and can confirm that it allows homebrewed material. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier)} 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character first appeared in a D&D supplement, and is not part of any "core" pantheon which recurs in novels or throughout several products. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loxo[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in a number of supplements, but is nowhere near canon or iconic. No evidence of third party coverage, or real in-game significance- just another human + animal = intelligent humanoid for NPCs. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into Faerun. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feytouched[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons crossbreed. Appeared in one supplement and some other book, but no evidence of any third party references. May deserve a mention somewhere that discusses fey in general. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alkilith[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a couple of supplements and has been featured in an article in Dragon magazine, but I am not seeing any evidence of third party coverage. May warrant a mention along with other demons/Tanar'ri. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Tanar'ri article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jeske. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrmyxicus[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appears in one supplement, no evidence of third party coverage. May deserve a mention somewhere when discussing demons/Tanar'ri. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete <Yuan>And just what the hell is this?</Yuan> -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhek[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appeared in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable and very obscure. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin[edit]

~~Still doesn't seem notable, although the sources have improved considerably from the last deletion.~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the article was rewritten from scratch specifically to meet notability criteria, which it succeeded in doing in one go, according to the deleting admin. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, change to Keep. Notable enough, although cleanup to remove the self-promotion is still necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'd actually argue that the sources are even that much better. There's certainly more of them, but of the "new" sources many are paysites and thus invisible. Even discounting that major problem, many aren't actually about Griffin himself, but reference or briefly touch on him (some don't mention him at all). Some more are completely irrelevant. Others are such as a user-posted review or a review from a small newspaper "that a good friend gave me to ponder over". Even what looks superficially good - an appearance on a bestseller list - turns out to mention the book at #10 on the softcover list of business books from a small independent bookseller. The article's been given a makeover, but underneath it's just the same, with no new convincing reliable sources. Neutral. Improved, but I'm still not convinced, and still more than a whiff of self-promotion about it. Needs to be far more NPOV.. Black Kite 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take it BK means "aren't" much better. Paysites: Believe I only used free and verifiable content from paysites. Not (directly) about Griffin: Why would that disqualify a source? Don't mention him at all: Was unaware my searches for him actually turned up sources that didn't mention him, please demonstrate. Irrelevant: Appears a judgment call because of being not (directly) about him. Reviews: The Slashdot review was on its homepage and widely seen; a small newspaper review is generally a good example of a reliable source and should not be disqualified just because the reviewer got the book from a good friend. Small bookseller: Actually, the other cite (National Post) suggests that the Tattered Cover was quoting a nationwide top-10 list, not its own sales. Makeover: I never saw the prior article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep barely notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Kite. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:PERNOM, please state your own reasons for deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was recreated by the admin who closed it as being sufficient and it was recreated only hours ago. I honestly think it's a little too early to start putting it up for deletion again. The point about paysites isn't really relevant as the paysites are for newspapers, something that can be looked up offline. Also the book store you mentioned has its own article on Wikipedia as one of the largest independent bookstores in the U.S. It also contains over half a million books so it is pretty significant. Also, I happen to know this article does not contain all the sources that could be brought up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now multiple independent about the man and his (varied) career. The fact that many articles require registration or special access does not diminish the fact that:

His book World Without Cancer was reviewed by the American Journal of Public Health, July, 1976, Vol. 66, No. 7
His opinions from this or other books by him quoted by newspapers in New Zealand (TAX CUTS: THEY'RE ALL DOING IT BUT US, 27 February 2008 The Independent Financial Review), India (Fed needs global watch, 29 December 2007, The Hindu); Nigeria (Media Complicity in the World's Worst Crimes, 8 June 2007, Daily Trust/All Africa Global Media); United Kingdom (So many 'breakthroughs', 31 May 2005, Newsquest Media Group Newspapers), Canada (In Trust, Canadian Business 79 no 7 2006), the US (Laetrile Makes a Comeback on the Web; 22 March 2000, Wall Street Journal)
An article about him in the Los Angeles Daily News (T.O.'S GRIFFIN ALL BOOKED UP WITH WRITING, FILM PROJECTS, 22 May 1995)
His book The Creature from Jekyll Island listed as one of the top 10 Books on History and Current Affairs, 9 August 2004 National Post, a nationally distributed Canadian daily.
Quoted in the Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve [5], though the title of the book may undermine my point, I suppose!
A googlebooks search finds 90 books that cite him [6].

I can send copies of these articles to anybody who wishes to see them in black and white if you send me a message by email. I believe that he meets the notability criteria: he has been widely cited in independent reliable sources around the world. --Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for these. I placed the first one into the article (free online access) - a review on his cancer book by a scientist in a peer-reviewed journal, very nice! Maybe someone can include more of these references, but I haven't found the right spot yet. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough now with the improved sources. ArcAngel (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Controversial figure but a notable one. Puark (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether it's accurate or not his book Jekyll Island is widely cited on Google Books and there appear to have been sufficient sources in news media to have a biography, solving the primary source problems of prior versions of the article. That some sources are "paysites" has no relevance in policy that I know of; not all editors can read other languages, but we permit non-English sources, for example, and many people connected with academia have access to Nexis and other services. The question is whether such sources are verifiable, not whether they are trivially accessible. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was merely invoking the Black Kite Rule, which states that the notability of the article is inversely proportional to the percentage of the reference that are paysites. Though to be serious, I did expand on my reasoning. Black Kite 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man has a rather devoted and growing fan base, which easily includes most of Ron Paul's supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your contribution, 24.... If you will allow me, your opinion (and that of any other newcomers who may comment here in the future) will probably have more weight if you can articulate your views with greater reference to the criteria for inclusion. Being popular or having a fan base isn't a criteria, unless it can be verified by independent reliable sources. See here for suggestions of useful and less useful arguments in this kind of discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep He has authored over a dozen books. There is no reason to delete this other then political bias.Byates5637 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I edited this file I found a new entry here but apparently the user had deleted the last ">" in the file and none of the following was displayed any more. So this entry was not properly signed (I just found 4 tildes). That's why I deleted it, in case somebody is upset: Just try it again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is lost, I have added Byates's comment back.--Slp1 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with everything, that "The Devil's Advocate" and "Slp1" have said so far. I like to remind everybody who knows of a reference that should be included: INCLUDE IT! Part of the reason why the article was deleted the last time, was that none of the promised references actually was included during the AfD discussion. I also like to remind (the other half of you) that the deletion of an article should be the last option when attempts to improve the article fail. Since this article has been given another chance, it seems sensible to me to discuss the shortfalls of the article on its discussion page, which did not even exist before now. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your assistance, Free; I believe the (presumably heavy) discussion of the prior article is now considered persona non grata because it related to (presumably unreliable) material not scheduled for restoration. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I fail to see how this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.183.61 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
' ' ' Keep ' ' ' Why delete something that can be revised until complete as possible? I think the originator of this delete request has an axe to grind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbobiguns (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — Bilbobiguns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: As the initiating author, I'd merely like to reemphasize: (1) I recreated the article from scratch, without ever having seen the deleted article, with complete reliance on WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N; (2) The article was accepted as meeting those standards and restored by the deleting admin, Nihonjoe, on its first pass, and has been substantially stable over the weekend; (3) Yes, it's waay too early to try deleting this again; (4) The only specific arguments for deletion come from Black Kite, and they are mostly arguments for deleting sources, but even if all those sources were deleted, there would still be sufficient core in the remaining sources to establish notability. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator, I'd like to be able see his notability and change my !vote, but I'm finding it difficult to find much about him from non-fringe sources. The books and videos exist, the publishers are non-notable to the extent that I can't tell if they're vanity press (and none are notable enough to have a separate Wikipedia article), and almost all the commentary is from fringe sources, such as the John Birch Society, creationist (I mean, intelligent design-oriented) book reviews, tax protester literature, Ron Paul, etc. Is there mainstream commentary on him other than the "kook-of-week" interview? I don't know what creationists and tax protesters see in him, but they seem to see something. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't mean a person is notable in the "mainstream" or frequently mentioned in mainstream sources. He's very notable in many of the groups you mention and the fact he receives mainstream news coverage is pretty significant as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch "creationist" above. I missed Noah's Ark in the lead, even though it doesn't seem to be referenced in the article. I still think we need some mainstream source for his notability, even if only among ~~Cranks~~ WP:FRINGE organizations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article BTW. Can you let me know why these sources would not be mainstream? Los Angeles Daily News, Wall Street Journal, ESPN, Boston Globe, Calgary Herald, Rocky Mountain News, National Post. I appreciate it. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've read dozens of books on the Federal Reserve and the big players involved in getting the Federal Reserve Act passed. While I would love to see a debate between Ron Chernow and Edward Griffin, I think it is undeniable that Griffin's version of the events matches very closely with those documented by Rockellefer-Morgan friendly Chernow. They mostly differ on the interpration of the motives and inner thoughts of the main players. Frankly his interpration of motives seems more believable unless Morgan, Mandell House and Rockefeller had sudden changes of mind and decided they mostly care about free markets and open competition. a clsoe study of those players leaves me with the conclusion they cared mostly about consolidating power, corporate socialism and defending elites from open competition. Please reconsider your attempt at censoring the library of the world. Even if you think the gold standard is idiotic and greenspan was an idiotic for his anti-federal-reserve articles written in the 1960's, The debate should not be flushed down the memory hole. Gabe Harris gabeh73...march 3 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeh73 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand how this work, but some guy doesn't see enough sources that he likes about Griffin and so he wants to flush this down the memoryhole? may I suggest you try reading his book and point out the statements you think are wrong in it! If you ahve read Jekyll Island then you'll see that given his interpretation of history the whole reasoning for bringing the Federal Reserve into place was to screw the middle and lower class. This essentially lines up with Greenspans view in his 1967 article "Gold and Economic Freedom". So even if it is all lies, the mere fact that such things have been written about the Federal Reserve and the greatest fed chairman in history Alan Greenspan agreed that the opponents of the gold standard had a "shabby secret" and the fiat currency is what made the rapid accent of the welfare state possible.....well even if he chagned his views later it is interstign piece of history to know that there is a plausible theory that the Federal Reserve is not working in the best interest of the common man. To delete this man's wiki article is a show of ignorance or evil...no better than a 1950's baptist preachers book burning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeh73 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabeh, decisions about whether to keep or delete an article not made based anything to do with Griffin's opinions and whether they are right or wrong. By policy:Wikipedia is not censored in any way. The decision will be made based on whether he is notable: ie can we verify that he is notable based on reliable sources (which doesn't include people's personal opinions)? These are the policies for inclusion here, and this is what we are discussing here. I don't know if you read my note above, but this might help you and others as you frame your comments here. Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a useful essay entitled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that Griffin supporters should really read before weighing in. Some of the weak arguments that carry very little (if any) weight in deciding whether to keep the article include statements like "It's useful," "It's interesting," "It's the truth," etc. Arguments that are also not too helpful include "I like it" or because Griffin has "Fame in X" or has X amount of google hits we should keep it. Wrong. None of these arguments really matter. What does matter is how well cited the article is using reliable third-party sources in order to (1) determine notability, (2) comply with verifiability, and (3) avoid original research. Fortunately or unfortunately, John J. Bulten did an excellent and admirable job complying with policies and guidelines. He should be congratulated for his hard work. The article is a keep now. Everything else is just noise. J Readings (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the sources which are non-trivial aren't reliable and the reliable ones are trivial. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do explain to me how these are trivial or unreliable?

Los Angeles Daily News article [7]

Nora Sayre book published by Rutgers University Press [8]

James Arnt book Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness [9]

Book review in American Journal of Public Health [10]

Slp1 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive evidence of notability provided above. John254 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So when will this 3rd nomination be closed? As I can see very clearly, KEEP, Thanks to all who wanted to (Keep) this article. And sure no Thanks to who wanted to delete it, Anyway You (all) have fun (Keep Only).

(LakeOswego (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Still a non-notable crank. Overwhelming the article with references doesn't disguise their individual very low quality. Trivial or passing mentions -- like this community noticeboard mention being passed off as a reliable source -- don't rise to the level being enough to base an actual article or demonstrate any real-world impact or notice. If he wants to promote his self-published books and self-produced movies, let him start his own website. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the source you gave seems to be nonsense, many are certainly not. The American Journal of Public Health is not trivial or low quality. Neither is the Wall Street Journal. Also, as for as the thing about being self-published and self-produced, that's because he has his own media company. He's also produced a film directed by an Academy-Award winning director which was screened at a Libertarian Party convention in Missouri and so it's not like he's just set up a lemonade stand. Mind you, notability doesn't always mean a person is going to be mentioned all the time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the Austin American-Statesman is a mainstream Cox Enterprises paper with editorial review and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: how is it not a WP:RS? It's not notable for nonsense. Or does Calton mean that the brevity of the mention is insufficient to demonstrate the fact that Griffin lectures on his book? See Free's comment below. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even funnier than your chanting the mantra "reliable sources" is your inability to grasp the actual purpose, value and/or relative importance of same: the sources which are non-trivial aren't reliable and the reliable ones are trivial -- and your gassing on about the reliability of the Austin Statesman American completely neglects to mention that the source is nothing but a single line in a community-events calendar mentioning that Griffin will be appearing at a local bookstore. To hold up that as a worthy reliable source is fundamentally dishonest, and certainly confirms my beliefs about the motivations and purpose of this promotional effort. --Calton | Talk 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you are the one who questioned the big Austin paper being a reliable source (and the one making accusations of cranks and dishonesty. What you meant to question, I now realize, is its being significant coverage in a reliable source. Nor did I neglect to mention the brevity. Granted, I'm still learning the lingo myself. But I think now that we're up to 25-30 sources (with a good majority reliable and nontrivial, and with my and Slp1's questions unanswered above) the result of the AFD is obvious. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I look at this discussion and the talk page of the article, I find that the concerns about notability and reliability by those who endorse the deletion of the article, have been addressed several times by a number of editors, in a reasonable way and by directly presenting sources. However, instead of directly addressing the presented evidence, the advocates of the deletion merely repeat their general concern by saying that the criteria still are not met, but without providing a reasonable explanation, why the presented evidence fails to meet the criteria. This and the fact that single weak sources are criticized and promoted as evidence that the overall quality of the article is poor, indicates that the supporters of these arguments have not taken the evidence given to them into serious consideration. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! There ought to be an understanding that simply waving the flag named "WP:RS" is not equivalent to winning the case-- at some point the burden of proof has been met by the claimant of notability, and it shifts to the flag-waver. I proposed such at WT:RS, but was shouted down. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - You both make good points. In a situation like this, I would advise an article's supporters to ruthlessly purge the article of all the fluff, because (fair or not) a host of crummy citations to blogs and forums tends to have the psychological effect of diminishing the perceived quality both of the article and of the referencing thereof. (Perhaps the presence of so many non-reliable sources leads other editors to suspect that the alleged reliable sources will turn out to be equally worthless?) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Orange Mike. Some of these sources have already disappeared during the recent editing process, and we are still working on it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this doesn't meet notability and the article has a variety of sources, not all of which are "fringe." Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BlackKite. — Κaiba 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After relisting, there is still no appetite for deletion, but it's not clear whether a merge as proposed below would be the best proceeding; so I'll leave it to further contemplation. -Splash - tk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendo Entertainment[edit]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable secondary source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Three Musketeers (video game), the only quasi-notable game that they developed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning keep A quick search hasn't brought up any big fat sources covering the company itself, but they have produced three games which pass notability and have another title on the way, though only the musketeers game has an article currently. For example, Dracula Twins has been reviewed by PC Zone UK according to GameSpot [11] as well as Gamezebo [12], Casual Review [13] and GameXtzay [14]. Their other game, Pearl Harbour has been reviewed in several magazines, there's doubtless some online reviews (can't be arsed to look for more for the sake of this AFD) and is now distributed on Steam. Does multiple notable games = notable dev/pub? Someone another 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion of precedent does seem to demonstrate the case for deletion here. That seems to leave the only keeper dealt with, and there is not even a suggestion that it should be merged. Someone can make a redirect if they like, I guess, but it does seem that we don't even often have those from the example below. -Splash - tk 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parvati Shallow[edit]

A Survivor contestant who has done nothing of note outside of Survivor. Per precedent, just being a contestant on the show usually isn't enough. And while she has appeared on two seasons, she still has done little of note outside the show, so most of the article would be detailing of her experience. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate survivor series. Sethie (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator cites an AFD for a person who appeared on one season of Survivor but this person has appeared on two seasons, which is quite uncommon. This woman is supposedly a fan favorite. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien appeared in many episodes in two seasons and her page has been deleted several times. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the other "favorites" on Survivor: Micronesia have articles except for James Clement and Eliza Orlins (who had an article but it was deleted in August 2006). I assume these contestants had to be notable in order to be brought back again as "fan favorites." --Pixelface (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michael Skupin is notable for being a contestant who was injured on the show, and so is Parvati Shallow. She cut the tip of her thumb with a machete in her first season. --Pixelface (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Parvati Shallow also appeared on a DVD called Perfect 10 Model Boxing. --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Michael Skupin's injury was a bit more serious than hers and received quite a bit of press coverage when he was removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How exactly does a non-notable person get selected as a fan favorite? --Pixelface (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because they use the term "fan favorite" very loosely, very few of the people they brought back were actually in the top 3 of their official polls from their season. And I'm saying she's not notable outside of the show and per precedent, contestants whose only major thing is Survivor usually don't get pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Philippe | Talk 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsuccessful game show contestant, no notability outside of that television programme. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Malinaccier (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Print2PDF[edit]

Not notable product from a non-notable company. Created by a member of said company and article that has been deleted twice before for blatant advertising. No establishment of notability, the only refs and external links are either belonging to the company in question or are nothing more than a brief mention of its existence or press releases. Reads as advertising copy and I don't see that it can necessarily be improved due to lack of notability.Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough; just needs fleshing out with technical details.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content. MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of the same content that has already been correctly speedied twice before. This is blatant advertising by a COI editor of a nn product released by a nn company. Mayalld (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Fry Bullitt, Jr.[edit]

The topic hints at notability but was speedied at first as that notability wasn't explicitly stated. What notability is stated is rather POVish. Thought it would probably meet speedy but wanted to AfD instead as I had a trace of doubt. SGGH ^speak! 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the only assertion of notability that seems at all relevant is that he was president of the Bar Association for a year, I have to agree and did so when I speedied it twice. Notability does not attach because of who you're related to or who your law partners are. Thanks, USer:SGGH, for your trouble, as we can now have this decided once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passionism[edit]

There is no evidence of notability for this supposed art movement. This has been tagged for several months with no sources added to establish notability. May fall under WP:NEO. freshacconcispeaktome 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a whole load of problems with the article, including non-notabilty Dreamspy (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A home-made art movement: [15] and utter nonsense. Particularly ludicrous is the part about it being the first art movement "spearheaded" by women (excepting of course the Feminist art movement and collectives such as Guerilla Girls, or the prominent role of women at the inceptions of Dada, Performance Art and Post-minimalism).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ethicoaestheticist.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian mafia[edit]

Non notable organisation, no reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V Edrigu (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure something like organized crime would fall under WP:CORP. It's not THAT organized. matt91486 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there certainly is a Serbian mafia, and it has been a subject of independent media coverage. See this BBC article, which I also linked to in the article. 96T (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the people mentioned in that article are long dead. Edrigu (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well,the mafia's obviously very efficient, then :-) TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add reliable sources. Re-nominate in six weeks if not.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a bunch of articles under Category:Organized crime that divide it by country and use localized names like ___ian mafia. This seems to imply an overall organization which in practice is probably not much more than mutually beneficial conflict avoidance. I wonder if it might be more encyclopedic to retitle all of these Organized crime in ____, which is almost certainly a problem we can expect to find in every country to varying extents, thus encyclopedic. In other words, I think this type of article should exist, although this may not be the best example of such an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually really like that idea for a general page move. It seems like it's the most correct way of putting it, because there can be organized crime that doesn't necessarily go by the term mafia or whatnot. matt91486 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Organized crime in ___" is not the best name, since these articles also deals with the ____ian crime abroad, and not with all organized crime in country x (for example, if the Brutopian mafia is active in Tomalia, you won't find any information on that in the Tomalian mafia article). Therefore, I think "____ian organized crime" is a better name, although some of the names should not be changed, since we actually deal with tight organisations (Mexican mafia is one example). 96T (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this certainly meets notability and this can be confirmed by a simple Google search. For those calling for rename keep in mind the term "mafia" has generally become synonymous with organized crime and pretty much all news articles will talk of them as mafia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lupis[edit]

non-notable, vanity, probable COI. Photo-journalists are journalists, that's part of what they do, that does not make this one notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Italy related deletion discussions. — Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~[quote]"Photo-journalists are journalists"[/quote] .....? What does it mean? I can't understand...~~

~~Any way, this person is mainly a journalist and then a photo-journalist but , once again, .... what does it mean??--Nosferamus (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~— Nosferamus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Totallly false! --Nosferamus (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)~~ banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if only because of the family background Dreamspy (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I see no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as is required by WP:BIO to demonstrate notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I found him notable enough to stay in Wikipedia.--Olitwist (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Olitwist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guy is supposedly descended from Italian royalty, but that alone does not make him notable and his claim to be the Duke of San Donato has no real basis since the Italian monarchy was abolished over half a century ago. He may have some claim to notability outside of this, maybe the mere fact he claims he's a Duke is reason enough, but I imagine he doesn't.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep For now, at least. Definitely needs more sources, which tough considering the language issue, but it seems that he might be borderline notable. faithless (^speak) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sources added --Nosferamus (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability asserted with multiple sources etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was stubbified per OTRS ticket #2008030310014816 . John Reaves 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Giaccone[edit]

No opinion on deletion, posting on behalf new user Pwilliams128 (talk · contribs). User believes article does not assert notability and contains serious factual inaccuracies. Roleplayer (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to serious factual inaccuracies throughout the article, the article on a whole is disparaging and libelous. As well, the citations provided do not support the vast majority of the information proffered in the body of the article, save for maybe "Philip Giaccone was born on July 12, 1932 in Ridgewood Queens".Pwilliams128 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have a fairly exhaustive collection of gangland, mobster and mafia articles and this is no exception. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the article (based on the editing history, probably inaccurate), but subject is verifiable. Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable certainly. If there are content issues that you are concerned about, just replace the information you see as inaccurate and cite the new information more directly. matt91486 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a way to cite to personal knowledge I would have done that already. As is stands, there are far too many inaccuracies in the story to warrant a revision. I strongly feel that a deletion would be more prudent. Pwilliams128 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, just cite the place that you gained your personal knowledge from. If you're challenging sourcing, you have to have your own sources to back it up, and I'm presuming you had to learn the information from somewhere reputable. matt91486 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few sources, and the fella was portrayed in a well-known movie. If there are factual discrepancies in the article they can be corrected through normal processes. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:With respect, his "portrayal" in a movie consists of the actor "portraying" him by sitting in a chair wearing glasses. That's it. No speaking lines, no movement, nothing. The main problem I have with this article is that the sources DO NOT support what is written in the article. I have checked these so called sources and none have proffered any of the substantive information that remains in this article. What's the point of listing a source if the source doesn't actualy support or correspond in any rational way to the "facts" you are trying to put forth. I can understand the "notability" argument, however the inaccuracies, blatant untruths, and lack of support in this article not only weaken the integrity of the entire Wikipedia system, but also disparage the name of a deceased man and his surviving family. If you can give me a decent and rational argument about how to remedy that without deleting this article, then I am all ears.69.114.153.169 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPA, just as a note for the admin. matt91486 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am in fact an SPA as defined by Wikipedia policies since I have only edited this article. I would like to please note, however, that I began doing so last year. From what I know of the article, and from what has been mentioned above, I just wanted to put my two cents in. And although I do believe strongly that the article should be deleted, I would like to assure you of my neutrality on a whole. I am certainly not a "sock puppet" or a "meat puppet". As well, I had not realized before now that editing a single article or topic would lead editors to give less weight to my ideas on this discussion. I do appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion. 69.114.153.169 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not meaning to leave less weight to your arguments. But both you and Pwilliams have made arguments that are hard to refute: You both are saying that you know these things to be wrong, but neither of you is providing sources to counter the sources that you accuse of untruth. So, I guess, I'm just waiting for either of you to demonstrate why we shouldn't trust the listed sources. I of course want the article to be accurate, so if you can show sources better than the listed ones and we can correct the article, then of course it should be done. I don't want untrue information any more than you do. matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand where you are coming from, however, the things I know are from personal experience with this man and his family and quite frankly I don't know hot to cite that. It's a difficult thing to read something about someone that you know to be categorically false, however you have no ability to refute that through writings and paper support. In many ways it is word against word. Please think about if someone were to write something about you in an article. The things they wrote were 99% false even though the article contained

"sources" that supported that false information. Can you demonstrate with written support of your own evidence that would refute what the article says and would support your side of the story? I certainly wouldn't be able to and unfortunately I am unable to with respect to this article as well. To that point, I would like to express two things: (1) The sources listed in the article do not support what the article actually says. That's the first and biggest problem. I'm sure everyone has better things to do with their time than to read all of the aforementioned sources, however, if you were to do so, you would find that they do not correspond, even loosely, to what is said in the article. If someone can get away with throwing a few sources down which supposedly support the "facts" laid out in an article, without the sources actually being checked, then I can just as easily come along and throw down a few names of non-fiction "mafia" books that supposedly give my side of the story. That's ridiculous and is not what Wikipedia is here for. If the sources in the article supported all of the assertions laid out in the article, then my argument would be much weaker and I would have to take up the fight with the authors and manufacturers of the books themselves. That leads to my second point which is that (2) Wikipedia has been so successful in fighting attempted lawsuits against them because they cannot be held responsible for supplying facts that are put forth in separate media outlets (books, magazines, etc). In this case, however, Wikipedia is allowing factually inaccurate information to remain on a page with no real sources or support. Because of those two points, I feel the deletion of the article would be the most responsible course of action to take. 69.114.153.169 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subliterate, most of its claims are functionally unsourced, and, unless everybody mentioned in the article is dead, it's a WP:BLP violation. No claim of notability, either; being an (unconvicted?) minor-league criminal with a mediocre nickname just doesn't cut it. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify. Remove all statements that do not match the sources (I haven't read them myself), which if Pwilliams128 is to be believed, is most of the article. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and thanks for the improvements to the page. Fram (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Kitos[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "is in over 300 newspapers around the world" sounds notable. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, looks like self-fulfilling prophecy. Deb (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't know about personal prophecy, but seems notable in the Hispanic community. Perhaps this would be better suited for the Spanish Wiki. ArcAngel (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks evidence of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't anyone do a Google news search before proposing or voting on deletions? It comes up with many reliable sources about this comic. I added them to the article, by the way; I hope those who already voted will take a look again and reconsider. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David. Clearly a notable comic strip. Jfire (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Link[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article has no reliable sources, does not meet the notability guideline. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATEasy[edit]

I'm no computer geek but this article reads as either spamish, non-notable, or both. Plus the username of the creator makes this article look like coi and possible self-promotion. -WarthogDemon 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's been deleted three times speedily as blatant advertising (G11) and it's no different now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that just now. Maybe salt as well then? -WarthogDemon 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definite spam. Blatant advertising. Non-notable product. Been speedied correctly three times. Created by single use account whose edits are solely relating to promoting this product and company all over Wikipedia. Delete and warn user to stop the spamming and advertising or they risk being blocked from Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I'd say block the creator of the page so we don't go through this a FIFTH time. ArcAngel (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ---

I am an engineer that uses ATEasy as a computer language. This language and tool set is tailored to the development of automated test equipment. ATEasy is a valid industry standard. It is used by a significant number of large aerospace companies. If this language is deleted from Wikipedia, then all other programming language references should be deleted as well. I am only a user of this language. I am not employed by, nor has the company that designed ATEasy ever employed me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atedesigner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — Atedesigner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello,

I've created the ATEasy topic, ...Yes, I'm heavy user of the ATEasy, I'm also familiar with LabView but prefer using ATEasy language for writing test application. Many of the bashers of ATEasy are from LabView users and the ATEasy page was a candidate several times for deletion by them. There is no reason why LabView or HP VEE (which was also candidate for deletion by LabView users) should not coexist in this huge knowledge base called Wikipedia while ATEasy should not. I understand that programming languages and programmers are emotional and religious about their language - but trying to delete this page all the time is not a way. If you think the page is commercial or looks like advertisement then please make corrections - but please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrATEasy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete - This is so absurd. If you delete ATEasy, you have to delete LabView, ATEasy's biggest competitor. This article is not self-promoting which is defined as not maintaining a neutral point of view. This article doesn't say it is better than any other programming language, it simply states the facts about what it is. Furthermore, articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style, which is precisely the case with this article. Engineers, like myself, need to be aware of ATEasy. We are using Wikipedia more and more and ATEasy has to be included. Like the contibutor before me, I have never been employed by the company that designed ATEasy. I am simply an engineer who has used ATEasy at my company for over 10 years and stands by it.BackspinVortex (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — BackspinVortex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I also am an Engineer who has used ATEasy for over 10 years, and stand behind the product. I don't completely understand the difference from Labviews Post and this one. But, think it would be very foolish to delete ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TestEng (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — TestEng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for check user on the above do not delete votes. Undeath (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Electronics Technician and have been a user of ATEasy software for about 13 years. It's been a good product from a stable and reliable company over the years. I can understand a debate over what type of material should be included in an internet encyclopedia, but in this world of goods and services, a product so widely used, over so many years, should be considered worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. If Widipedia decides to exclude products altogether, I'm sure the freed up hard drive space would be monumentous, but the hole in Wikipedia would be just as great. OkBelowZero (talk)OkBelowZero —Preceding comment was added at 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) — OkBelowZero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I must say I find it very hard to assume good faith on all these don't delete entries. They're all new users who haven't edited before, and they all appear to have the same writing style. Canterbury Tail talk 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail's profile states this: “Of late I seem to have spent most of my time going to random articles and cleaning up anything that needs doing to them, that and removing vandalism when and where I find it.” He obviously has too much time on his hands and is putting his 2 cents into something he knows nothing about. His profile makes no mention of having a technical background in test engineering and programming for test. Isn't there some way that the administrators of Wikipedia to verify that the email address I used is a legitimate business and not the same as the article's creator? People can accuss all they want. How will this ever get resolved? It comes down to either trust or verifiable facts. I created an account on Wikipedia to fight this injustice--that is why I haven't edited anything else. This is first time I needed to edit anything. The same most likely goes for everybody else. We were contacted by the ATEasy creators to fight for the software we use.BackspinVortex (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant to this discussion as it is I actually do have a technical background in programming and testing. And thank you for pointing out that the creators contacted you to help save the article, that just serves to put more weight against it as they have then resorted to external canvasing to try and drum up support for something that doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own merits and creating an increased conflict of interest. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if that were true, it'd be a conflict of interest. Please consider that, should a checkuser be run on these various accounts and, should they be sockpuppets, all accounts will be indefinitely blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring attention to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrATEasy in this AfD. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a hoax by a banned user.. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Zone[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a hoax like the rest of these Nickelodeon related afds created by the same user. That user needs to be blocked for creating these articles. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Woody. Jfire (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickpalooza[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total hoax. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) JuJube (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scanner Sketch[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) JuJube (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jfire (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Alien[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another complete hoax Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon: Battle Royal[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I'd like to see a deathmatch between Zoey 101, Rugrats, and Catscratch characters, this is an unverifiable hoax that probably wouldn't happen for children's characters. I am disappointed that the hoaxer failed to put in Dora and Blue's Clues characters though; no deathmatch game is complete without them. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Completely ridiculous Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AnimeLand (pilot)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this is an article about a TV episode, it falls under the Arbcom injunction. While we await its findings, however, the article needs quite a bit of improvement, including more context, categorizing, etc. If this can be proven as a hoax (I say that because a number of the nominator's other AFDs today appear to be addressing apparent hoaxes, then I don't think the injunction applies. 23skidoo (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove if it is hoax, but this may not meet notability guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. It does need to be flagged under the injunction, but if someone can indicate it's bogus (I've never heard of the show myself and I'm pretty well-versed in TV productions) then I don't see a problem with it being removed from under the injunction banner. 23skidoo (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction is moot in this case. The article is by a banned user, and banned users cannot edit, period. JuJube (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete hoax by banned user with 65 sockpuppets (is a Wikipedia record?} Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Day[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another hoax from the same author as the other Toon Disney/Nick hoaxes Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yeah! Cartoons (Disney)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yup, another hoax. Really, the nom should've grouped these together. All were made by the same user and all are total hoaxes. Can't find anything about these anywhere Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:HOAX. ArcAngel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jon513 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors!!![edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as not enough context to assert any notability or prove any facts about the article. Undeath (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, it's a hoax and not a very good one either Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Loewenstein[edit]

Non-notable film editor. Claim of Elevate Film Festival award not verifiable other than by self-published sources [16] and other claims of notability appear to be vicarious though his 'friends' and 'comrades' nancy ^(talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure to assert notability.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how a film editor is notable outside of the industry, therefore this article fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a hoax by a banned user.. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go! shorts[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5.. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiro vs. Mirrors[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete more brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) JuJube (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Jamie Braddock. I think I don't want to meet this girl; she can "summon ectoplasmic amphibians that tear the souls from humans". Wow — that takes "always let the Wookie win" to a whole new level. -Splash - tk 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Synge (comics)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Jamie Braddock. BOZ (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jamie Braddock. --Pixelface (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jamie Braddock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brake bias[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to wiktionary - a valid term that is sourced and does pass WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's already been transwikied.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid stub that could be expanded into a good article. The article could address questions that are outside the scope of a dictionary, such as how the break bias is regulated, what is its range, how it varies for different vehicles and different purposes, and so on. For example, here is an interesting tidbit that could one day be a Did you know? entry: did you know that some stunt cars for film and TV are modified by adjusting their break bias, in order to make them easier to spin? [17]. --Itub (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disagree with Itub; don't see it as being more than a Wiktionary term, and it's already there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately this hasn't been a very thorough discussion, but as it's already been extended twice, I don't think it's going to get any more thorough. If there had been any objection to the article's deletion, this could perhaps be closed as no consensus. Absent any such objection, I believe such a closing would be disingenuous. faithless (^speak) 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauranga dasa (RNS)[edit]

Vanity page for non notable individual. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable vanity page. Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't describe this as a vanity page, but I did wonder about the notability myself when moving it from an older version with an incorrect article name. Gauranga dasa is well known within Mumbai, but outside of India I'm not sure if his notability would be enough to warrant keeping the article? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I could not find many references lectures of him on iskcondesiretree.com web of Chowpati - besides an odd audio link.MBest-son (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "ISKCON Desire Tree" could be a questionable source. I have added it to the reliable sources notice board at [18]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that ISKON is a sufficiently notable religion that its leading figures warrant articles based on their position. The difficulty with this approach is identifying who is actually a leading figure. It is difficult for a non-Hindu to sort through the wave of titles and honorifics. Could someone be so kind as to (a) explain this individual's position within the movement, and (b) explain what sources show this? Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauranga dasa is a disciple of Radhanath Swami, who is in turn a disciple of ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. His position within the movement would generally be considered lower than that of a Swami, or GBC member. He is however a temple president of Radha-Gopinath Temple in Mumbai, and in the local Mumbai area is a particularly successful preacher, appearing on some Indian TV shows etc..., and giving talks in the top universities. Would his appearance within the Media if established through sources be enough to warrant an article? Otherwise I doubt if we will be able to source any more details. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on him in the media (by others) would definitely establish ntability. Regular appearance in the media in regular publications/broadcasts (not his own) could as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gauranga dasa (RNS) is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [19]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm wiling to accept that being head of one of their temples is notability, but he is only "vice president and senior monk" of one/ That wouldnt amount to notability for any religion or other intsitution either. DGG (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gauranga Dasa is a great man. He was a student at the elite Indian Institute of Technology, but gave up a brilliant career to become a monk. He has inspired the lives of thousands of young men and women to lead noble lives. I think that is very notable. Hence, please do not delete his reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.186.248 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Boucher[edit]

This page reads like a fan page, with no citations of facts, only links to what are essentially other fan pages Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to total lack of reliable independent sources, but not due to writing-style.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "The Professor" is one of the best-known AND 1 streetball players. There are plenty of articles about him at Google News. He even appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated a couple of years ago [20]. That the article reads like a fan page is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User: Zagalejo above. Seems to be an abudance of sources on this fellow that establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I don't follow basketball and I know who he is. I had no idea he was from Oregon. Cacophony (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#G6, uncontroversial housekeeping, as a duplicate of the much better article at Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai. It would have worked to just redirect this name to the better article, but I didn't see any reason for keeping the redirect with the extra period in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai.[edit]

Kind of self-explanatory. Infinitely superior article already exists at Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd probably try to send this under WP:CSD#A3, and don't redirect, due to the non-standard title. It took me a moment to notice that extraneous period at the end of the nomination. Yngvarr (c) 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicative of a much better and appropriately-named article. JJL (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrum Worm[edit]

Non notable monster from the Dungeons & Dragons world, appearing in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Cathedral[edit]

non-notable, 70 hits "Sonic Cathedral Inc" Rapido (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus the alexa ranking is nearly 500,000. With that little traffic I find it hard to believe the site's notable. Wizardman 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would not appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB per above, however the record label "Sonic Cathedral" is notable per [21][22], and other GNews hits, so be careful in WP:CSD#G4 tagging. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for diversity[edit]

Non-notable committee within a law school. Article is unsourced, totally original research, and makes no assertion of notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - humourously non-notable. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Extremely unnotable law school committee and Wikipedia is not a personal web hosting service for them to self-advertise. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third-party sources that assert wide notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - in the vast majority of cases, such groups within schools are not notable, and nothing here indicates an exception. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Wikipedia is not paper" just means that we should not delete things "because we are running out of space!", not that we should keep everything. Fram (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrian[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in a couple of supplements. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect into Planescape. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is such a minor creature. Even I doubt I could find any thing on it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Web Warlock — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I see your guideline written by the few and ignored by the multitude and raise you a policy. Let the D&D wikiproject decide what to do with it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone who has commented in this AfD is linked to the WikiProject, be they a member, a sympathiser or someone who just comments over there a lot. We have bantered back and forth over there for long enough- it's time to actually do something. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why didn't you just merge or redirect it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where to? As I see it, this information has no place in an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about Creature_type_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Magical_beast? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are too many. If we mentioned every instance of every type of monster, it would be stupifyingly large article. Only particuarly relelvent/notable instances of each creature type should be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have to merge them, just do a redirect. If someone finds sources they can easily add that info to where the article redirects, or undo the redirect, and we're not bogged down with a ton of AfDs. The amount of work that's going to go into these AfDs could probably redirect 200 articles. Also, it would be easier to watch a few pages than watch for a ton of articles as they're recreated. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We'd still have to watch the redirect pages. People would resent mass redirecting, at least this way we demonstrate that there is consensus rather than just someone deciding they don't want the articles there. This discussion would be better here so that other interested parties can easily see it. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings of compositions by César Franck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

"This list is incomplete", it says. True. It's also exactly as incomplete as it was when we decided to "keep and expand" over a year ago. As so often with "keep and fix", only the first has been done. There are two main problems for me here: first, it can't be anything else without including huge numbers of substandard and / or critically ignored (read: unsourced from reliable sources) recordings. Second, it's an arbitrary list. What is special or noteworthy about recordings of Franck? If I want the very best recording of any particular work of Franck then I'll go to the BBC CD Review website, sure, we could copy that here, but it would violate copyright. In the absence of objective criteria for selection, and incidentally I do think most of those listed are very good, I odn't see how we can have this article. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy as listcruft. This kind of thing is more World-Cat than Wikipedia. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is miscellaneous information that is inappropriate for our project. We have List of compositions by César Franck to cover the discography requirements, and there is César Franck#Notable recordings within the article, whose existence I'll leave to the judgement of that article's editors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with everything above -- except I wouldn't say that the BBC website is the best source for CD recommendations :) Grover cleveland (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of compositions by César Franck. Per WP:NOEFFORT the fact that this list has not been improved recently is an inappropriate reason to support deletion of an article. As for “listcruft,” that’s a pretty vague reason to delete to isn’t it? This is hardly a random collection of information. Many composers have discographies on Wikipedia. Whether this information requires a separate article is open to debate, but I don’t see any convincing reason why this should be deleted. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it hasn't been improved recently, it's that after a "keep and improve" AfD it has not been improved at all, in over a year. In other words, this personal list of recordings with no cited authorities clearly does not get enough inetrest to become compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In general I think discographies on Wikipedia are a great idea. There are a multitude of reliable sources that can be used (catalogs, other reference works, liner notes to the recordings themselves, etc.). However this discography is ridiculously incomplete. I can go to a single web page and find no fewer than 722 recordings of Franck's music! Is there any realistic prospect that this list will ever contain anything close to that number of entries? Is there any realistic prospect that it will ever contain even 100 entries? The discrepancy between the stated aim of this article and its actual content is so extreme as to be ridiculous. If we allow this list to remain, then why not start articles on List of recordings of compositions by French composers or List of recordings of compositions from the 19th century. Where do we draw the line? Grover cleveland (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a large but not particularly unreasonable number of recordings when you consider that each recording takes up only one line in the article. List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven has more than that many entries. Since we’re not in the business of being a crystal ball here I don’t think any of us can predict whether or not this article will be complete in the near future. Until it is I suggest we simply make a note in the introduction that the page is not yet complete. As for where to draw the line, your sarcastic suggestions are totally non-relevant. This is hardly a slippery slope, just a discography. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven has [a very large number of] entries. Exactly. List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven is actually a useful article which (as far as I can tell from a quick glance) is reasonably complete. According to my estimate, it has around seven hundred items. Now, for the current article to be anywhere near complete, it ought to be significantly larger! Whereas instead, after almost two years and surviving one AfD, it has a grand total of 23, which is the entire point. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is the deadline? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no deadline --S.dedalus (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and expand means it was satisfactory, and we were advising to build on it yet further. if this hasnt been done yet, its none the worse than it was before. We do not delete article for being not worked on. Rather than nominate it, it would have been more useful to try to complete it. You are arguing simultaneously that it should be deleted because it isnt complete, and also that it is better that it not be complete. In any case, how complete it should be is an editing question. DGG (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand works once, IMO. If it's kept and not expanded and not referenced and no objective inclusion criteria added, then it can't be kept forever. Eventualism is fine until we find that "eventually" is functionally equivalent to "never". Unreferenced arbitrary personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be relevant that the vote for "keep and expand" on the first AfD was razor-thin: 3 deletes, 3 keeps and 1 "week keep". So there was hardly a consensus that "it was satisfactory" the first time.Grover cleveland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations do not carry over since consensus can change. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dhartung. We could take all the time in the world expanding this, but it wouldn't change the POV and "crufty" nature of the underlying concept. SingCal 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how exactly is this POV? I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. As for this being “listcruft” the article really does not appear to fall under any definition of that word at WP:LISTCRUFT. List of songs that contain the laughter of children, that’s certainly listcruft, but a discography for an extremely notable composer? I don’t think so. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why that composer? What are the selection criteria? How do we define which works or recordings should be covered? Guy (Help!) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone decided to create this article. The fact that not all other important composers have discographys doesn’t make this one less important. (WP:ALLORNOTHING) It’s not inconceivable that this list could one day be complete. There are other examples of this on Wikipedia. List of recordings by Plácido Domingo for instance. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Placido Domingo analogy isn't really the same; Placido Domingo will make a finite number of recordings in his lifetime, just like Franck wrote a finite number of compositions. But how many times has Franck's d minor Symphony been recorded? How do we decide which of those 200+ recordings should go on the list? And what about every single one of his other works? It's POV because ultimately an editor has to decide without the help of a reliable source which recordings go on the list and which don't; I doubt that WP:N and WP:MUSIC will help much with that sorting either. The alternative is to put every Franck recording in the list that's been put out by any classical label, English-speaking or otherwise. So, like I said: it's either going to be biased or it's going to be an indiscriminate info-dump, rendering it cruft. SingCal 03:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair point. But see my reply to Grover cleveland further up the page. I don’t see why a third option is unreasonable. How about a well referenced list of all known commercial recordings of his music? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with S. dedalus that a "well referenced list of all known commercial recordings of his music" would be a great idea. If, in the future, some discographical enthusiast comes along and wants to create a Wikipedia page that contains such a list, I would be cheering him or her on. However, the current article, after two years and one "keep and expand" AfD, is less than 3% of the way towards that goal. What we have right now is so pathetic that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Just because someone created a list, and because it theoretically could become complete, doesn't mean we have to keep it. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Dr. Friendly (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of compositions by César Franck is an encyclopedic list, but a list of recordings of these compositions is not. Quale (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - issues include no real world notability. --VS ^talk 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astral dreadnought[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in a couple of supplements. May warrant a mention somewhere if a reference for its relation to the Doom series can be verified, but I think it probably does not warrant an article of its own, even if it is linked. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and/or Redirect into Planescape. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - this one I can see keeping. There is information out there on this guy and if the Doom connection can be verified then that would seal it. OTHERWISE it should be merged into another article. Web Warlock (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage. The link to doom might be a reason to mention it, but I doubt it would be more than a small mention in a section devoted to the cacodemon, rather than actual coverage of the dreadnought. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would make a good addition to the article on the book this monster appeared in, providing a source can be found. That's what should be focused on from a D&D point of view- supplements and modules, not monsters and deities. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WW above. Article is poor at the moment and needs help. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Manual of the Planes, the first appearance of the monster AND the book on which it graces the cover. Given that the new 4th Edition Manual of Planes cover coming in December 2008 will once again feature the Astral Dreadnought, there is a strong thematic link between the creature and the book, so it can reside there. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable; belongs at the bottom of Scapa Flow. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is already a mention of them on the Manual of the Planes article, but until we have a reference, we can keep the Doom speculation off the main article. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that the likeness to a cacodemon from Doom is anything more than coincidence. If someone can whip out a source - an interview, notes on design, etc. - I will change my opinion on the likeness, but even with the source this monster does not deserve an individual article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE as the primary source is a gameguide, and the descriptions fail WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Manual of the Planes per Ig8887. shadzar-talk 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Gavin.collins above. Not notable outside of D&D. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Jeske; no real world notability. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegan foods[edit]

Unencyclopedic; unbounded list of every fruit, vegetable, grain, fluid, and processed product that doesn't happen to have animal products. Kellen^T 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary list and rather silly: Looks like water doesn't contain any meat, nor does a lemon. What's that? There's no meat in pumpkin seeds either? Are you sure? I thought they were actually flattened hamster livers. Ok, ok. Seriously, the encyclopedic aspects of this are already covered in other articles (Veganism, Vegan nutrition, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Partially a restatement of what's obvious, but there's also some elements of howto in the mix. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, redundant listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of info.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a list of food... Djk3 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason this list is different from the other 58 lists of foods, is that these foods are vegan, which s the crucial point. This is not a list of vegan salads, this list is one of a kind, which is more reason why it is necessary to keep. This is very encyclopedic to Wikipedia's standards due to the fact it is about vegan foods. Other list of foods may be unencyclopedic & unbounded, but many people are not aware of the vegan foods out there, which is the very reason for Wikipedia, a source for information. The majority of people who are not vegans would find this list *silly* or redundant, that is because they do not know what veganism is, that is further the reason why this list is needed. Most people are not aware of the foods that are vegan and this most certainly is not covered in veganism, & defiantly not in vegan nutrition. They rather mock the only vegan food list on here while keep their other somehow more important list on Wikipedia, the one of the only real food list that actually serves encyclopedic purpose. Removing important informative articles and list like this from Wikipedia and keep useless, uninformative list, is what gives it a crazy bad name.--Sugarcubez (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm vegan. I nominated the article for deletion. Veganism#Animal_products and Animal product cover the same area in a more intelligent way than this list. That the other lists might be bad is not reason to keep this list. Nominate them for deletion if you feel strongly about them. Kellen^T 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also vegan. I think that many of the other lists of foods are silly too, and it might be worth it to nominate some of them for deletion as well. Djk3 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen I have seen your 'work' here on Wiki and find it hard believing you are a vegan. Those two articles you have listed basically says what we cannot have in small detail, not the vegan foods. And Djk3 I do agree that many other food list are silly and unnecessary, but some actually provide useful encyclopedic information such as this vegan food list.--Sugarcubez (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kellen appears to be very diligent with making sure that whatever is in the article is cited, positive or negative. That is necessarily going to include removing positive information. Please don't make personal accusations. Regarding the list, the fact that the Animal product article is very short highlights how long the List of vegan foods article can conceivably be. It is bound to be just a list of food, with that relatively small subset not included. Djk3 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a vegan cuisine article, the animal product article does not cover the list of vegan foods, that's insane. I am not making a *personal accusation*, I am just stating what I have seen through the years Kellen has done, seems majorly anti-vegan. And I have to differ from what you say about that issue (diligent with making sure that whatever is in the article is cited, positive or negative- not!) very much. And in reality there could not really be anything negative that is a fact and has to directly do with veganism. But, that is a different issue off topic, let's focus on this. There should be a vegan cuisine article instead of this one. - Sugarcubez

Um, my comment was not unsigned, just was not a fancy signature. A lot of people use this as a reference, and information, and this is linked to a lot, as well a lot of sites use this as a reference.- Sugarcubez

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buomman[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster, appears in one supplement. No evidence of any third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - make a minor mention of them on the Planescape page. Web Warlock (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whistles Taps -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phraze-It Finger-Vowel One-Handed Texting[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable recently invented product. Weregerbil (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 - advertising. JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 advertising Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Phraze-It Finger-Vowel One-Handed Texting Method is novel enough for the US Patent Office to issue a patent. So the editor's opinion is baseless. The Phraze-It Finger-Vowel Texting Method is not a product for which there would be advertising. An alternative to ASL fingerspelling is noteworthy and as mentioned in the article, this texting method is important for establishing a means for persons not versed in ASL fingerspelling to learn a shorthand method. Additionally, for medical professionals, this method may be helpful with their disabled patients. Calling this a non-notable product seems to smack of a personal vendetta and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Persons can now text using electronic gloves or virtual gestural devices, in a way that was not possible heretofore. Rolotext (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The issue here is whether busybodies with a personal or political agenda can censor discussion in the marketplace of ideas of an innovative and useful advance in technology that will facilitate communication between people.

Rolotext (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Rolotext please note, Wikipedia is a "the marketplace of ideas". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs of William the Conqueror[edit]

Unreferenced genealogical list of data, the "reigned" does not refer to any particular title or regal position, anything notable would appear to be a repeat of what already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia Roleplayer (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be different than "descendants of William the Conqueror". This one has nineteen names so far, and the question now as to whether this article should be added to. I'm sure references can be added, though I don't see what purpose this serves. The best I can tell is that these are persons who later inherited a title that William the Conqueror had held (not just King of England, but also Duke of Normandy, etc.) and who can count William as an ancestor. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethergaunt[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor monster at best. Maybe a brief mention on the Planescape or Outsider (Dungeons & Dragons)#Outsider pages. Web Warlock (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked the page). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kelvey[edit]

Complete hoax: orphaned article, none of the titles mentioned in the article exist in UK peerage. Roleplayer (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes". JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally requested speedy deletion but the nomination was declined on the basis that the article asserted significance. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Step hen 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster mentioned in one supplement. No evidence of third party references. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, merge with some bigger list of D&D creatures? Though really, I don't care about that article any more, now that kynoid was deleted... --Koveras ^☭ 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect into Planescape. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge &/or Redirect as above. I'm almost sure they appeared in the original Monstrous Compendium, however. Eithin (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They appeared in the first edition Monster Manual II (1983) and second edition Monstrous Compendium 8: Outer Planes Appendix (1991), which the article does not currently reflect. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe a brief mention on the Planescape or Outsider (Dungeons & Dragons)#Outsider pages. Web Warlock (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the also appeared in the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual. but unlike a beholder, being in mutiple monster related sourcebooks does not make the moon dog notable. i don't know how merging mosnters into lists would work as it may seem all monsters shold be listed even if they aren't notable, and that would just be an article with a HUGE list on Monsters in D&D. and i dont think that is something needed here. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many D&D critter lists; List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, for example. Cheers Jack Merridew 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because Zeus is such a critter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was using critter rather loosely. I 'spect you knew that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge but to where I don't know. Nom is incorrect in where it appeared, been around for quite a while in a number of sources. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — 68.40.58.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The Moon Dog has been around, but only in TSR/WOTC first-party publications. No independent notability, no third-party sources, so no article. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fly it to the moon and leave it there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier)} 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE as the primary source is a gameguide, and the descriptions fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability outside of the D&D universe(s). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both --Step hen 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kezef the Chaos Hound[edit]

Very minor character from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, appearing in one redlink sourcebook. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also bundling Dendar the Night Serpent with this nomination- another character from the same source book. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, it would have made sense to bundle Ityak-Ortheel with these as well. BOZ (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe make note in the Fenrir article as modern adaptation if this origin can be proven. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as for the newly added Serpent i say delete it as above, but if can be proven then stick a mention of it in a pop culture area on the Midgard Serpent page as i suggested the hound to Fenrir page.shadzar talk 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both — non-notable. The Fenrir origin is uncited, so ignore. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call up the Gods of Brutal Cunning and Cunning Brutality to wipe 'em out. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kezef has appeared in multiple sourcebooks, as well as at least one novel that I recall. Additionally, the Fenris allusion is blatantly obvious, if currently uncited.Shemeska (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity Gavin, are you actually reading each of the articles that you're voting to delete? Because you've been using the same cut'n'pasted stock deletion reason on many of them.Shemeska (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasoned rationale for deleting is still a reasoned rationale for deleting, and to be fair to him, I'd prefer he use c&p'd responses as he has demonstrated a very outdated knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much outdated, as incomplete/inaccurate. Outdated would imply that he has had previous knowledge of the subject which did not change as the subject changed; this would seem to conflict with my observations of Gavin's responses. Oh yeah, Shemeska, "stock deletion reason", that was a good one - does that make the reasons non-notable? BOZ (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - what Gavin Collins said. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both, both minor characters with no notability outside of D&D. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerra[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster- inhabitants of a very minor plane, appeared in only one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe a brief mention on the Planescape page. Web Warlock (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neraph[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race. Appeared in one ~~rather minor~~ supplement. No evidence of third party or additional first party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I cannot fathom why the nom would call Planescape's 3.5 book (its 3.0 being Manual of the Planes) a "minor supplement" at all. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, neither can I. Who the hell is that stupid nominator? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wearing a mask only helps if it disguises your identity ;) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable slaad knockoffs. :) Shemeska (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, slaad knockoffs are customizable. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Glutton[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster, appearing in only one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. There are many such articles and the creatures, deities and spells and the like are better covered in a list format. --Jack Merridew 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor monster at best. Web Warlock (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feed to Mileena. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choldrith[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race. Has appeared in only one v3/v3.5 book, along with a couple from previous editions. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Jack Merridew 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe a brief mention on the Faerun. Web Warlock (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obscure monster should not be made into a redirect to the campaign setting in which it appears. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment once again i think you are using the term stock character incorrectly as you do not understand it or the article in question. by your definition everything in RPGs would be a stock character. please stop abusing its use and stick to the other reason for deltion that we can all agree upon, for example notability; which this article lacks heavily. shadzar-talk 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I used criterion A7, non-notable web content, although [[WP:CSD#G11|G11], blatant advertising, could have applied also. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPM Hide&Seek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RPM Hide&Seek

No reliable sources, appears to be verging on nonsense. EJF (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonsense + an ad for an online multiplayer server (evident from the IP address provided) Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete either A7/nn-web or G11/spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author's removed the AfD tag twice since the debate started. Don't know how much longer we can assume good faith here. Blueboy 96 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no assertion of notability --VS ^talk 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draegloth[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons crossbreed. No evidence of third party coverage. May warrant a mention in our article on Drow. There have been a few named Draeglothes in various D&D supplements, novels and the like, but that is not a reason to have an article. An argument could be made for this being kept, but let that be decided here rather than it just sitting with a notability tag. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drow (Dungeons & Dragons). Web Warlock (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to drow. There should be some coverage somewhere, if only so that articles discussing draegloth characters from the Forgotten Realms novels can link the word rather than explaining it. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE as the primary source is a gameguide, and the descriptions fail WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Complexity[edit]

Original research opinion piece. Weregerbil (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR, clear-cut example. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) it's clearly OR, 2) it's clearly not in an appropriate tone, 3) it's artificially more complex that it should be. Canterbury Tail talk 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, essay. JJL (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's possibly room for a properly sourced article on "artificial complexity" in software design. This is not that article; it has the appearance of an original thesis. --Sturm 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tressym[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons creature which does appear in a number of books, but is not particuarly significant. No evidence of third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. BOZ (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. Web Warlock (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable winged housecat. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup it is practically a copy of all of those thousands of other winged housecats you see everywhere. I know *I* am tired of seeing them. Web Warlock (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swat them with brooms, but they just fly to a different room. So hard to get rid of. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep taking the meds, and they will soon go away :p --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. D&D monsters/creatures are not all stock characters as some may want you to think they are, and thus has no bearing on this article. its lack of outside sources and being obscure even within the game to the point where those outside the game would have no idea what a Tressym is if they heard or saw the name however does. just a creature created for the game, and as previously said all D&D monsters/creatures are not notable inherently because D&D itself is notable. shadzar-talk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dromite[edit]

Non notable monster from the Dungeons & Dragons universe. There are no third party sources. May be a little more notable than I am aware, as I don't play Psionics, but this article does not indicate that it is. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor monster at best. Web Warlock (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure monster. maybe add it to its source book Expanded_Psionics_Handbook with any other races present in the book such as the classes are listed there, and redirect from here to there. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn monster. If anything, should be added to its sourcebook, as it is a legitimate race there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Web Warlock. Include in a list (sans-link). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Adventure[edit]

No news coverage of this supposed upcoming film whatsoever. Searches for "Squirrel Adventure" and this movie's supposed stars also turn up zippo. Even if this movie is real, it's pretty extreme crystalballery. Blueboy 96 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be made up. No sources, not on google, not on IMDB, not on claimed actors' profiles on IMDB. Weregerbil (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax (or just wishful thinking). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism. Google searches confirm hoax. Undeath (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax. Addhoc (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glutton[edit]

Very minor D&D deity introduced in a minor source book. No evidence of third party coverage, and it didn't even get much first party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merge where appropriate with the D&D Gnome article and Greyhawk gods article. Web Warlock (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Better to mention such, ah, gnomish deities in a list (sans-link). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feed it to a Snorlax or Yoshi. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or Kirsty Alley. Jack Merridew 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CofS wouldn't let her close enough ;) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier)} 08:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I learn something here everyday. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings/Bexhill[edit]

No evidence has been offered of the existence or notability of this supposed "unrecognised conurbation"; moreover the associated redirect pages Greater Hastings/Bexhill and Seaspray (conurbation) would appear to be fictitious. This page previously PRODed, PROD endoresed by another editor but removed by original author of the article}} --rossb (talk)

Delete WP:NOR applies. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely OR and made up. An unrecognised conurbation? Of two places that while close to each other do definitely not run into each other? Also prodded but no explanation to keep was ever provided other than a note asking why it can't be kept. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a local, I have never known the two towns to be regarded as a single entity. The two towns are not even joined, a separate parish St Leonards-on-Sea divides the two. Putney Bridge (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V. No sources cited or found for evidence of usage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are a few Google results, on council websites[23] but they appear to be about a possible future development. Verifiable information could be mentioned in the separate town articles but to create a separate article for this neologism is not necessary, particularly as it has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. The only non-Wikipedia result[24] for "Greater Hastings/Bexhill" is also on a council website, and refers to an area, not a conurbation. It is also a non-notable neologism. The Seaspray name appears to be completely fictitious, and I removed it from the article when I added the {{prod2}}. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme snap[edit]

IP removed PROD. The PROD notice read, "No sources, something someone invented on YouTube, WP:NFT." - Listing as curtesy; I have no opinion on it. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unsourced, WP:NFT. I find two mentions of the game on the net, both by the guy who made it up: [25][26]. Weregerbil (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cute but complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable/WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable game. No sources. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Well, I've played it and it's fun, but~~ its not notable enough for a wiki article. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Ridgers[edit]

There are fewer than 100 mentions of Colin Ridgers in google. I can find no evidence of any association between him and Chris Leslie. I can find no evidence of any association between him and an album called "Here There and Everywhere". Without these two associations, he does not count as notable. Ogg (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we were to find some evidence of an association between him and an album called Here There and Everywhere, I doubt that would make him notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I added this reference but that alone is not enough for WP:N (i.e., WP:MUSIC criterion #1). --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but 1 cite may not be enough to prove notability for WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails notabilty. Bardcom (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Davies[edit]

I can find no evidence that Eileen Davies existed. I can find no evidence that her album "Down the Drain" existed. Ogg (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sorry, I couldn't find any info either.--LAA Fan 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets some criteria for A7 (non-notable person, people), if she does exist, she has no public records. WikiZorro^sign 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply fails WP:V and therefore fails WP:BIO --Pmedema (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't give out articles for anyone, including people with pathetic short lived careers and lives, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Furthermore since she did not achieve anything in her lousy life, well she's not going to now, is she? Sad story but possibly even a hoax, not a single source in there is there? Speedy delete it all ready. No point in relisting was there?^MY♥_INchile 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion (CSD A7) does not apply, as an assertion of notability has been made, regardless of how minor it may be. Please note that WP:CIVILITY does apply, even when your comments are not directed toward a specific Wikipedian. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't asking for a CSD A7 was encouraging an expedient deletion. as for what incivility, i was simply describing the article content in accurate terms.^MY♥_INchile 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that confusion would arise if you used the term "speedy deletion" not to describe the Wikipedia process for immediate deletion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:42, 16 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. Please note, I don't have a problem with mention of this instance of a brain in a jar as a mention in the Isolated brain article, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus or a need for a merge. A redirect isn't plausible either, as it is highly unlikely that someone would type this string of characters, complete w/ parentheses and an ampersand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. This link appears blue because the history was restored, and a new redirect was created by user request. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain in a Jar (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in, as far as I am aware (and I'm reasonably well-read on the subject) a single supplement, with only a single page or so. Very briefly mentioned in a couple of reviews, but that is already included in the recently expanded article on the supplement it appears in, Libris Mortis. Some of the text is also copied from the entry in LM. To be honest, I think this would struggle to have a decent article on an in-universe Wiki. Bringing it here instead of prodding as D&D monsters are generally a reasonably contentious area. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable monster in universe, dosn't appear in any in-universe fiction, attempts to WP:SYNTH out of universe sources (and missed the origional Lovecraft referance) but no secondary sources support those refereances.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per Coffeepusher. It also appears in Munchkin. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to merge and redirect per other discussion, stick it over on isolated brain or Brain in a vat with a mention. It's kinda far flung, I suppose, but I guess by a long shot it is a merge (put the mention in) and redirect (!). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Merge to Brain in a vat - as an entry it is non-notable, but as a general creature outside of this one book I can think of many references. Gamewise we have this one, the Ravenloft one, the Mutants and Masterminds one, and that is not even getting into the mass of B-grade movies out there that feature it. It could be rewritten at a future date. Web Warlock (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gleemax as the card, online community and its icon, and namesake have their origins here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadzar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand what you're saying here- this monster came before the website, and this monster has nothing to do with any MtG card. Redirecting to an unrelated website is a silly idea. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gleemax is a MtG card from Unhinged. it is a brain in a jar. the idea for the card was taken from this creature. http://ww2.wizards.com/Gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=gleemax WotC new online commuity initiative is a place for all gamers to meet online and discuss any and all games. this was annoucned at GenCon Aug 2007 as the Gleemax initiative or somesuch. and the new online community that supports discussion of all games, the site being hosted by WotC; is called GLEEMAX. www.gleemax.com as the video from Gamer_Zero aka Mike Lescault presented to the world via youtube as an introduction to those not able toattend the convention GLEEMAX is a large brain in a jar as present on the website www.gleemax.com as its icon. this of course was taken from the MtG card, which was taken from the "brain in a jar" creature. therefore i suggested that while the brain in a jar may not be significantly noteworthy it has meaning for the origin of Gleemax both the MtG card and the new website commuity initiative presented by WotC at GenCon 2007 along with their announcement of D&D 4th edition. while i don't want the article to sound like a promotional gimick that it all was/is. it is the origin of several new things as well as old from WotC. i hope this better explains what i was talking about and how these things relate to each other. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Isolated brain, actually. Gleemax would have more likely than not been based off of that; isolated brains predate D&D itself. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - while looking over the articles here on wikipedia i not a few things. the book from which this monster claims to be from was published in October 2004 Libris Mortis. the Card came form a set published in November 2004 Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering)#Notable Cards. the card itself is cited as a joke form WotC. seeing all 3 the current D&D game which this creature is a monster of, the card, and the website Gleemax, i think they are all related and connected to WotC and thus should be mentioned within the company. even though other places may have had the idea before. WotC currently uses and stresses this idea. i don't agree with their advertisement thusly, but i see they are too connected to not be related to each other and why i suggested one of the WotC related connections rather than something that predates them. right, wrong, or indifferent, it is just a gut feeling about where this goes. shadzar-talk 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Brain in a vat~~ Isolated brain as suggested ~~above~~ below. I would oppose merging to Gleemax, as even in Magic's cracked canon he is an individual character, not *just* another brain-in-a-jar. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not the card Gleemax, but the article about the website is where i said to merge it as the "brain in a jar" concept is one they are using to bring many of their games, and hope to bridge many gamers for not only their own products, but all games. as i stated just above. and of course is jsut an idea not one that i am bound and determined to see happen, just wanted to clearify what i meant and was talking about. total deletion of the article and its content would not offend me in the least! shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - it seems non notable, and while I'd like to keep much of the D&D stuff here, that doesn't include every obscure monster. However, I would also oppose merging to Brain in a vat, as Brain in a vat is a philosophical thought experiment looking at how a brain can be fooled into believing that it is experiencing the real world when it's sensory data is been faked by an outside agency. In this it is similar to Descarte's Demon. The Brain in a jar is about a brain being kept alive without a body, as per Isolated brain. Isolated brain would thus be a better candidate to merge it with. - Bilby (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing this to Merge to Isolated brain. Isolated brain already has an appropriate fiction section, and a mention there wouldn't be amiss. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:N or WP:V 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — another one of thousands of non-notable D&D pages. A mention in Brain in a vat or Isolated brain would seem appropriate; 'ware of giving undue WP:WEIGHT in either of them. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so none of its content is worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I'd like to keep or merge this but I don't see any of the merge proposals as being substantially connected enough to justify the matter. Hopefully at some point some scholar with two much time on their hands will write a paper about disembodied brains in fiction and we can include this there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per (small) consensus, fails music and bio notability guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paraskevas Karasoulos[edit]

An article written by an author, on the owner of her publishing company. Fails the Google Test with 71 unique hits including this article, none of which look useful as sources. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The google hits are nothing. Undeath (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 by me —αlεx•mullεr 13:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kale minnema[edit]

Complete non-entity: page created and largely edited by single use editors. No reason for this to be here (or anywhere else for that matter!). Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe recreate in twenty years all google hits are for facebook-like stuff or high school sports rosters. Even then I don't get ten hits. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Maxing out his bench press and leading his football team are not assertions of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESociability[edit]

Original research, notability and unreferenced SGGH ^speak! 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism that nobody probably uses. 8 Google hits. I think we can snowball delete this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and all the google hits are those noxious "if I put a bunch of stray words on a page, maybe someone will click on it" sites. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Yahoo search also turns up rien. Horribly written and the author is a vandal. Blueboy 96 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Neologism" is being rather kind to it: no evidence this has ever been used, ever, outside of this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything's Possible Players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anything's Possible Players

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google search shows 4 ghits [27].This source[28] mention the name, but does not have significant coverage on the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get more google hits, and they establish some very weak notability. However all evidence thus far shows this as the very locally-known program of an ARC. Maybe later. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local theatre troupe, no evidence of any notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Consensus is that the sources are sufficient to write an encyclopedic article. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyatlov Pass Accident[edit]

Extremely outlandish claims which are mostly unverified, or verified from extremely poor quality sources. Majority is unsalvagebly PoV. Jefffire (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a link to a February 27, 2008 article in the San Francisco Chronicle.[29] Surely the San Francisco Chronicle is NOT a "poor quality source." --AStanhope (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping this article, but to be fair, the San Francisco Chronicle article is based completely on Wikipedia. The author picked up the story from MetaFilter, and links to the Wikipedia article in his post. utcursch | talk 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of English-language sources doesn't mean that the information is unverifiable. There are books and documentaries in Russian language about the incident. As for POV, that's not a valid reason for deletion -- just tag the article with {{npov}}. utcursch | talk 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that once all of the blatent PoV is removed there will be about half a dozen sentences left. The issue of the references is that they are basically all exceedingly poor quality. Jefffire (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete news story plus speculation plus bizarre theories does not make an encyclopaedia article, at least until there are reliable sources for the bizarre theories. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone is worried that it will turn out that the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times was the victim of a hoax, then I can only say, that in itself would be notable. As Jefffire points out, there are other sources besides the Tampa-area paper. It's important to remember that the Soviet Union didn't have a free press, and that there were a lot of disasters that were covered up and didn't get publicized until after the end of the Cold War, such as the 1957 nuclear accident at Mayak, or the 1960 Nedelin catastrophe. It's too bad there isn't a separate category for Soviet-era events like these. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the rational for deletion, namely the extremely poor quality of the references . Claiming a conspiracy to repress the information is also not a reason to keep. Jefffire (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentioned on the article talk page, the newspaper article appears to have been heavily drawn from the Wikipedia article. Jefffire (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's the other St. Petersburg Times, which is actually the parent paper to the Moscow Times. Note the dot-ru. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was recently featured on Metafilter, which is presumably why it popped up here. It definitely happened, although it's almost certain merely a case of a group of skiers becoming disorientated after fleeing their tents at night to escape an avalanche and either dying of exposure or being caught up in it or a later one and killed. There are good Russian sources out there and a good article can be written on it, a poor article is no rationale for deletion in itself. What's wrong with an article with half a dozen good sentences pray tell? Mandsford is right in pointing out the large number of little known Soviet disasters which were covered up at the time. Towns getting covered with anthrax after fires in biological weapons labs, little things like that. Wikipedia shouldn't disregard things merely because they happened in other times and other countries. Had nine skiers disappeared in mysterious circumstances in Nevada in the same way nobody would be saying delete. Nick mallory (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of verifiable information from reliable sources, though not all of it English. If you have a problem with people making wild claims, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. —dgies^t_c 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be so kind as to tell me which of the sources are reliable? I was under the impression we had a collection of inaccurate newspaper articles, opinion pieces and quack books. Jefffire (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for this presumption? Are you able to read Russian? (I can make out the odd word, but not fluent reading.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF only applies to editors, not to references. The onus is entirely upon the editors in favour of a reference to demonstrate it's reliability. Jefffire (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search showed this, the most recognizable item being "Novaya Gazeta". For those of you who might not be old enough to understand claims of a conspiracy to suppress information, a history lesson is probably in order. It wasn't so much a conspiracy, but rather government policy of that time. What is now simply Russia was once part of what was called the "Soviet Union", and the government of that nation was controlled by what was called the "Communist Party". There were some people-- mostly professors and American government officials and that type-- who claimed that the newspapers in the Soviet Union suppressed information. They had nothing to go on for this wild claim, other than that publications such as "Pravda" and "Izvestia" (these were newspapers published there) wouldn't report the same news that was being reported in the Western press. But a lot of Americans thought that the Soviet Union didn't have as open a society as Americans did. That was more than 20 years ago, of course. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most people are aware of the general standard of journalistic freedom in soviet Russia. However, Wikipedia is based on what can be reliable verified. If the commies managed to repress it, then it can't be reliable verified. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Jefffire (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that the article needs some serious editing, this is as far as I have managed to find out a well known event in Russia. All the paranormal stuff should probably be either removed or moved to a separate header, and not be a part of the serious investigation parts.

There is no doubt that 9 people died, where they died and much of the events up to their deaths. But just about everything I've seen on internet sites where there has been any critical thinking at all say that they most certainly ran from an avalanche, or at least though they where in danger of being hit by it if they stayed in the tent. Several of them got caught by the avalanche and was buried beneath the snow (the missing tongue probably having been bitten of during either during the violent avalanche, falling while running down the mountain etc.), while the others froze to death. But still, the article should be kept, and the paranormal stuff should be mentioned as well, though not as facts, just as with many other wikipedia articles about 'mysteries'. 213.89.222.42 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good overview of why at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=8760 (specifically about this article and deletion debate)

'trying to look up additional information about " Dyatlov Pass Accident" with google turned up an almost 100% circular reference, with everything going back to the Wikipedia article.

I obviously didn't read every link google turned up, but Wikipedia's references are all either in Russian or are dead links.

The best you can say about this story is it's poorly referenced and HIGHLY suspect'.

References all appear to be circular to me as well, I suspect viral marketing. -M^ask? 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strange claims and the bulk of references being in a different language are not really good grounds for deletion. It certainly needs a tidy though. If people want more sources then there are people trying to translate some of the Russian material [30]. Even that Skeptic forum points to a 2000 truth-based novella [31] giving more weight to the story. So I think grounds for removing it now are unfounded but it is something I'd want to come back to and re-examine somewhere down the line. (Emperor (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Non-english sources cannot be a reason for deletion. One of the sources ("Matveyeva") is in fact, a collection of quotes from an official 1959 case (plus other documentaries) that was verified by other researches (who have the photocopies of the case). This book is also valuable as a critical overview of different existing "explanation theories" with their pros and cons. Generally, this source have never be disputed as non-reliable among russian researchers community. Geekzoo (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the sources are not in English is not the reason this is listed, it is because the sources are generally very poor quality. Jefffire (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide a better explanation of 'poor quality'. They are the printed books written by by professional writers/journalists. How do you estimate a level of quality? Geekzoo (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An author so well respected that this article is the second highest google result for his name? Anyway, please see WP:Reliable sources for further information. Jefffire (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0 Geekzoo (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications : http://magazines.russ.ru/authors/m/matveeva/ Geekzoo (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind as provide evidence of he is an authoritative source, rather than Russian language webpages, that would be more convincing. After all, any Daily Mail journalist probably has an even longer publication list, but we wouldn't consider any of them reliable. Jefffire (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, this author has no publications in English. "rather than Russian language webpages" - do you mean that the fact that personally you cannot read Russian is the reason to reject all Russian sources? Sorry, but I doubt in your own neutrality. Geekzoo (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I tracked down an English translation. The book is a fictional account of a Mary Sue investigation. Reliable source, it is not. Jefffire (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about English translations. The question is a certain book in Russian, isn't it? Let's not to mix the things. Geekzoo (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the book is a fictionalised account. Fiction is not a reliable source. Jefffire (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd ask you to not call me "dude". We have never take a beer together or so. Second, this is disclaimer from the Matveyeva book (my translations): "For the readers who are interested in documentaries only: please avoid the normal font". The book is clearly separated to two parts: All documentaries are printed with italic, and "fiction line" (author thoughts and commentaries) with normal font. As I told above, the "documental" part is verified by independent competent people. Geekzoo (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that "the "documental" part is verified by independent competent people"? I don't know about you, but a fictional narrative is never part of any source I would regard as authoritative. Jefffire (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide you with links to researchers communities where this question has been disputed, but I'm not sure it would persuade you. Geekzoo (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in real research, I doubt it. I think I've heard all I need to about the book's reliability. Jefffire (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are russian communities. But many people speak English there, so if you would ask a question, you get an answer. You can write to either LJ community or to the forum, links to which you have removed as "inappropriate". Geekzoo (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Gushchin's book never be claimed as a "fictional". But the problem with it is that the author tries to promote a certain explanation ("weapon tests") - not NPOV. And he cited the same documentaries as Matveyeva. Geekzoo (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest to undo all destructive changes until the question with article deletion is not solved. Geekzoo (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this via a story in a reputable US newspaper, so seems to have achieved worldwide notoriety. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit mercilessly. The so-called "destructive changes" have considerably improved the article, and a further abbreviation to perhaps three paragraphs would improve it much further. Given a choice between the article as it originally stood and deletion, the choice would be deletion. fortunately, we can edit--if necessary down to a stub saying what is known to have happened and the books that were written about it. The details of the hikers and their injuries and all the peculiar theories are not needed. DGG (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if we consider the sources unreliable, we have NO sources at all - even for those three paragraphs. I think we cannot extract the claims we would find appropriate by some our private reasons, while ignoring other claims as long as they are existed in the same documents. Geekzoo (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To those who would say to keep this article: which single primary source (in any language) do you suggest would best withstand a challenge to its credibility? Best secondary source? Further debate can center upon the credibility of each. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218Ithink (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fascinating story. Non-English sources are perfectly fine here. Let's not be too Anglo-Centric or Google-Centric here on the Wikipedia. --AStanhope (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to belabour this point, but the language of the references is irrelevant and no-one has raised them as a reason for deletion. Jefffire (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article fascinating and did some independent Googling - there's no doubt this accident happened, you can find pix on line easily enough. Article obviously needs tons of cleanup but I found it informative and forwarded it to a bunch of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) \][reply]
Keep. If the sources are in Russian, they need to be looked at by somebody fluent to source the article, but deleting it is hardly the solution. --mordicai. (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Argument for cleanup (which this article needs) is not the same thing as argument for deletion (which this article does not). Ford MF (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Everyking (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Deletion of the entire article seems an extreme and unjustified step as long as the fact that 9 people died in mysterious circumstances, and the basic account of how they were found, are not in dispute. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. No secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterton Cup[edit]

Delete. Secondary school cricket competition in one corner of England. No independent sources cited, and no assertion of notability outside the schools themselves, hence fails WP:ORG. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Easter[edit]

Simply too marginal a writer. No significant third-party coverage (sources are IMDb, his agent and his old buddy). Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WP:MUSIC: does writing a song that charts count for notability? One is sufficient for a performer, but how many would it take for the writer? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're not talking about Billie Jean here... Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sidekick of Steve Wright part's the reason I've classed it as weak. Esteffect (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources can be found out there. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that allow for the development of an article beyond a two-line sub-stub? Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - if more sources can be found. He certainly appears to pass notability, just doesn't have coverage. Bardcom (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from IMDb, seem to be plenty of independent sources at Google. --Oldak Quill 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what are required are secondary sources about him, rather than by him. Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful article, can be sourced. - cohesion 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SixSense Discography[edit]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band has no page; therefore, this album isn't notable. I think G7 should be extended to such cases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Insta-nuke per A7. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Parkinson[edit]

Completely unsourced, no notability asserted, ~~probably a hoax~~. Turns out he does exist. — Edokter • Talk • 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search for "Festival Awards Chris Parkinson"--one hit for this Chris Parkinson, Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we remove the obvious jokes, almost nothing in this article is verifiable. Only one of the cited articles actually mentions him, and it doesn't provide any significant biographical information. I can't find any additional coverage in Google News Archive or NewsUK. EALacey (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete WP:BOLLOCKS. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/thoroughly non-notable. Gets pretty desperate in trying to assert notability, and still fails miserably, including a whole paragraph about supposedly having an eating disorder. Hey, Chris, you left out your shoe size, favourite brand of toothpaste, and what hospital you were born at! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't speedy delete it just yet, as I'm using it. See this ANI which is somewhat related. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, carry on with that speedy delete now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under any one of a number of rationales. G3 and A7 are the most applicable. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo Foster[edit]

This skateboarder's notability appears to be questionable. Weak delete unless notability is better demonstrated. --Nlu (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article is unsourced. He does show up in a few places in a Google search, in much the same manner a golf pro or tennis pro would show up, but he doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy other than devoting his life to skateboarding. That in and of itself does not warrent an encyclopedia article. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melter[edit]

Non-notable comic book bad guy, appeared in a few issues and was killed off. No sources except the comic books themselves. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well writen OOU style. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the character's appearances span over 25 years. Looks notable to me. And comicbookdb and marvel.com look like good sources. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a character list. The character is fairly obscure. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is not obscure, he has been a recurring Iron Man villain from the 1960s to the present day and fouding member of the Masters of Evil. The character did not "appear in a few issues and was killed off", apparently the submitter is unaware of the character's history. --Pc13 (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's obscure from an out-of-universe perspective. How much has been written about the character by reliable secondary sources? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, he is obscure outside his specific medium. That in itself does not mean he's not notable. Secondary sources for Marvel supervillains? Let me know so I can buy the book too. If you need third party sources for the Melter, then please start AFD'ing more comics articles in general. That said, there is a profile at ironmanarmory.com and The Marvel Bad Guys site and is induction into the Masters of Evil is mentioned here. So there, sources. --Pc13 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fan sites. Those aren't reliable secondary out-of-universe sources. And yes, the Melter is obscure. Few comic fans can name an Iron Man villain beyond the Mandarin, much less the Melter. The Melter simply isn't all that notable. Hell, the first time I saw the cover to the Avengers issue where the Masters of Evil debuted, my first reaction was, "Who the hell is the Melter?" WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character is notable within the context of the Marvel Universe, and has been a regular player for over 40 years. The fact that one poster has not heard of the character is not grounds for deletion (they obviously just need to do more reading). By that logic, any character that WesleyDodds has not heard of must be deleted. The Melter is a recurring Iron Man foe, who had also been placed in a nav box - proof positive that he has been acknowledged as a strong member of said character's rogues' gallery. Therefore, it is a strong keep. Asgardian (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard about the Melter. But the character is certainly not "notable within the context of the Marvel Universe, and has been a regular player for over 40 years". Notability in a fictional context is irrelevant, and it's not like he's Thanos or something. How many appearances has the character even made? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least 10 appearances, so there you go. There are articles on characters that have appeared a mere 1-2 times. Asgardian (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten appearances in over forty years is quite miniscule, especially given the medium. The fact that other characters have made less appearances yet have articles is irrelevant. Featured Article subject Jack Sparrow has only appeared in three films, a few spin-off books, and some video games, but he's an infinitely more notable character than the Melter. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you comparing a film character to a character from comic literature? That makes no sense. Your whole argument seems to be based on your POV. This statement "The Melter simply isn't all that notable" proves as much. The villain has destroyed Iron Man's armour twice, has been a significant player in the Masters of Evil and was killed by the Scourge of the Underworld. The fact is that the character is significant, and as a character in the Marvel Universe deserves an entry - something all the other major Iron Man foes have.

Asgardian (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - without prejudice for recreation if notability is established. However, I believe extant notability guidelines require reliable third-party references, and I don't see any such yet. John Carter (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Keep votes. The fact that he is dead isn't a problem; his death was part of a major storyline involving a vigilante murdering supervillains. This storyline still affects comics today - take a look at the characters involved in current issues of Thunderbolts. BOZ (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I posted this in my vote on the AfD for Ringer (comics) and am reposting it here as the point is the same: There may be important questions to ask about such middle-rank comics characters, in relation to WP:FICT (and I know I have spoken to various people about this as a lot of the lower level and mid level characters should probably be merged into a characters entry) but I think that requires a broader debate. Deletion is a poor interim solution and, as the entry looks solid enough, I am voting to keep it, at least until the broader issues can be addressed and resolved (not dealt with piecemeal like this) - at which point we might want to return to this. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I find this AfD discussion to be rather unusual. The usual case is for a few people to argue to retain the article because, in spite of the lack of third party sources, the topic has notability. Then one or two editors find a third party source, and then the debate ends with an improved article. Here, we have a person arguing to "keep per the keep" votes! Asgardian asked me on my talk page why I nominated the article for deletion, and stated that the comic books themselves are the sources, which they are not. Is there no one who works on comic book articles that is also good at finding sources, or is this a willful refusal to agree that outside sources are required? Lord Uniscorn (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did, but they were dismissed as "fan pages". Which, in this business, is as good as you can get. As you're probably aware, scholarly research about comics centers more on the art form itself, or on the work of creators than in appreciation of the published work, with a few notable exceptions. So, we need to rely on online sources. One of the sources I pointed out, the Marvel Bad Guys Page, has been online since 1996. It deals with a variety of supervillains, explaining their strong and weak points. I fail to see what's unreliable about that. --Pc13 (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm intrigued as to why this was a reply to my views on the issue - I not only added a reference but I am arguing that entries like this shouldn't be deleted (hence the keep) but that we might want to do something with them in line with the guidelines - which might mean nearly all low-level and a good slice of mid-level comics characters being merged to another entry. I ave taken this discussion over to the Comics Project talk page and invite people to address the wider point there. (Emperor (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Outside sources are not actually required when considering this (taken from the equally bizarre AfD on Ego ):

The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.

Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series?

Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.

Asgardian (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gman124 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of one of the first (and longest-lived) supervllain teams in Marvel (if not comics in general), was one of the first killed by the Scourge of the Underworld (Marvel's attempt to 'clean house'). He may not be as notable an Iron Man foe as Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger or the Mandarin, but that doesn't mean he's not notable at all. --Dr Archeville (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I have no other words to say ;) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a reliable source for this one, Lord Uniscorn. Does anybody have this book? (The second one down?) Without the book, it is hard to know what it says in order to properly reference it in the article. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean "500 Comicbook Villains" By Mike Conroy? BOZ (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Do you have it? I put the link to the search returns because that was the only way to prove that Melter is in there. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, unfortunately I don't. I was asking, because when I clicked the link that was the first book rather than the second. :) I started a thread here regarding that source; maybe we'll find some leads. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those of you arguing keep are making a mistake that I myself made when I first began participating in deletion discussions; that is, you're assuming that this character passes notability standards for fictional characters simply because he is an important figure in the work. This is simply not the case. If I wrote a comic tonight that was centered on a character called Admin-Man, would he be notable? Certainly not, no matter how important he is in my comic. Now you might be thinking, "Sure, but this isn't any old comic, it's Iron Man for Pete's sake!" Indeed, but remember, notability is not inherited. Yes, Iron Man is notable, but that doesn't mean every character who has ever graced the pages of the comic is. All that being said, I imagine it is quite possible to find some sources on this character; primarily, I'm thinking Wizard will have covered him at some point. If we go by the letter of the law, this looks like a delete at the moment. However, I think this is an instance where ignoring the rules benefits the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, and I'll keep saying this until it sticks, the comics are the main sources. This was the case for decades when they were being sold at newstands, before there were comic shops selling additional material or even an internet on which to create sites. Past example - Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) IS the main source on the first appearance of both the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. That additional literature came later is a happy bonus. The comics - certainly in the case of Marvel - were also proven to be more reliable than the supporting literature as they constantly proved the later Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe incorrect.

As for the "Admin-man" example, there is some truth in that not every character who graced the pages of a comic is notable. I don't see all the "one-off" foes that Iron Man dealt with in what were usually fill-in issues as being significant. The Melter, however, is. Why? Because with over 10 appearances - which is very notable in comic terms - the character is an integral part of the Iron Man mythos and larger Marvel universe. Again, if Marvel repeatedly insert the character into over 3 decades of comics, then they themselves deem the character important. Asgardian (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comics can't be used to establish notability. For that we need independent, third-party sources. I really don't know how to state it any clearer. It doesn't matter how important a character is within the series, it matters how important he is in the real world. The comics can be used to verify information about the character (such as your Silver Surfer example), but can't be used to establish notability. If they could, Admin-Man would deserve an article! He's the main superhero in Wikitropolis, after all! faithless (^speak) 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Then the Wikipedia rules need to be altered. By that logic, there would be almost no comic-related articles. Asgardian (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might like that. It would be advisable to work instead on proving that certain internet sources are valid third-party sources for the comics. There was a similar discussion regarding computer science, where the computer guys (reasonably successfully) argued that if a website had editorial control over its authors (so that what was published there was subject to some quality control) then that webpage could be a source for Wikipedia. Are there such sites for comic books? Blast Ulna (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? Several authors contribute items under a fixed format. Ironically, the site is self-described about "obscure" characters, so the Melter isn't there. Also, how do you establish notability for a comic book villain? Sales of the comics in question? Constant and repeated use by different creative teams? Appearing in other media adaptations? Action figures? --Pc13 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but there does not appear to be any barrier to anyone uploading incorrect information to the site. I suppose that use of a character as an action figure, would be an indication that it is notable, especially since there is very likely books out there on collecting action figures. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be less notable characters with articles and this character's appearences seem notable enough to keep the article even if he's currently fallen into disusePalendrom (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acousticophilia[edit]

unsourced since sept 2006. The only reference provided is movie characters. No evidence that this phenomenon actually exists. Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [32] lists this, but I don't know how good a source this is. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the entry. It has the same issue as the Wikipedia article: It has no sources other than fictional works. No evidence that this is a paraphilia known in sexual science. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this phenomenon should be limited to the pages of which it references.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one trivial mention in[33] other than that I can't find any references to suggest the phenomenon is notable - there is no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paraphilia, unless somebody can build it up to something more than a substub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockworkSoul (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... which would mean keeping a topic even though there is no evidence that it is a valid subject, i.e. that it is on the record as a real paraphilia. It is beyond doubt that speech can function as a sexual stimulus. However, unless proven otherwise, I seriously doubt that there are people who can reach an orgasm by hearing, say, a Japanese accent. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Linn Master of Ceremonies[edit]

Hoaxy, spammy, vandalized page on non-notable MC, no sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC royally. Search for this guy on Yahoo turned up 31 hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing on his supposed first album either. Translation ... bollocks. Blueboy 96 14:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), All applicable opinions are keep, 'too detailed' is far from a reason to delete. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline[edit]

A chunk of text quite rightly chopped out of the Central Plains Water article. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. This should be on an external website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this article is well sourced, it is overly detailed. If all the unnecessary information was removed, there would be so little left that it would be best in Central Plains Water anyways. Captain panda 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and becoming a significantly controversial topic in New Zealand.-gadfium 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per gadfium and WP:PAPER. The comment by the nominator of "Far too detailed for an encyclopedia." is not applicable to WP. As noted it was right to split it from the main article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 09:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that "too detailed" is not grounds for deletion. I know that other stuff exists is not a valid argument but Wikipedia has many timelines already and we've organized them into a list and a category so they seem to be a well-established part of WP. This is a more specialized timeline than most but again that's not grounds for deletion. And we all agree that it was sensible to split it from the main article. Qwfp (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Kim (physician)[edit]

non-notable, vanity, COI, shall I go on? Doctors publish, that's part of what they do, that does not make this one notable. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly promotional. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all about himself, completely sourced by him.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article written by the subject. Obvious self-promotion. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles cited seem to establish notability. With academics, one measure of notability is how many times their articles have been cited by others. "Biomechanical Comparison of a Single-Row Versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair" has been cited in 28 other articles. "Twisting and Braiding Reduces the Tensile Strength and Stiffness of Human Hamstring Tendon Grafts Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction" has been cited in 7 other articles. "Shoulder Injuries in Golf" has been cited by 4. (I am not sure if the number of citations for even the most-frequently cited article is enough in itself to establish notability) He does not seem to be a faculty member at a medical school, however, which argues against notability. The article appears to have been created by its subject, but it seems neutral enough. I would like to see discussion about notability, since conflict of interest is not in itself reason to delete an article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most physicians do not publish, or publishe just one or two articles during their training. hence he is more notable than most. DGG (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's published, but we generally don't consider scientific publications to be enough to make one notable. – Clockwork Soul 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Travel Schools[edit]

Procedural nomination. This was previously tagged CSD but doesn't qualify as A7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason has been given for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources for content or notability. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable company failing WP:CORP. Montco (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I added the original CSD tag as it does qualify under WP:CSD#A7, as it makes no claim for the notability of this particular company. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've listed possible notability sources at Talk:Student Travel Schools. Also, this article exists on pl:Student Travel Schools, but I am not sure if it's a valid reason for notability. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not per WP:CSD#G7 - This is not an article I am very intersted to. It is an addition I thought it would have been notable enough. I read some of the text on WP:CORP and I was unable to find most of the required sources, so I may very well agree with most of your points about not being notable enough. However, I do not specifically request it to be removed, even though the consensus seems to tend the article to be removed. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

João Oliveira[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. No sources and no notable films. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No article about this guy in Portuguese wiki, and no sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 criteria. As a note, I did find a few Google sources, but they all were mirrors to the same text. Most likely a hoax. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witch's Casket[edit]

May not be real, no sources, want more opinions cohesion 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non admin close) Undeath (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MileyWorld[edit]

Official websites are not inherently notable. Nothing important about this website. --- RockMFR 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miley Cyrus. Blueboy 96 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db web. Tagged. Undeath (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fizber (internet company)[edit]

Zero notability. No secondary sources in the article mention the website, as far as I can see. There is nothing particularly important, notable, or unique about this website. --- RockMFR 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this article has the same importance as Redfin, Realestate.com.au Limited, ByTheOwner and other articles based on a website or company in the real estate field. I added this site because of its unique features: Drive Score, climate data and statistics for every home, integrated Google maps, moving and relocation services. The visitors of this site can find all the information about events, neighbors (including celebrities), schools etc. around any area in the US free of charge. There is no another FSBO website in the Net, where you can find all these info. Unfortunately, I can’t add all this unique features in the wiki-article, because of lack of additional sources about them (RockMFR, I agree that more independent sources needed, but we also can’t ignore true references in the articles).

So, I think that {{refimprove}} template must be added or at least “Notability” tag (+date), but not the deletion tag. I agree that the article MUST be improved and I’ll do it. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage (you can see it from my contributions) and I’m going to expand this and other articles about companies in this field. --- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has asked me to weigh in, so here I am. Looks to me as if he's done a good job of providing third-party refs. Voting for a tentative keep since it looks as ifhe's done his homework. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User also asked me to weigh in, I advised him against spamming talk pages, before coming here. It looks like it's well referenced, but I'm no expert on notability criteria for websites. I had a quick look at Wikipedia:Notability (web) and it seems to meet that, also it has far better references than most of the web companies I picked at random from this category Category:Internet companies of the United States. So I tend towards Keep.English peasant 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User also canvassed me in violation of WP policy. That said, weak Keep per above. -- SECisek (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your warnings at my talk page. Unfortunately I did’t know about Wikipedia:Canvassing. It was my first nfD, but nobody replied to it, that is why I was trying to attract the attention of on-line editors. Sorry, I didn’t intend to break wiki-rules. As I see It takes a lot of time to gain an understanding of WP policy. I will try to extend my knowledge. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to weak delete. I was also canvassed. Most of the references that are actually about Fizber appear to be press releases from Fizber, or based thereon, and not really third-party sources. All of the external links except the one to the official site strike me as linkspam (blogs etc). To my eye this is very close to advertising and promotion, so the best I can offer is neutral. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has good sources - web sites, newpapers, Yahoo!. etc., that show some evidence of notability, much of them recent additions to the article. It now meets the Heyman Standard. Not sure why I was canvassed; I'm a mergetarian. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above votes have addressed the concern that this article has no secondary sources not written by the company itself. All of the references are either press releases or have nothing to do with the company at all. --- RockMFR 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bearian. Kogsquinge (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added independent industry review in the article (Top 50 Web 2.0 Real Estate Sites). For more information see Talk:Fizber_(internet_company) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Predictive Expert Control[edit]

This seems to be a big ad. One main page and some patents do not assert notability. This one is iffy in my mind, so I brought it to AfD. Prod was removed by article's creator. See the talk page for more details given by other editors. My vote, since there is no notability assertations, is a Delete Undeath (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This seems to be just promoting someone's rather questionable patent on an pre-existing scientific/engineering field -Model reference control. This field is well established in control theory, with books on the subject - however I am unaware of any common text referencing the associated company or patents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User A1 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, parts of the article are false; e.g. "Adaptive Predictive Control was introduced in a patent application in 1976"This paper [34] which was published in 1968, covers model reference and adaptive control - which is adaptive predictive control. A more thorough search might turn up even earlier references. User A1 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not time to read through all the material it links to, but someone ought to and then report back here!-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam Guy (Help!) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I originally PROD-ed the article). As I've said on the talk page, there's no assertion of notability, nor does a web search reveal such notability (at least not in an obvious way). Oli Filth^(talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle Temple[edit]

Non-notable local community/worship center. Actually, it look like it's just a house. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Non notable worship center. The second link on the page is defunct too. Undeath (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. No clear claim to notability, and insufficient independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, especially as recent changes to the article indicate that the temple is now defunct. Katr67 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G1 by user:King of Hearts. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvani Ramcharran[edit]

More than likely a hoax article. See [35]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sarvani Ramcharran won the Nobel Prize for Cooking in 2007". Yeah... Pure WP:BOLLOCKS. Speedy delete G3 as vandalism/hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Author has been warned. Blueboy 96 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Papsmears[edit]

Non-notable band. No information, no albums that I can find, no deals with records, nothing that could make them notable. -WarthogDemon 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take any merge discussion to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Murasaki (Hannibal)[edit]

Non-notable character, hardly warrents her own article, the character only appears in one book and the film adaption. The closest I think that this should be to being kept is being merged with List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the injunction, at least until the Arbitration Committee rules in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 --Eastmain (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not a television character: "appears in one book and the film adaptation." This would not seem to be covered by the injunction. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument. The injunction doesn't prohibit AfDs, it just says they can't be closed until the injunction is lifted, unless the consensus irrespective of the injunction is "keep". Since your argument is based on the injunction you might as well have just skipped posting anything. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above: clearly unnotable. This is clearly not covered by the injunction. I have consequently removed the template as irrelevant. Eusebeus (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree with nominator, this does not need its own article. --SSman07 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a clealry notable character that appears in a recognizable film and novel with easily verfiable information. Moreover, the article includes some out-of universe information on the origins of the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. Undeath (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Not independently significant. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. JJL (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but not to List of minor characters in the Hannibal series since she is not a minor character, rather merge to Hannibal Rising. The Dominator (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sufficiently important character/ DGG (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly notable enough to warrant its own page! It has a plot summary of Hannibal Rising which is obviously redundant and two short sentences about the origin that can easily be merged with the novel's article. The Dominator (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly, some of the description of motivations is clearer in the article on the character; this will usually be the case--a properly concise description of the plot needs to be supplemented by a discussion on the characters--the cover the same book, but from different aspects. DGG (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In certain circumstances yes, this I don't believe is one of them. I have a suggestion though; maybe if we move List of minor characters in the Hannibal series to List of characters in the Hannibal series then we can include all the characters with the really big ones having their own page, and I believe the only ones that warrant that page is Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling. The Dominator (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per GFDL concerns. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for merging, but I don't understand what you mean by GFDL concern??? The Dominator (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important character. Noor Aalam (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside the Hannibal universe? The Dominator (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, due to her influence from Murasaki Shikibu. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I ask why two short sentences can't be merged to a parent article? I was thinking of moving the list of minor characters to just list of characters (see above), then we could merge characters that aren't minor, but don't have enough info to have their own article. The Dominator (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Hold open until the injunction lifts. I can't see any consensus yet. Re-list? Bearian (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, and as such, since this article is about a minor character, it fails notability. The injunction does not apply as this character is not from TV. Bardcom (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually notability is inherited and this is a main character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant character. --Oldak Quill 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hannibal Rising. The Dominator's idea is also good. BlueValour (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems significant, neutral, sourced. - cohesion 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Social Reform[edit]

Not notable. Not mentioned in any secondary sources for anything it has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Church of Scientology. No WP:N on its own but a possible search term. JJL (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a large amount of editorial friction if an organization on the secular side of Scientology's Shōji wall were merged into the Church of Scientology on the religious side, especially when religious organizations are forbidden to do political lobbying under IRS rules. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in multiple secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I told Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) on the talk page that I was going to use those sources to expand the article further, but he started this AfD before I had a chance to do so. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Further reading section for additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that I was planning to use to expand the article. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) placed a neutrally worded notice re: this AfD at WP:SCN, and I placed one at WP:PLT. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. I checked out the sources you posted and they mentioned a group called Florida Citizens for Social Reform. The groups seem to be related but they have different websites. Even if they are the same all the articles say is that some events were sponsored by the group, nothing about it itself that would make it notable over any of the other thousands of political advocacy groups in the USA. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the sources mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform", yes. But I find it extremely relevant to mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform" in an article titled: "Citizens for Social Reform". Other sources do not mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform", and there are still other sources to add as well. It is a notable subject matter with coverage in secondary WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources and should not be deleted. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organization has chapters that operate at the state and federal levels, and for compliance with rules and laws on political lobbying and spending, naturally they must be separate incorporations. This is beginning to stretch a WP:POINT. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there branches of Citizens for Social Reform in all 50 states then? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Who said it did? AndroidCat (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are certainly enough references to support an article of this size. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the references exist, there is no reason to delete the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this organization is well-known it should have a WP article. I had never heard of it before and the article so far only has a few passing references to events that it sponsored, nothing about the group itself, from the news media or other secondary sources. Most of the other information in the article is taken from the group's own website. Due to commitments I am taking another break, hopefully long, from Project Scientology. (p.s. I agree that the fact that the CoS engages in political lobbying should be mentioned on WP, but the name of the group they founded to do this does not seem so notable as to have its own article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scientology corporate front-group of notability.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of Scientology related organizations it could be merged into? Redddogg (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio[edit]

Defunct Non-notable ex-radio station. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article lacks sources, and the listed website is under construction. If the station received news coverage in reliable sources (which might include local Christian newspapers) while it operated, or if it was raided by the police or Federal Communications Commission officials (which sometimes happens to pirate radio stations, although I am not clear whether this station could properly be described as a pirate station), there might be an argument for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced article on ashort lived pirate radio station. Unless some significant media coverage can be shown it should go. Canterbury Tail talk 04:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pirate/unlicenced radio needs to pass WP:CORP and more important WP:V. It fails both. All I could find was an unsourced mention in the Pirate radio WP article. Even for pirate radio, this supposed 15-month operation has very little coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references in reliable secondary sources and seemingly no hope of such being generated in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Femme Gaastra[edit]

In my searching I could find no outstanding reason why this faculty member should have an article. [36] There is no mention of him/converage in reliable outside, indepedent secondary sources. Second of all, all Ph.Ds and most masters associate and assistant professors will have publications. This doesn't mean they are notable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Non-notable-Ravichandar 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a European professor (much rarer than U.S. professors) with published books--clearly passes WP:PROF. JJL (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems fairly notable; lots of published works. Needs sources, though.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes academics notable, usually, is their published academic work. the certification of their notability by outside sources is two-fold: the publication of their works by major academic presses and journals, always on the basis of pee-review, and their appointment to significant positions, also by the consensus of their true peers. all WP has to do is recognize it. The electors to the chair at the university of Leiden know academic notability far better than we do here at WP. All we have to do is to realise our limitations. The nom is right that most assistant and associate professors are not of this stature; perhaps he did not realise that in a european university professor always means Full professor, at the least--and is generally, as here, the equivalent of the US distinguished professor or chair of department--one per subject per university. DGG (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's well explained points Satu Suro 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belrose, New South Wales--JForget 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambara Oval, Belrose, Sydney, NSW[edit]

Nonnotable playing field with 11 unique Google hits, all relating to nonnotable events of which this was the site. Article's creator persistently removes tags without addressing sourcing or notability problems. It exists, but the article fails WP:V with respect to the information it contains. Deor (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very non-notable playing field, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and it would appear impossible to make it so. Murtoa (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. An oval in the shape of an oval doesn't meet notability requirements. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stadium. Appears to be used primarily by local soccer clubs. Blueboy 96 13:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever. Delete the whole thing. I don't care! WikiMaster133 133 09:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 44 minutes between creation and nomination seems a little harsh, seeing as there was an "underconstruction" tag on the article. But I do agree with the deletion rationale - essentially this is just a local, suburban park. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete but please redirect to Belrose, New South Wales. JRG (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance (Ragnarok Online Guild)[edit]

Gamecruft. A Ragnarok Online guild that doesn't seem to need an encyclopedia article. You could make the argument that the article asserts notability, so it's not speediable, but no support for the claim is given. No secondary sources are cited. No evidence that this is of interest outside the gameworld. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 71.173.241.47 blanked this AFD and removed the notice from the article shortly after its being posted. Esteffect (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's of no relevance outside of the game. Esteffect (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I object to this deletion. There is plenty of evidence given in the References section, as well as there are plenty more "irrelevant" game articles on this site than ours. Neomagus26 (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The references listed consist of: what is basically a log file, an unaccesable forum article, another forum on how to recruit into the guild, and yet another forum article discussing the guild. Internet forums aren't generally considered [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. eaolson (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think an article about a gaming guild really needs significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This article doesn't have that. --Pixelface (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gameclan, the end. JuJube (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, no secondary coverage, Wikipedia is not your web host. Advertise your guild elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you're not Nihilum, you'd best try elsewhere. And even they don't have a page here. DarkAudit (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reaosn we have deleted dozens of other online gaming guilds wth no provable significance outside the minds of their members. Vanity cruft, get it gone. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete online game guilds/clans are simply never notable enough or verifiable enough for an encyclopedia article. In 5 years on Wikipedia I can't recall a single example of one being kept on AfD. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, Geocities is that way, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page in accordance to Wiki's policy has nothing wrong with it, it has it's resoucres, as well as other "facts" with the topic. It was well made and changes, (if in someway they NEED to be changed) he/she might want to check their own knowledge about it first before deeming it otherwise. -- 64.229.207.174, on talk page, moved by Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theres is no reason why 'some' guild playing on an illegal game server should be considered notable or have an article about themselfs. As a Ragnarok Online player for 7 years i can say that all of the notable things this guild claim to have done are no different than things that normally happen in due course for the game. DarkBahamut15 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if you can't get an article in the newspaper, then your guild isn't going to fly on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article creator has stated on talk page that he deleted the article (he actually blanked it and was reverted). I was tempted to delete this now as the only substantial editor requested its deletion, plus it has failed AFD anyway, but decided against it as I'm not sure that'd be in process. Esteffect (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CharterTV3[edit]

Appears to fail WP:ORG - one Google hit for "WCTR Charter TV3" (WP itself), nine hits for "Charter TV3", none of which contain significant coverage. Article was also created by someone who appears to be affiliated with the organization in question. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently not a public access station, rather a regional commercial network provided by Charter Communications... It then goes on to describe...a public access station. I have a channel just like this on my Charter system which wouldn't meet WP:ORG either. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Search query WCTR-TV on Google reveals about 2360 results. Same query on Google News shows 1 result, but when I click on the result it takes me nowhere. Nothing found on Google Scholar. Nothing found in local public library combined-database search. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I think the article has some merit, though alot of cleanup would be needed to conform with Wiki standards. -- azumanga (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly renaming -- The Google results for WCTR-TV I think show that this station is known and referred to locally, particularly for its school sports coverage. I in fact originally came to the page on Wikipedia to see if it had more information on what exactly the station was. Renaming the page to something like WCTR or WCTR-TV may make more sense. PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- "WCTR" is out, as there's already a disambig page there. "WCTR-TV" might be okay, if there are no aerial TV stations with those calls. Otherwise, "WCTR-TV (Worcester)" would be more proper. -- azumanga (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article about a station is not one of a kind. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is just an ad to promote the station, and isn't an article. Bardcom (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeterCooperJr. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeterCooperJr also - cohesion 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Bold[edit]

Young music producer, whose production discography would be evidence of notability. Unfortunately the only references in the article are his myspace page and a blog interview. Extensive gsearch reveals no reliable sources to back these assertions. Recommend Delete unless reliable sources can be found. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's had a few notable productions, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable -- especially given the near-total lack of any reliable sources. If even one source could be found I'd say weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
- queried http://scholar.google.com using "Cory Bold" (in quotation marks). Nothing found.
- queried http://news.google.com using "Cory Bold" (in quotation marks). Nothing found.
- used local public library "catalog and articles" combined database query. Found only 1 article but it did not seem relevant to the subject.
- However, a regular Google search for "Cory Bold" (in quotation marks) reveals about 15000 hits.
Delete article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to obvious lack of notability. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as AFD started by banned user. Will ^(talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle's Bed & Breakfast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kyle's Bed & Breakfast

non notable comic strip, not referenced at all Cholga^talK! 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomCholga^talK! 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Delete. Claims to be a syndicated comic strip and has at least one book out; however, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any sources, and is impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per addition sources. Notability is kind of thin, but it's decent enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable comic strip, we don't even know if this was something made up in school one day, or if it even exists! jon (blab) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete:
- Search on http://news.google.com/ for "Kyle's Bed & Breakfast" (in quotation marks) shows one source, but I doubt its reliability.
- Search on http://scholar.google.com/ for "Kyle's Bed & Breakfast" (in quotation marks) shows no sources.
- however, a regular Google search for "Kyle's Bed & Breakfast" (in quotation marks) reveals 3410 hits. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it definitely exists, but finding reliable sourcing doesn't appear possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I've added three sources (including the New York Times) and am working on more. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close - article is now adequately sourced. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[37] Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, has good sources and nominator is a sockpuppet. --Pixelface (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy close per the notability sources found by Satyr and per rationale by Wikidemo, and per WP:HEY (Ten Pound Hammer changed !vote - Kudos to him). Time to repair the damage. — Becksguy (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy close per above. — TAnthony^Talk 18:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 04:55, March 2, 2008

List of people with dreadlocks[edit]

Indiscriminate list; none of these people have anything in common besides having dreadlocks. There are quite a few red links as well, and this list certainly borders on WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unhelpful list. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC. — Save_Us † 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sort of a pointless list; what if they change their hairstyle? --Dhartung | Talk 01:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's probably at least a million people with dreadlocks in the United States alone. Much more are in other countries. What I'm saying here is that the list is pointless, and people with dreadlocks are likely to add themselves repeatedly. Thus, I !vote delete. jon (blab) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Save_Us. Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too indiscriminate for my liking. Blueboy 96 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty dreadful. Mandsford (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always the witty one... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the list has no encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think I need to even give a rationale for this... EJF (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this canonical example of listcruft. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely WP:NOT. I notice some notable examples are at the Dreadlocks article already anyway, as they should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:SNOW it. Yngvarr (c) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, complete listcruft Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - silliest thing I've heard all day.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - A meaningless list; unmaintainable, unreferenced, trivial - ask yourself, why would anyone look this up? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Unmaintainable, indiscriminate, etc. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (hoax). Esteffect (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Salzmann[edit]

No such player exists on team roster ... an apparent hoax. Blueboy 96 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High WP:COI as well--author is Marksalzmann (talk · contribs) Blueboy 96 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as evident hoax per nom's research, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. JJL (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources found to support his notability or even existence. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI, not referenced. jon (blab) 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for argument's sake, assume that he is on the team. The article is unreferenced, and the burden of proof is on the author to find the sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boubafield[edit]

There's ... nothing to say about this movie. Essentially admits it's crystallish--no directors, no writers, no actors. Not even sure this movie is real either--a grand total of 3 ghits and 1 Yahoo hit. Blueboy 96 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources; ~~could be a hoax~~ may not be a hoax, but nothing proves that it even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax, it's just a new article, more information will surely become available soon, its been up for a minutes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygray1 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no info about this film yet, and I doubt any will be available soon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL; no sources and not enough information. Once more info and refs are available, you can recreate this article. jon (blab) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's absolutely no evidence that this is anything but a hook for a couple of short videos put on Myspace by a guy calling himself Bouba. Deor (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N -- articles based on films that are only familiar via Myspace and YouTube are major question marks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can tell it's just a trailer, not an actual film. I agree with Deor. --Pixelface (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an actual film, it's probably still shooting though, only a trailer has been released so far, i'm sure more information will be updated soon. an IMDB page is proccessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygray1 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source for our purposes. We haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage, or any media coverage whatsoever about this film. Blueboy 96 10:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't recreate, this fails guidelines on future films and notability. The Dominator (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a film in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygray1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mikeygray1, being a "film in production" is actually more a reason to delete than to keep as policies say to only create articles that are sure to be made. That said, I doubt this film is notable. The Dominator (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? It's being filmed and released at a film festival. Theres far more detail on this film that some of the "future film" articles on this website 172.159.230.87 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Assuming you're the same user; I did a Google search and what comes up is Wikipedia and Myspace which isn't even close to being a reliable source. Even if this film does get made then it's still not notable. If it is released and by some chance becomes a hit and is covered in reliable sources, feel free to recreate. None of the actors even have Wikipedia pages or even IMDb pages. The Dominator (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - same user as who? the actors don't have wikipedia pages because when the directors page was put up it was deleted? what would be the point? 172.159.230.87 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Same user as Mikeygray1, and why do you think the director's page was deleted? The Dominator (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the film and its director, it's basically utterly made-up. Until it actually exists, and it gets some notability in independent, reliable sources it just doesn't belong here. • Anakin ^(talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~What makes you so sure its made up? You actually don't have a clue to be honest Mikeygray1 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right of course, I don't have a clue what the real status of the film is. But that's a problem in itself. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be verifiable, and that policy is pretty strict. It says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". The only sources given at the moment are MySpace and YouTube. The article is based entirely on self-published sources and original research. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides make very good arguments. These articles are usually deleted (and I have supported such deletions in the past). However, there certainly are exceptions; O.J. Mayo comes immediately to mind (apologies to non-Americans). This seems to be one of those times, as there unquestionably has been significant coverage of this young keeper in the media. And, most importantly, there are twice as many keep arguments here than delete arguments. faithless (^speak) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Bouzanis[edit]

Contested PROD: Non-notable youth footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has never played at professional level, (youth caps do not confer notability) English peasant 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the base requirements in the notability guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage" and the article is well sourced. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article could be deleted on a technicality. But be realistic - this is a non-stub, well written, well referenced article, about a professional footballer who just happened to have not yet reached our (completely arbitrary) standards. A perfect example of where Ignore all rules applies. Do you really think that someone who has played one match for the New Zealand Knights FC is more notable than Bouzanis? -- Chuq (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article quite clearly passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria, through having many reliable independent sources. John Hayes^talk 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, well developed article. This, as Chuq said, could be deleted as a technicality, but I think this article may be good enough to keep. jon (blab) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very well-referenced, and that should trump the professional league "rule". --Canley (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The presence of multiple reliable sources supercedes the fact that he seems to fail WP:FOOTY. This is definitely a WP:IAR case per Chuq. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: for privacy reasons I think we should avoid articles about living people under the age of 18. However, according to the article he turns 18 in October of this year. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the sentiment and it's certainly a noble one, but I don't think that should factor in to this. They are choosing a life in the public eye, and if they choose that before they turn 18, then so be it. There will be coverage of it. It's not like Wikipedia will generate new coverage, it'll just compile and amalgamate from the coverage already in existence. matt91486 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If his career was to end tomorrow, we would be left with an article about someone who has never played a competitive match for a senior team. Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. If the player goes on to make a league appearance for Liverpool, or any other team that plays in a fully professional league, then the article can be recreated. If people waited until players became notable before creating the articles, then this process wouldn't be necessary. The notability line has to be set somewhere. Yes, it is completely arbitrary, but it has also been established through debate and consensus by the Wikipedia community. For the moment, this player has not passed that line, and we should not assume that he will. robwingfield ^«T•C» 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can sportsmen who've never made a senior appearance be notable? The ignore all rules argument applies to the secondary sources which mention him, they do not confer notability. Nick mallory (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep (more sources found) - only one unquestionably reliable and independent source ([38]). I'm not sure if it establishes notability on its own but there might be more out there. Guest9999 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However whatever the outcome, not meeting with a Wikiproject's essay should not be a criteria for deletion when there is a consensus formed guideline that deals with the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTY/Notability was formed by consensus between members of WP:FOOTY over a 4 month period. It was WP:BIO people that imediately set about undermining it to preserve the status quo. This guy is unquestionable non-notable as a footballer, the only things saving him are 1) the fact he's from the English speaking world playing for an English speaking club, 2) a poor collection of links 3) a picture. The article can be recreated at the click of a button if he ever does play professional football. A breakdown of the poor quality external links 1) summary: Non-notable footballer joins big club, 2) Link actually states how non-notable the player is ("who will effectively not play for the first team") 3) Seems to be broken-link, 4)Total Bouzanis content = "Dean Bouzanis", 5)Total Bouzanis content = "Young keepers Justin Pasfield and Dean Bouzanis were back-ups to Bolton over the last two years" (non-notable achievement), 7) Broken link, 9) "Dean Bouzanis g/k (New South Wales)," named in Australia U-17 squad, (a mile off meeting WP:ATHLETE ot FOOTYN). 10+11) non-english sites. If this article is kept it will just encourage more editors to create articles on non-notable footballers to clutter up categories they shouldn't even be in, having never come close to playing for the first team. And as for the links there are probably hundreds of potential links about Romeo Beckham and Enzo Zidane, do we think articles about them should be kept if the list of externallinks is big enough? English peasant 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this trend of holding non-English sites against people. matt91486 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really holding it against anyone, Its just very difficult to tell whether the sources contain any valid information because I don't read Greek. Most of the other sources are rubbish, the bottom 2 are unintelligible to me (and to most other people on en:wikipedia I guess). Anyhow I think that it is fair that Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content should be taken into consideration when citing external links as the main reason for saving an article from deletion in opposition to the WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTYN guidelines. English peasant 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take WP:FOOTY/Notability to WT:BIO and see if there is a consensus to incorportate it. As it is it's just a Wikiproject essay that contradicts an official guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when he makes an appearance BanRay 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. I could look the other way if the sources provided were more than trivial mentions (as per User:English peasant above), but there does not appear to be the sort of substantial coverage I would expect if this chap were truly notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC). Change to Keep based on comments below. Acceptable amount of indepedent secondary coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I would again like to just point out this profile (used in the article) from The Sydney Morning Herald which according to our article is "the oldest continuously-published newspaper in Australia." with a circulation in the houndreds of thousands. Seems to be a decent source with a reasonable depth of coverage, it might be the case that there are more like it out there. Guest9999 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found another decent looking source detailing the player [39] - from The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are another couple of sources I don't think are currently being used in the article - from Setanta Sports [40] and Fox Sports (Australia)[41]. Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another source[42], this one from The Age (daily circulation over 100,000). Guest9999 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Fair enough. Go and add them into the article and I'll switch my !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - I've added the references and some information into the article([43]), I don't have much experience with article writing and know very little about the ins and outs of Australian/UK/Greek footballing arrangements so I'm sure they could be put to better use. Other sources found unclude [44][45][46] but I'm not sure if they can be considered reliable. Guest9999 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - still no league appearances and no full international caps = not notable according to WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO which gives "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" as a base criteria. Saying that all professional athletes are notable should not automatically mean that all non-proffesional athletes are not. Guest9999 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of which are guidelines, not policies. Consensus has been established that footballers are notable if they've made an appearance in a fully professional league. You're honestly saying that a footballer who's never played football is notable?! WP:CRYSTAL. robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has played football - he's played for both The Australian and Greek national teams at junior levels (U17 and U19). However I would say his main assertion of notability - the reason he has been covered by reliable sources - is the fact that he is a promising player who (at this stage) could potentially play for for one of two national sides. This has generated interest in both of the nations involved and caused there to be significant coverage of the player in the mainstream press (examples given above and in the article). To me the objective evidence means more than an arbitrary standard of having played one match. Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, playing youth football at any level (other than Olympic games) is not an assertion of notability. The only potentially valid claim for notability here seems to be that the sports press have written about him. His sporting achievements are way below the standard set by consensus at WP:FOOTYN and even further below WP:ATHLETE. Press attention does not equal notability, there are plenty of independent news items about Brooklyn Beckam & David Banda, but they do not and should not have articles. English peasant 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press about Brooklyn Beckham and David Banda came about because of the notable people they are associated with and information on them is included in the articles on those people. The press about Dean Bouzanis is about him, not in reference to anyone else. Guest9999 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N easily. Assize (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fully pro appearances means non-notable--Egghead06 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no pro appearances hence does not meet WP:BIO notability. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The base criteria set out in WP:BIO is that "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.". It also says that failure to meet with the aditional criteria (such as those set out in WP:ATHLETE) "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Guest9999 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the evidence of reliable, independent secondary sources, then I believe it meets notability criteria of WP:BIO which in this case overrides the narrower requirements of WP:ATHLETE Murtoa (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, which, believe me or not, are very inclusive criterions. --Angelo (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His St George stats are unknown. He plays for Liverpool reserves, has made great strides at International level. Has multiple articles written about him that override any notability issues. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three things you mention are non-notable, unknown stats do not assert notability, playing reserve level football neither, he has not played at full international level or at the Olympics so he is also not notable as an international footballer. Citing these things makes it look like there are a list of things making him notable, when in actual fact all there is are a bunch of external links, most of them broken or rubbish. The ones that are not broken or rubbish document his non-notable achievements in football. I'm sure it is possible to find enough links in order to keep a vast number of non-notable people if we are prepared to spend long enough trawling the internet for them. The press often write about people that fail our inclusion criteria. This AfD seems to be boiling down to a debate over whether having a number of sports journalists write about a person makes them notable. English peasant 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - So notability takes into account the quality of works by sports journalists. I was unaware of this, and press for immediate deletion. It is rated as start through Australian fields, it has nationalistic aspects beyond him being just a professional footballer. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Essentially yes, and I would say it does. John Hayes^talk 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the "keep" !voters appear to accept that this young man has achieved nothing of note in football but believe he should be kept because major news outlets have talked about him. How's that different from the case of Rhain Davis, the 9-year old Man U signing, who was all over the news for a short time last year but had his WP article deleted because he had achieved nothing of note in football......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As one of those !voters all I can say to that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I accept that it doesn't pass our football rules, I'm just following WP:BIO. In terms of a personal feeling of why it shpuld be kept, is that coming from a country such as Australia, he is much higher profile there, just for having moved to Liverpool, than he is here (where he is just another reserve player). It was similar for someone like Harry Kewell where there was a lot of media exposure (in Australia) before he had played a game for Leeds (though that is of course WP:OR). John Hayes^talk 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As another proponent I would just like to comment that the reliable press coverage covers a period of over a year. Example [47] (Febuary 2007) [48] (March 2008). Guest9999 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reading through a number of sources he has been the topic of much debate in Australia over nationality, history, parentage, etc. Beyond that being a high-profile goalkeeper for one of the world's biggest clubs at 17 and playing age-group internationals well above his own age-bracket.Londo 06 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree his Liverpool career does not make him notable, but the loan spell to Sydney FC was as a professional player in the club's first team. While he was at St George Saints, the club was in the NSW Premier League which is the second tier of Australian football and for a time in 2004/5 was the top tier while the national league was in recess. - Tomperc (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article, as it is currently, does not assert that any appearances were made for either team. If appearances were made for Sydney FC, then that would definitely make Bouzanis notable, and render irrelevant any argument about whether being a reserve player with no professional appearances makes someone notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can provide a source which states this, please add to the article. Is the NSW Premier League fully professional? If not, then it can't be stated that it was the top tier of Australian football simply because the A league season had ended! robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - His Liverpool coach has publicly stated him to be the best Under 18 Keeper in the world and there is currently a debate as to whether he will play for the Australian or Greek national teams. He is definitely notable due to his appearance in newspapers and radio as speculation about his future unlike any other youth player. His achievements are notable for an Australian player and on an Australian only wiki, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Lympathy (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The main criteria at WP:BIO is "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". There appears to no dispute here that this article meets this criteria. The athlete additional criteria on BIO does not supersede this as BIO states that ref the additional criteria "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Davewild (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akon's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Akon's third studio album

Completely unsourced. Fails to follow WP:MUSIC. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because there are no independent sources to be found. The article will not even exist once the album is made (and named) -Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no sources exist on the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure of WP:CRYSTAL: unsourced item in the future. jon (blab) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No independent sources. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal. Undeath (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know if this album will ever even be released. Valtoras (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it about something that is not confirmed to be coming out or even known if it is being made to begin with.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTALballing with no reliable sources. EJF (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above comments. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus and lack of article improvement after last Afd discussion. Melodia, I noticed you said you have this in user subspace. That's perfectly acceptable. (userfication is often the outcome of debates for sourcing issues). If/when you feel the article in your userspace would meet the sourcing standards, let me know, we can have it put back in mainspace and have another discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Melodia, I need to rephrase this, userfication preserves article history, which is required. I'll be on your talkpage to clarify in a minute...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final update. Article has been userfied to User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music with history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular songs based on classical music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Several months on, no references (which was the requirement when the first AFD was closed). While I've tried to remove OR as much as I can, some still remain, especially Canon in D Will ^(talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I'm sure this'll be deleted, which is a shame, as it's damn useful. Unfortunately I don't have any keep arguments beyond that, and no one's cared to find sources on stuff (which are out there, for much of it). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: like nearly every such list, it's original research out the wazoo:

Sez who that ""This Night" by Billy Joel ... uses Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata as the basis for the chorus"?
Exactly what is "Rock Me Amadeus" by Falco supposed to be based on?
"Mars" by Emerson, Lake & Powell is indeed simply an arrangement of the Holst. They did a lot of arrangements of orchestral pieces; is that really popular music?

There are exactly two references, and one of them is a dead link to YouTube. The other one doesn't seem to go to anything substantive. This is essentially the same situation as the fourth wall lists: it's done routinely, the lists are never cited, and they grow indefinitely. It took four tries to get rid of those lists, but for this we should get it over with and DELETE now. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it: part of the problem is that the whole notion isn't notable anyway. Musicians have been borrowing/taking/stealing from each other (never mind out-and-out covers) since music began. So this is a list of "dog bits man" cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous AfD was "keep and add references as a matter of urgency"; that was not done, so out it goes. The days of endlessly keeping while waiting for sources which will be along Real Soon Now are, I think, over. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, let's see here. 60 items... 2 references. Things aren't looking good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best solution would be to convert it to a category... Category:Popular songs based on classical music - AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced per nom. Seems full of OR. Eusebeus (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Good reason is given for further referencing. If the items on a list can be documented by the details in the articles on them, copying the reference over is trivial; having the information available there shows that it is sourceable. The place for this discussion is on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetly, that's what the closure of the LAST AFD specified, and that never happened (I'll grant that I didn't work on it, but...I've never been one to do deep research on WP in general). So this page'll probably get deleted for the sake of the fact that the 'stipulation' of the closure of the previous one wasn't reached (though, the person who closed it wasn't an admin and has been known to be pretty heavy handed on things). It's a shame, but for now I have the list on a user subpage of mine, which I believe is allowed, and I hope to ref it up sooner or later and remake it, if I can. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic itself (rock based on classical) has been the subject of at least a couple books and articles. (I'm too lazy to search for them now.) Chop everything down to the entries with sources, even if it's just two entries. Monitor the page and aggressively delete unsourced additions until editors get the idea. (IMO, that's the approach we should take with most [List of "genre" bands]] articles too.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree that a category would be useful. Several pages with lists of popular songs based on classical music, grouped by the piece they are based upon might be useful. A single page with only a few examples of such popular music, which doesn't even give a hint what piece of classical music they are based upon is not useful at all. Additionally, there should be some guideline on what 'based upon' means, or else you could write down almost all popular music, since almost all our music is derived from classical music. — I could single-handedly provide lists of references to classical music, music based on chords from famous classical pieces, or even dumb "take a classical piece, drop a baseline onto it and let someone sing or rap" covers, each list as long as the list in question, but every such list would be biased and totally incomplete. -- DerGraph (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is always going to be incomplete, but that's not a cause for deletion. I just don't see how a category is going to fix any of the problems you list; in fact, I think it'll make the lack of citations and the lack of guideline for what is meant by "based upon" significantly worse. Per WP:CLS, it shouldn't really be a category-vs.-list choice anyway. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This is only a list article. As long as the references are on the separate linked pages that's good enough. Eclecticology (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Andrew Walsh[edit]

I'm from Huddersfield/Halifax and I haven't heard of the kid... Google hasn't either. Will ^(talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fifteen year old youth team footballer? When he becomes the next Chris Sutton and actually plays a game for Falkirk, or whoever, he gets an article, not before. Nick mallory (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as not having made an appearance in a fully professional league. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. A close friend of mine played with Liam Walsh at Ryburn United before he moved to falkirk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernonflorida (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which proves what, exactly.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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