Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 4

< March 3	March 5 >

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 speedy delete under G4. The article is almost completely the same as the version that was deleted by the last AfD. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wray's fourth studio album[edit]

It is a recreation of a previosuly deleted page per Afd (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray's fourth studio album). As the page is not substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted, it may not be deleted per CSD G4. It still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC for albums, besides having sources like myspace and youtube. Victao lopes (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what is wrong with this article page before it gets deleted. Nicolefan (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom and original afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray's fourth studio album. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you want me to place it under a new name.

Comment: You mean, the page? OK, do it. Unless you rewrite it so it follow our guidelines, it will be deleted, just the same. Can't you just wait until the album is released? Btw, remember to sings your posts with ~~~~~ (four tildes). Victao lopes (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, but before its deleted can you move it to my page, so i can experiment and reeditt the information. So when I make a change on the page, i contact you to see if it's okay to reveal. Nicolefan (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can create the page here (if it gets deleted). However, I still believe that before the album is released and asserts notability per WP:MUSIC, the page will be still a candidate for deletion. When the album is released, it may chart or receive major media exposure. Then, it may assert notability. Victao lopes (talk) 01:09, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Dominguez[edit]

Despite being tagged more than once for notability, someone keeps removing that tag without adding material to establish notability. Per WP:NN and WP:BIO:

Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously).

The "Selected filmography" isn't at all selected. It contains every role mentioned on IMDB, which itself isn't considered a reliable source. The problem with the roles on IMDB is that they were, with one exception, so trivial that the character didn't even have a name, just a description. The Nip/Tuck and the Judy's Got a Gun roles are both "Highschool student" on IMDB. The Stan credit is listed as "Party Guest." Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is an "orderly." The Hell on Earth role was "student" while the Viva Laughlin role was "Hot Guy." There is no listing on the IMDB name page, or on the Journeyman page or subsequent episode pages, for this person to establish that he in fact appeared on the show. In fact, the only named role listed was in a now 6 year old appearance on Malcolm in the Middle, as "Brian".

Appearances in training videos and local television commercials are not notable and unverifiable. The YouTube videos for which he is supposedly "best known" are self-created and self-posted, while there is nothing beyond self-promoting websites mentioned in Google searches. A search conducted on the kidzbop website for the name "Ricky Dominguez" produces no results, even if that was sufficient to establish notability; any work done there appears to be uncredited voice work for webcast animation, if he appears there at all. These factors do not make notability, not by any stretch of the definition. Someone keeps adding in contact and agent information. This article exists as a promotional page for an unknown aspiring actor who, at this time, does not meet the criteria for notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever; just a few minor apperances and self made YouTube apperances. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, no major acting roles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An aspiring actor with a few credits to his name isn't notable. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. Alberon (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
flaccid Keep ...oh give the kid a chance. --emerson7 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not our job to give the kid a chance. It's only our job to write articles about persons whose chance has been realized. It's kind of a "we report the news, we don't make it" thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I nominated the article for deletion, I thought I should enter my opinion on the existence of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 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 keep. Some decent arguments for deletion, but the weight of consensus is to keep. An easier close now that the article has improved.--Kubigula (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Wachovia Center (Charlotte, North Carolina)[edit]

Delete no indication that this building is notable, 3rd highest in a mid-sized city really doesn't cut it, and if kept it needs a major clean-up from what appears to be a phonetic attempt at Southern US English - "Refrance" for "Reference".... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gets a lot of hits, but nothing seems to assert notability. It's just another office tower. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mid size city! Charrlotte is one of the fastest growing cities in America. Also you are saying that B0ston, Seattle, and Washington are mid sized cities to (by city limits). It also has a bigger metro than Nashville. If the Wachovia Center in Winston-Salem at around 450ft deserves an article, why doesent this? Oh, and i fixed the Reference.Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked and looked, and other than what appears to be a pretty minor award that doesn't appear to have anything to do with architecture, I see no sign of any particular notability. Even the property manager can't come up with anything to say in the that light, and if they can't who can? Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across this when I was new change patrolling and AA had just started it...it started me on a voyage to attempt to make sense of the seemingly endless number of buildings/companies/sports arenas wich Wachovia in the name. I would suggest we keep it only to help people who are also trying to figure out what's what. I've tried to make sense of the various entries on WP here: Wachovia (disambiguation) Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably non-notable MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, third-tallest building in the 20th largest US city is a respectable claim to notability, I think. According to Emporis, it was the tallest in all of North Carolina for a few years. Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if I'm reading this correctly, it used to be known as One First Union: [1] Zagalejo^^^ 05:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "when it opened, One First Union was the tallest building in the Southeast"[2], presumably topping even Atlanta. (For historical reasons North Carolina and Charlotte have been banking centers.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to those south of the Potomac, but I think "southeast" and even more so "North Carolina" are pretty small ponds to be big fish in. Acto our own listings it isn't even within the fifty tallest buildings within the country. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being taller than any building in Atlanta or Miami (see links) is very significant and noteworthy. --Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tallest building in a large region is certainly notable, so it was notable in 1988, and once notable, always notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was the tallest building in the entire region when it opened and for many years. Along with its former name, First Union Tower, it was the subject of multiple secondary sources [3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At 700 000 in the city proper and well over 2 million in the metro, this is hardly a mid-size city. One of the tallest buildings in the area and in the Carolinas region, does mean that it has more notability.--JForget 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a Charlotte-area resident, yeah, it's a neat building. But on the global scale of Wikipedia, it simply lacks the notability for the encyclopedia. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable as the third highest building in Charlotte, formerly the first highest building, in addition to being the world headquarters for the fourth largest bank in the United States. Major cleanup completed.
--JKeene (talk) 20:06, 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 Speedy delete, this time as A7, non-notable bio, as has been done several times before. (see deletion log) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Brittain[edit]

A word of caution: I am an ignorant American, and I know absolutely nothing about soccer (or "football", if you will). I could be way off base here, but I don't think I am. The article smells hoaxy. I was unable to confirm his participation with any of these clubs, for example this search for his current club yields only one hit: this article. Being an ignorant American, I don't even know if these clubs are top level, minor league, little league or what. Please have a look and see what you think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. A search for him and his ~~soccer~~ ~~football~~ ~~soccer~~ sports team turned up nothing whatsoever. The author's name also suggests WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:47, 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 Speedy close as duplicate nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism[edit]

Completing malformed nom for Sugaar (talk · contribs), who had previously tacked disussion onto the top of this AfD. User's rationale was as follows:

The whole article is an amalgamation of anecdotic, irrelevant, false and confusing material. It looks like blatant propaganda for most of its extension. It confuses icons accusing Israel of being Nazi with pro-Nazi ones, it casts anecdotes of some individuals apparent anti-semitism as something widespread, it begins with declarations of neonazi militants that make no sense, it confuses once and again anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it casts ignorance as anti-semitic slur, etc. Overall it seems to have been created in bad faith, as nearly nothing in it is salvageable. The proponent: --Sugaar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am neutral on this article, and this is just a procedural nom on my part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 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 except signature updates.

The result was Keep. The trend generally seems to be swinging this way, and there is rough consensus that the article should be kept, considering its adequate sourcing, when contrasted with the length of the content, which to some extent diffuses the supposed issues of POV. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism[edit]

The whole article is an amalgamation of anecdotic, irrelevant, false and confusing material. It looks like blatant propaganda for most of its extension. It confuses icons accusing Israel of being Nazi with pro-Nazi ones, it casts anecdotes of some individuals apparent anti-semitism as something widespread, it begins with declarations of neonazi militants that make no sense, it confuses once and again anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it casts ignorance as anti-semitic slur, etc. Overall it seems to have been created in bad faith, as nearly nothing in it is salvageable. The proponent: --Sugaar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Correcting nomination, was attached to another AfD. I am not expressing an opinion on this discussion at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to fix it just as you fixed it too. Sorry for the confusion! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm The material is obviously valid; the name is perhaps questionable. I cannot address issues such as OR given that the article is too big for more than the most cursory reading. I would note that this article is three years old; one would think someone would have noticed the problem earlier. I would suggest that deletion is probably the wrong venue. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being much ado about nothing - this smells like a coatrack article and seems to be placing undue weight on the issue. The article's text seems to confuse conservatives with globalists and basically states that a person who opposes globalisation and zionism is a anti-semite, which includes accusing at least one indivudal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been through the wringer before (2005 VFD, 2007 AFD (and what a confusing mess of AFD names we have now), but it hasn't really improved its balance or analysis. It's a vaguely-organized laundry list of alleged associations, but there isn't very much material to give context or rebuttal, or it isn't properly highlighted (for example, the lead is pretty one-sided). We must fix this. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is fundamentally problematic because it takes a variety of disparate comments and lumps them together under the rubric of "anti-globalization and antisemitism." That is a clear example of original research by synthesis. Any worthwhile material in the article can be incorporated into Antisemitism and New antisemitism, but this article in itself is simply soapboxing and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It should have been deleted long ago. *** Crotalus *** 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It shows certain voices in the cold light of day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.25.12 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a more user-friendly name Carter | Talk to me 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Per nom, it is WP:SOAP full of WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article could be fixed up a bit, I strongly disagree that this is soapboxing. The growing acceptance of "unspoken" antisemitism in anti-globalization and leftist circles is something that has been noted by several scholars, including leftists such as Naomi Klein, and is the subject of much debate among academics. This isn't a nonissue being soapboxed through wikipedia. --Telecart (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Telecart expressed it well, it is a well sourced phenomenon noted by scholars. --MPerel 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - this execrable article is an obvious bad-faith attempt to smear a particular group as "antisemitic". Clear violation of WP:SYN. What little there is of value in this article can be treated better in new antisemitism or antisemitism. NSH001 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I will reconsider as soon as the 90% of WP articles which have way fewer sources and are terribly written are deleted/improved. Also, I would urge whomever closes to ignore the delete arguments that rely on variations of "Well, the people who are conflating AG and AS are wrong." They may well be, but these are not judgments we're supposed to be making. It's all about sources (and this article is quite nicely balanced on that score, I might add). IronDuke 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Good sources, well written, well-balanced. More than satisfies the requirements WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Objections appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely not a SYN violation as someone suggested. When I last checked, the sources specifically discussed anti-globalization and antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is very notable and article is well sourced. Yahel Guhan 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anti-Zionism has a tendency of using anti-semitic iconography. I've recently read a book about this, which includes sections about people who support the anarchist anti-globalization movement, and am planning on adding this source into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a pretty obvious case. The phenomenon the article addresses is well documented among notable scholars and is discussed among an increasingly large percentage of the literate public. That ones favorite cause, anti-globalism, includes antisemitic themes may be viewed as unfortunate by some, but not the least bit surprising to the student of antisemitism. No reasonable basis has been brought forward for deletion that has not already been refuted. The article's compliance with WP policies is better than most. Regards,Doright (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. For five days, the discussion has very low traffic, and then within five hours, tons of "Keep" votes all flood in at once from participants with a particular POV — most of whom are friends on IRC, and one of whom has previously been caught running a secret, POV-pushing mailing list. I smell canvassing. *** Crotalus *** 05:43, 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 speedy keep, nominator stated that this was placed in error (see this comment). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furry fandom[edit]

Wikipedia:NOT Vashir (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an eight year old article, so WP:SNOW surely applies. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I'd be curious to know what part of WP:NOT this is supposed to go against. It's a verifiable, well referenced and long-standing article. There's no reason to delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Article is well documented, cites plenty of sources. Subject matter attracts more than enough interest from the general public to justify an article As Tony Fox asks, what part of WP:NOT finds this article lacking? This AfD nomination borders on being a misuse of process. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furry keep Article is very well sourced. I would trust Tony Fox (talk · contribs)'s judgment here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops Sorry, apparently the page didn't load completely, which led to me placing this AfD. Please keep then. --Vashir (talk) 23:29, 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 No consensus, defaulting to Keep. Black Kite 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Asuka[edit]

A Japanese porno actress. As a porno actress she doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The only potentially notable thing about her is having been arrested, which is not enough for being notable per notability guidelines for porno. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may not be notable as a porno actress but she is notable per WP:V and WP:BLP with regards to this upi newspaper source I would recommend adding the original Yokohama Shinbun Japase newspaper source. Igor Berger (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's just one count of indecent exposure. We can't turn every petty criminal into a notable personality. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many counts does a person need to have to be notable? Is the question not that the person should be notable per sources? Do they have to be a major porn star or an important law violator to be notable? We should apply WP:WEIGHT and get some commentary from WP:BLP project not just porn star project. What do you think?

Delete Every petty criminal isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the nominator is correct that she is not extremely notable as a porn star (note, however, that she does appear in a video reviewed by AVN-- a U.S. publication that does not specialize in the Japanese industry.) It's her arrest, and its coverage that makes her notable. I don't think the "every petty criminal" argument holds water. Not "every petty criminal"'s arrest makes international news. This person's arrest highlighted an interesting and largely hidden aspect of the Japanese adult entertainment industry-- shooting videos in public for reactions from unsuspecting bystanders. That's why she made international news, and that's why she's notable. (Director Hisayasu Sato's Mibojin Hentai Jigoku made notable use of this technique, which, since it is illegal, is widely denied by the industry. See the All Movie Guide description[5]) Dekkappai (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said. I have been living in Japan for 17 years now, and while in America such an incident would not make big news, in Japan it is a Taboo and against the law to be seen nude on a public street and that is why this made International news. Pretty much it is like Larry Flint and the Hustler magazine controversy made Japanese. I think even deleting it maybe against freedom of speach and a violation of First Amendment because this can be seen as a protest in Japanese society, but I am not sure. A lawyer needs to determine this. Igor Berger (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't put much stock in AVN reviews as a reliable source to establish notability. AVN is not an independent reviewer of movies because they take in ads for the movies they review (and this includes the American distributors of Japanese movies). Besides the mention of Yuki is brief and not significant coverage under WP:Notability. As for the nude arrest, are there any more articles that are intellectually independent of the UPI article? Oh and Igor, the First Amendment applies to American government censorship, not wikipedia.Vinh1313 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she's notable for neither her pornographic appearances (per WP:BIO) nor her arrest (per WP:ONEEVENT). Jfire (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale provided by Dekkappai. Once again I see that ONEEVENT is being misapplied. RFerreira (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep-notability is established as there is also an article at ja:結城明日香. Two languages means she's not a flash in the pan. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us the video evidence for examination? Just joking! Thanx for the Japanese link. Igor Berger (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: Two and even more languages just means that hard-working and well-meaning editors translated the article. It is not by itself an indicator of notability. I do tend to agree with other interesting comments about the notability of public nudity in Japan. ---Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to understand the damn thing before evaluating its chances. We now read that Yūki got in trouble for walking around Yokohama naked, and that she and Inoue also had filmed Shimizu walking naked through Chinatown. Yūki's birth name is Arisa Shimuzu [sic]. I'd guess that "Chinatown" refers to part of Yokohama. So who walked where, and who was arrested? Though even if this is sorted out it seems little more than a small news story at this point. Incidentally, photographing nude women in Japanese urban spaces (and exhibiting the results) has a history that's at least 49 years old. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like so, but he did not get arrested for that, it just caused quite a stir. Being arested in Japan for nudity in a public place is big news, and it goes internationally. Going against Japanese hivethink is turbulent and discrespectful to the society. Maybe you have heard a saying in Japan, if a nail is sticking out of a plank of wood hammer it in to be equal with others. So naked AVI shoot in Yokohama Chinatown is very big news. I would not be supprised if it hit prime time telivision like NHK and Asahi TV. Anyone who knows how to write Japanese, which I do not, do a search for the article story in Google Japan and see what you get. Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Igor, you seem to be both confidently asserting that this was big news and implying that you don't actually know if it was big news. Offhand, I don't know: I'll happily google for it but not as long as I'm using a work computer. And if it is notable then I don't see why it's more significant for Yūki/Yuki/Shimizu/Shimuzu than for Inoue, and anyway WP:ONEEVENT kicks in. Meanwhile, it seems as if the whole article is taken from this short and slapdash UPI story, complete with typo (though I'm not alleging a copyvio). -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I am recommending that someone who reads Japanese should Google this in Google Japan, and see if there was a big news in Japanese media about this event. Although this was one event there might have been over actions by association that have not been brought to light yet. After 17 years in Japan I speak Japanese but unfortunately cannot read it. But would not one event rule apply to a certain news story that has no follow up or consequences? For example a metiorite falls in Peru has an article even it is one event, 2007_Peruvian_meteorite_event! I mean I hope they do not have metiorites falling down on them every year. Why does it have an article? Could it be atributed to that the local people got sick from exposure to toxic fumes, those implying cause and effect. So, a follow up from that event. I think the naked in public place arrest is more than one event scenario. Igor Berger (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to google for it later, unless somebody beats me to it. This meteorite seems to have made a big crater, and in some way made hundreds of people ill (or possibly induced quasi-hysteria and imagined illness in hundreds of people); somehow I'd have thought that this was more significant than having an actress get her tits out in a Yokohama street (much though I'd have loved to have had a close view the latter when younger and hornier). Or perhaps you're suggesting an article on the history of erotic events and pseudo-events in Japan; my only contribution to that would be a link to the Kijima article (which needs sourcing for its vague assertion of a moral panic). -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's give the actress her WP:DUE. I grant she is not Larry Flynt but then who can match him! Igor Berger (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her and her arrest: mostly blogs, chitchat, and the occasional little paragraph in some peripheral news source (example). Her, her arrest, and newspaper: just more of the same. Asahi Shinbun doesn't seem to have heard of her. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to journalist and Swedish Tokyo correspondent, Kjell Fornander, five to ten videos are made in the average AV career.[6] Asuka, according to the news article on the arrest, had starred in about 100 at that time. So, by real-world (though, notably, not Wikipedian) standards, she is notable even within the AV field. I don't think public nude photography has been claimed as Ms. Asuka's unique contribution to Japanese society. In fact it's a fairly common sub-genre of the AV industry. But because of its illegality, its existence is routinely denied by the industry. Ms. Asuka's being caught in the act by cell-phone camera is what is notable, and what made international news. Also, I don't think blaming Ms. Asuka for the Yūki/Yuki and Shimizu/Shimuzu mix-ups resulting from Japanese/Wiki orthography and newspaper typos casts any more doubts on her notability than the same would for Toshiro/Toshirō Mifune. Dekkappai (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dekkappai (and I always love that username), the last part of what you write is some kind of response to something that I wrote. You are of course under no obligation to come up with what I think would be a better response, but I warmly invite you to do so. You clearly think that the article about Yūki/Shimizu is worth preserving (and, presumably, improving). I haven't yet decided if I agree with you, but even if I don't I respect your point of view. However, I'm mystified by what seems to be an imbalance of energies here. Whatever the merits of an article on her, the article as it stands now is awful. Couldn't you -- or somebody else who's written rather energetically on behalf of there being an article -- at least remove the contradictions (real and apparent) that still plague the very first paragraph? -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree the article reads like an advert for the AV model. Should be written more in encyclopedic style and texture. Igor Berger (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize if I sounded a bit sarcastic up there, Hoary. I've seen your input at other AfDs, and do respect your obvious knowledge and opinions also. The typos/inconsistencies you point out can be easily fixed, and I'll do what I can right now. The state of the article as a whole is pretty poor, obviously, I'll see if I can do something about it later on today when I'm free to do this manner of research. (Oh, about the, ahem, username. It started out as a one-edit/one-article joke, and I'm stuck with it. I've had thoughts about changing it, but it seems to suit me so well... Glad you approve. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, no sarcasm at all, and nothing to apologize about. For my part, I'm sorry; I'd wrongly assumed that you could read Japanese fairly easily: of course if you can't then it's not so easy to improve on the present mess of an article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My Japanese is pretty hit & miss, picked up by close proximity with Japanese speakers as a child, my own non-academic reading & studying, and visiting the country a few times when I lived in Korea for a few years. (During which time the Korean language supplanted most of my knowledge of Japanese.) Apology, or non-apology, accepted or not, as appropriate. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it proper to Move an article in the midst of AfD discussion? I think the article should more properly be titled "Asuka Yūki". Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS-JP, the English Wikipedia should use Western name order. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I believe the Western order would be "Asuka Yūki". Dekkappai (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last time I looked, it wasn't appropriate to move during an AfD, no. I must regretfully concede that yes, MoS-ja has an intercoursing stupid rule by which the names of Japanese people born after 1867 must be put back to front, in order not to frighten the horses or whatever. And yes, this even applies to the noms de guerre of hotties, leading to such nonsense as "Sora Aoi" (cf "Twain Mark", not that he was a hottie or anything). -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right-- Rampo Edogawa is another name that suffers more than usual under this rule. Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Question ***WARNING*** The following links are not work-safe! At THIS site (biglobe.av-channel.com), I've found Asuka Yūki (結城明日香) in their top-ten rankings for several weeks. HERE, for example, she is in the #1 position (1位結城明日香) (look at the listings on the left). All the "Week" headings give the current week, however. My Japanese is far from good, does anyone know how to make better sense of this? Dekkappai (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, but I can confirm that yes, according to this site she is this week's number one. And a look at her page tells me that she's welcome to stroll along the street outside my house any time. Though I'd ask her not to invite a media circus when she does so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, keep. She may just be a flash in the pan (I haven't investigated), but anyway she's at least one week's flash in the pan. And let's not pan flesh. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's a keep per WP:HOTTIE? :) Jfire (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You betcha. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should we not examine the videos to see how HOT she is..:) Igor Berger (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahem. In a subject as serious as this, I'd hoped we could avoid playing the WP:HOTTIE card. But there it is, and there's no denying it. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks like she gets to stay! Anyway, for now, she maybe deleted later, if she stops being HOT. Igor Berger (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Would almost be notable by her pornographic work. Her arrest appears to push her over the edge to reasonable notability per WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 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 Delete. As noted, relevant material appears to already exist at Australian English, so no merge is necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of Australian English[edit]

This is largely OR - reference to the three categories can be restricted to Australian English. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely this doesn't need to come to AfD if a merge is all that is being asked for. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Australian English#Varieties of Australian English, which is much better sourced and tighter overall. There may be a few salvageable points here, but mainly just redirect to the better-written version. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would suggest a merge to [[Australian English, but all the salient points already appear to be there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - and salvage anything that can be put into Australian English Satu Suro 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and roll any unique information into Australian English. Sadly this article has no references so there's really little defense that can be offered. Phrases like "Most linguists consider..." sound like weasel words. Format (talk) 18:20, 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Much of this content is duplicated at The Saint of Dragons in any event.--Kubigula (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons (Saint of Dragons)[edit]

An article about dragons in a fantasy novel does not meet notability standards. —BradV 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article about Tolkein's dragons probably could meet notability standards. There is nothing inherently non-notable about topic, if scholars and critics have written about. Perhaps you meant to say "This article ... "? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, condense, merge. Appears to belong in the article about the book. Although it is true that some notable characters within notable books by highly notable authors have warrented articles of their own, I don't think this author is on par with Tolkein. It also seems that the this article may go too far in its over-descriptiveness of elements in the book. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree... —Quasirandom (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of these fictional creatures.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:58, 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 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death dog[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. Article implies that it has been copied in several other fictional universes- if this could be confirmed, there may be a case for keeping the article, though it is possibly original research. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 4 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]

Delete per nom. Also, I notice there is very little information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalwareSmarts (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 March 2008
Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Belongs in a list; is not notable in of itself. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Doesn't seem to have any relevance outside D&D. --Minimaki (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eliv? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 18:29, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connexion.org[edit]

WP:Notability. May be notable, however, I can't find anything on the web which would suggest notability via independent reviews other than blogs and the like. Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The site does appear to be notable and has had some coverage in LGBT publications, but it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press as extensively as other social networking sites such as Myspace or Facebook. Dgf32 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'd reverse if those sources are put forward and are shown to be significant within that community. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on Connexion.org. Whether that page is significant probably depends on whether you regard the activities of Tim Gill (which would be me) to be significant. I'm still adding citations and such. And since this is the first page I've ever done it's going slowly. For all I know, I'm not sending this message properly either. Nottim (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tim, although you may be notable, with regard to Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. The software must be notable in of itself. Also note (you seem like a nice enough contributer, so don't take this the wrong way) it might be worthwhile to read WP:Conflict of interest. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not notable. Just an ad for yet another social networking site. Bardcom (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 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 merge to Planetouched. I have redirected the article, knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanarukk[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Setting specific, but is of only minor significance within the setting as a whole. May deserve a mention when discussing orcs or Tenar'ri (especially when discussing them in the context of the Forgotton Realms). No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planetouched. Powers ^T 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planetouched. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Already adequately covered at Planetouched. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:36, 5 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 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) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a fictional species, not a stock character. Powers ^T 03:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy and pasted reason for deletion, so forgive Gavin if it doesn't make sense for the particular topic it's being used for, as it's been used on quite a few AFDs lately.Shemeska (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the fantasy world of D&D it may be classed as a fictional species, but in the real world, its actually a stock character. Which stock character are you? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stats for a level one warrior Tanarukk are the stats for a stock character, the Tanarukk race itself is no more a stock character than the Klingon race. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, in the fantasy world of D&D it's a real species. In the real world it's a fictional species. Powers ^T 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it's a fictional real species, not a real fictional species. Glad we have that sorted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A real fictional species would be the Pacific Northwest tree octopus. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely what I said. Powers ^T 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planetouched as per BOZ.Shemeska (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because it's in Monstrous Compendium doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 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 speedy delete, G3. The artist names--"Lightningfinger Brown" and "Thunderhawk Janzen" + the fact that the review links pointing to a completely different article=an obvious hoax. Blueboy 96 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (T-Minus Now! Album)[edit]

Album by band deleted as NN album/hoax in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Minus Now!. Cannot find references to prove it even exists. Prod removed by IP without comment. Hut 8.5 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Tempshill (talk) 21:50, 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 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal_Pradhan[edit]

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The said author is not well known and certainly not a "leading writer". Naon34561 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only hits from reliable sources are articles written by him, not articles about him [7]. Subtracting out "by Kunal Pradhan" from the GNews hits leaves merely 14 articles, of which over half aren't even for the same person [8]. cab (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks secondary sources to support a position as a notable columnist. TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all famous. Tintin 13:04, 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 merge. I have redirected the page, knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoul[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster with no evidence of notability. No reliable third party sources provided, and monster is of minimal importance within the (current) game. To be fair, it appears to be more a part of a version and setting with which I am less familiar, so an argument could potentially be made for this article to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)#Related creatures, where they are already mentioned. BOZ (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BOZ. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Already adequately covered at Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)#Related creatures. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor component of fictional work, or Just Another Monster. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 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) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hespeler Baptist Church[edit]

100+ year old church with no evidence of notability and ghits are limited to directory type listings. Per WP: CORP, local orgs need RS coverage, this one doesn't have any. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any notability to speak of. Almost G11-able in my book. Blueboy 96 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~or cite sources I would say delete, but I'm fine with keeping it as long as you cite your sources. Signed, Nothing 444 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete for a different reason Its real, I added an external link. The only thing I would worry about is Notability. Signed, Nothing 444 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No question it exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. The church's own website does not establish notability per WP:RS, WP:N TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual churches are non-notable. The article's only sources are the church's own web site and one of its publications. A Google search indicates that significant coverage of this church in independent reliable sources is hard to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Not even any evidence of being a historic structure, which could make this notable. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cited all the works I have quoted, other then that, I'm just going off what I know about the church. The church has done a lot of great work in peoples lives. While the building itself is not too old, the original building still stands, about two blocks away, and is now owned by the salvation army. If someone doesn't want a specific church article, let me know, and maybe I will right a big article with other churches, including this church.(I will just copy paste this article, into the big article, and right up about some other baptist churches in cambridge.)The article also has notability. Go to the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the dud (talk • contribs)
- Comment none of which, unfortunately, meet notability standards. Existing!notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently checking with city to see if original building is historic site-Paul the dud
Delete - I regret that it is necessary to delete churches so regularly, but few are truely notable. See current guidelines on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 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 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landwyrm (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable spinoff of a dragon within the Dungeons & Dragons universe, introduced in a book about dragons and barely mentioned since. No evidence of third party coverage. May deserve a mention when discussing dragons. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 4 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]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 7 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) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. a wingless dragon is just a big lizard. shadzar-talk 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as non-notable. Minor component of fictional work. Not even a very interesting monster. --John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 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 Speedy Close, a merge request does not fall under the purview of AFD, use WP:MERGE instead.

Version Targeting[edit]

First, "Version targeting" is a fairly vague term that could apply to any piece of software that implements this kind of behavior. Second, Microsoft relented and will be making IE8 default to the highest level of standards support it is capable of, so version targeting is not nearly so big an issue any more. Third, though the article presents more-or-less factually correct background information, no references are provided to back it up.

I suggest deleting this article entirely, and putting a rewritten, carefully referenced summary of the issue into the Internet Explorer 8 article if desired. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Microsoft's turnaround, I have no objection to merging/rewriting the content of this article into the IE8 article. dimo414 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (Article Creator)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HillSide Quest[edit]

RS coverage is false positives and ghits barely confirm existence, let alone notability for this game. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a random net-based video game is not notable simply because a small group of people plays it. The article doesn't even assert notability of any kind. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, wish there were a CSD:Game category TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear WP:WEB failure. Jfire (talk) 23:25, 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 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Raza[edit]

The article appears to be a hoax. The supposed references lead nowhere. Google finds no references at all. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not a hoax than simply a nn high school player TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not a notable person. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or nn person. Tempshill (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable hoax. MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. None of the references appear to be relevant to the subject, and I can't even figure out what city the subject is supposed to be from. The article creator has already been warned that the article appears to be a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:29, 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. Please don't send the kobold archers after me. Nandesuka (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker's kobolds[edit]

Group of Dungeons & Dragons kobolds named after a Dungeon Master named Tucker. Article claims that they have been used numerous times as examples- I see no evidence of this, with the article citing only a single editorial. May possibly be keepable if sources exist, but probably better suited to a mention in the article on D&D kobolds. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Web Warlock (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Text has been merged into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons); redirecting this article will suffice. BOZ (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If even the nominator thinks it should be merged, what's it doing here on AfD? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can form some level of consensus. Maybe these aren't notable at all, maybe they're notable enough for their own article. I don't know, that's why I brought it here. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discussions are out of place in the AFD process. The discussion page for the article can be used to form a level of consensus just as easily. Rray (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is encouraged. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one indicated otherwise. But everything has a time and a place, and the appropriate place for a merge discussion is on the talk page of an article. Rray (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nom indiated that a mention in (implied) Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) might be best — and it is extant; this is not the same as a merge of this article to there. It is a question of an appropriate level of coverage; there are no out of universe sources on this so a mere mention is sufficient and a merge is thus inappropriate. i.e. delete, it's already covered at an appropriate level of detail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Rray (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others here. The AFD nomination should really be withdrawn, since even the nominator agrees that a merge is appropriate here. Rray (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Already covered in Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This essay on someone's favorite Kobold fails WP:NOT#OR, and is not fit to keep or merge. The reference cited appears to be self-publication and copyright violation, so the article also fails WP:V. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference cited is an opinion piece in a first party D&D magazine, by the editor, about a group of kobolds created by someone else. The website is a copyvio of said opinion piece. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect shadzar-talk 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor game mod. This is non-notable at the garage band level. --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 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 --JForget 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsilk spider[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons monster of minimal notability or importance. Minimal in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage. Article does not mention any sources, third party or otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the appropriate article; not in of itself notable enough to justify an article here. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:19, 5 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 7 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) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. just another variation of commonly found real-world critter used for D&D. shadzar-talk 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - near the bottom of the barrel in notability here. --John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banderlog[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. Minimal in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage, absolutely no significance. No reason it would need to be mentioned anywhere, as I see it. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge with D&D article. Not enough distinct notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 5 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax: there are no primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:44, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD G10, attack page. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob cypher[edit]

Dubious notability (WP:N) with sensitive material that requires immediate referencing or removal (WP:BLP). The nature of the material also makes me suspect that it is a vanity piece. Marasmusine (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity piece. Tempshill (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable per WP:N – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rob Cypher] has already been deleted 4 times. Obviously not real person.--Boson (talk) 21:39, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeroic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Invented pharmacological category. This article was AFD'ed previously and the vote was keep, with most editors noting that it seemed like a worthwhile dictdef. But nobody noticed that "Eugeroic" is not used in the medical literature (see the article). This is an invented term and not a class of drugs. Since this fact was not mentioned in the previous AFD, I'm nominating this fake class of drugs for AFD again. Tempshill (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable neologism. The term is recently created slang. It does not represent a scientific or medical classifaction of pharmacological agents. Dgf32 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dgf ^ flaming lawyer^c 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This word has a wiktionary entry and I have no problem with that (in fact it could be expanded using the lead para of this article). It's not an accepted separate class of drugs though so it not suitable for an encyclopedia. The WHO ATC/DDD Index 2008 classifies these drugs as "centrally acting sympathomimetics" or "Other psychostimulants and nootropics" and Template:Psychostimulants, agents used for ADHD and nootropics already contains both those categories. I think we should stick to these categories used by the WHO. The main thing these "eugeroic" drugs seem to have in common is that they're all marketed by the same company. Qwfp (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough problems with discussions on real drugs and their effects (homoepathy, anyone?), don't need made-up drugs.King Pickle (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear that I think having articles on the individual drugs is fine, it's only this "category" I think should be deleted. Qwfp (talk) 19:48, 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 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster created for the miniatures skirmish game then detailed in the Miniatures' Handbook, a supplement focusing on the use of miniatures in roleplay. No evidence of third party coverage, but may deserve a mention somewhere when discussing D&D deities. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with Fire Caste soldiers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into, ah... List of Dungeons & Dragons deities I guess. Aspects have much more to do with dieties than monsters, and have been used extensively in the 3.5 edition of the game, for both gods and demon lords/archdevils. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 5 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 stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. just another term for an avatar. shadzar-talk 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The concept of an aspect of a god is a common religious concept in Christianity. [9] It's sort of a hack to reconcile monotheism with polytheism. Amusingly, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the religious usage, but it has one on the D&D usage. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- then maybe that means the avatar article needs to be changed to related other religions uses of similar concepts? shadzar-talk 23:12, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Grip Records[edit]

Prod removed. Record label that fails to establish notability. Self-confessed Myspace label. None of the current roster appear to be notable or have articles of their own. Article created by someone linked to the label and the incoming page Wikipedia:Requested articles/music was updated by the same user. A look at the log [10] shows it's been speedily deleted twice today already. Lugnuts (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable "Myspace" record label. Dgf32 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Tempshill (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Upon further review article makes no assertion of notability. Nominating for speedy delete per CSD A7. Dgf32 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And it appears that the article has been deleted via Speedy Delete. Dgf32 (talk) 20:50, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton and the Hampsters Compilation - Hampsterdance Hits[edit]

As fun as Hampsterdance was in its heyday, this album is entirely non-notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Tempshill (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable album. A google search reveals no coverage in independent third party sources. Dgf32 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge track listing and any other relevant info to The Hampster Dance. Powers ^T 22:03, 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 Redirected to Jabberwocky (what harm can it do, and it might help some confused schoolkid). Black Kite 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galumphing[edit]

I really want to write "No. Just. No." and leave it at that, but actual reasons are unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:CB. -- Merope 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But add a tag to state that it requires sources! A quick google for seal and galumphing suggests the term is in wide spread use, and some might be academic articles (JSTOR). If it is true it is interesting to find a term that has moved from humour to science. (Flange of baboons anyone?). As for WINAD, maybe there there is enough to say on this form of locomotion to justify an article? Billlion (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google gives a lot of results for this, but I feel that most of them are in fact copying from Wikipedia. I could not find a credible source. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JS Brown - Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, 1894 - JSTOR... Fur Seals and the Bering Sea Arbitration ... a sudden dash forward, seize a female by the back and lifting her clear of the ground go "galumphing" away, apparently ... You cant say that was copied from Wikipedia! Billlion (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming through the article the term appears applied to the locomotion of a male fur seal on p341 It is in double quotes, but there are a lot of descriptive and technical words (eg "harem" applied to seals) in double quotes in this article. It just seems to be the style. Billlion (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Dgf32 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabberwocky. --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge origin of the term to Earless seal. Powers ^T 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright We'll never agree on where to redirect it. Mangoe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ "Widespread use" isn't quite true. It certainly isn't used in the scientific literature. There is a good chance that it has been picked up with some frequency due to this very Wikipedia entry (as Morven suggests). The 1894 article is an example of colorful description, but is no way a standard (any more than the spelling "Prybilof" for the Pribilof Islands). A comment within the Jabberwocky article that it has been used to describe seal locomotion might be OK. Having an extra mention (or even any mention) in the true seal, or seal, or pinniped articles does not, in my opinion, contribute meaningfully to those topics. Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's already mentioned in the Earless seal article, for at least one example, but it's missing the origin of the term, which is why I suggested merging the etymology there. Powers ^T 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Eliezg you are knowledgeable on marine mammals, so if the term is not in scientific use it should be deleted. Also I did a quick search on web of science. Non of the articles I found on seal locomotion used the term, and I couldnt find any scientific articles using the word in this sense. It does sound like a wikipedia created myth. As there are lots of web sites now picking up the terminology, and citing wikipedia as the source in some cases, is there a way after deletion they are going to find this discussion? Is there some section for "myths created by wikipedia that then grew legs and walked away" or galumphed away...? Maybe it is just a foot note to Jabberwocky.Billlion (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jabberwocky, as noted by Pixelface — how would it hurt to have this as a redirect? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Redirect idea is good. Most of what anyone would want to know about "galumphing" is in the Jabberwocky article, which could include mention of the fact that "galumphing" has apparently entered the English lexicon (see below), though not necessarily in contexts related to seals. I recast my vote above. Eliezg (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED entry and uses[edit]

intr. Orig., to march on exultingly with irregular bounding movements. Now usu., to gallop heavily; to bound or move clumsily or noisily. Hence galumphing ppl. a. and vbl. n., lit. and fig.

1872 ‘L. CARROLL’ Through Looking-Glass i. 22 He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. 1881 Punch 27 Aug. 94/2 The [H.M.S.] Hercules got up steam and went on her way westward galumphing. 1888 N. York World 13 May (Farmer), A green bobtail car that galumphed through Lewis Street at a high rate of speed. 1891 Harper's Mag. Aug. 378/2 He [a dog] became a.. playful, gracefully galumphing, and most affectionate monster. 1893 Nation (N.Y.) 29 June 476/2 It is his humor, his ‘galumphing’ humor, which strikes a chill to the heart. 1901 Westm. Gaz. 15 Aug. 2/2 A postman in uniform galumphed about on a farm-horse. 1903 Daily Chron. 31 Oct. 8/1 There would be such a galumphing up their stairs that peace and security would forsake them. 1930 C. MACKENZIE April Fools xii. 271 Viola..had slept through the stifled cries of her parents beneath the bedclothes when Beyle [sc. a bull-dog] was galumphing round their room. 1965 S. RAVEN Friends in Low Places vi. 129 In the hall was a galumphing lass with a lot of jerseys and a po face.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vashar[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race appearing in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage, no real in-game significance. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.; not enough distinct notability to warrant an article here.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:45, 4 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]
Delete — non-notable. Not even mentioned in Book of Vile Darkness (no, please…). Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 5 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 20:54, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger Hash Affair[edit]

Non-notable minor news incident. Seems to fall somewhere between WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn incident. JJL (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sufficiently mentioned (one sentence) at Hash House Harriers. There have actually been a number of these incidents, a couple of them immediately following the 2001 anthrax attacks. I don't believe any of them have ended with any significant criminal convictions other than perhaps trespassing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smerick[edit]

Article does not list outside sources and appears to be about a Cinderella band member who was only a member for a short while. The article has been tagged for cleanup for more than a year and does not appear to have been improved. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed that the article is quite poor, however I think this guy passes notability. There are lots of mentions of him in secondary sources, particularly under his real name Michael Kelly Smith. Suggest requesting a translation of the Italian article, it is much more complete. Vrac (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of these sources? --neonwhite user page talk 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search on "Michael Kelly Smith" (don't forget the quotes around the name) Vrac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This guy appears to have been the founding guitarist of the heavy metal band Cinderella (band). While there is no independent third party coverage of him, there is significant coverage on this band Cinderella. Dgf32 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As above... --Pupster21 Talk To Me 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Dgf32. BWH76 (talk) 18:01, 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 except signature updates.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. There is no clear settlement between those that would delete 'just another episode' and those that wish to treat this particular pilot differently for reasons that are clearly articulated and based in policy. It seems that further work on the article is anticipated and that there is likely to be enough substance for it to survive. If that proves not to be forthcoming, then I suppose merges and redirections are likely to follow. Note: I can see no need for the second of the relistings; there were plenty of people and discussions to process the closure on after the first. -Splash - tk 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot)[edit]

unsourced original research, and real world notability unestablished. brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I know, there's an injunction. Solo28 can refine her/his writing skills while the injunction is in place. Right now, kid, it's the notes you took while watching a TV show. See if you can't make it better. One thing those of us in the "not-every-TV-show-is-notable" crowd look for is "real world notability", and the pilot has all that, since it launched a popular TV show and made Butch Hartman a millionaire. I'm pretty sure there's already an article about the pilot, but maybe your article has something that one doesn't. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears an article on the pilot already exists at The Fairly OddParents! (Oh Yeah! Cartoons episode) (version before redirect) (The Fairly OddParents! (pilot) was moved there — note the P and the !), but it was redirected by an involved party of the arbitration case. While I think pilot episodes are generally always notable, this episode does not have to be notable. It just needs to be too long to merge into List of The Fairly OddParents episodes. Notability is always subjective (even "real world notability"). This article can't be deleted while the injunction is in effect. Perhaps if some editors were not so intent on redirecting existing articles, we wouldn't have editors creating duplicate articles with different names. --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear whether the injunction applies to newly created articles but Delete. There already is a redirect that was in better shape and still couldn't established notability, so I guess it's still a nonnotable episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rescue. This article could clearly state that the pilot has launched a major kids' television show and made Butch Hartman and co. a ton of money, it just doesn't at this time. I would recommend recommend reading other TV episode articles, especially pilots, and seeing how the writing and formatting is handled there, maybe it would help make an informed decision on what this article could look like? --Darkprincealain (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - The current version of the article is bad, but there is clear potential for this article. It is, as has been mentioned, a standalone episode of an anthology series which was later expanded into a very popular cartoon series. That in itself makes it notable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Darkprince and Yukichigai. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:03, 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, Black Kite 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pilot episode that launched a successful cartoon is very notable. Needs some cleaning. Please try to find references and add them to pages before you delete them, which is explicitly stated in the nomination procedure page. Hazillow (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could more effectively be a (better edited) paragraph in the main article on the show. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilot episode of highly notable series. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be a legitimate argument about individual episodes within a series, but the pilot of a notable TV series is a notable episode worthy of its own independent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending resolution of article injunction. A pilot is just another episode. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I started a production section to get the ball rolling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:40, 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 merge, redirect, or whatever the consensus is, which is not deletion as far as I can tell, merge is not preformed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam 00 Characters[edit]

An article, List of Anno Domini characters, is the one used. It had been vandalized as it was removed with List of Gundam 00 Characters established instead. Ominae (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Anno Domini characters, although I can't find anything official that verifies that the continuity should be referred to as Anno Domini.--TBC !?! 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect First, rename List of Anno Domini characters to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters to follow proper naming conventions and the MOS. Then redirect this copy to that newly renamed list. Collectonian (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research which fails notability and verifiabiility requirements. Edison (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename one of these articles, most likely List of Anno Domini characters, to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters as explained by Collectonian and merged/redirect the other to it. Using the name of the series is actually less ambiguous then using the name of the time line, or where ever Anno Domini came from. --Farix (Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is Gundam 00 a TV series? If so, then this would fall under the arbcom injunction. Problem is the list has zero context and no lead at all so I can't tell. 23skidoo (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 is, yes, a TV series, a recent incarnation of the large Gundam franchise. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Arbcom injunction shouldn't apply to duplicate articles or forks. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom injunction does not apply here — it was created after the injunction was passed. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this interpretation of the injunction. It is reasonably applied to all conduct of the same type., without quibbling about the date the article was made. Its the same problem regardless. My opinion only. DGG (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge as described above by TBC!?!, Collectonian and Farix. Highwind888 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TBC. Edward321 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there already was a consensus, but just to pile on the wagon, merge as outlined by TBC!?!, Collectonian and Farix. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that way to me as well. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 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. Maxim_(talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The swaying argument is that Ty rewrote into something that meets Wikipedia's requirements. Good job!

Massurrealism[edit]

This very short article is written in the style of a promotional circular for a nonnotable art movement, not in the style of an encyclopædia article. It has no citations, and what it provides in the way of references, external links, etc., do not come from reliable, third-party publications. I prodded it, but the prod was removed with the argument that the article is well-referenced and in need of "careful cleanup", not deletion. With all due respect to the editor who made that statement, I do not feel that this can be cleaned up, as reliable sources simply cannot be found for the subject. The article also has conflict-of-interest problems, with editors involved in the "movement" editing the article, as well as articles about themselves. Delete as promotional material for an artistic movement of questionable notability.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is madness. Wikipedia is not a billboard.YVNP (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't really know where to start. This looks very like a promotional article, linking to websites which are more promotional than informative. Two potentially reliable sources are listed in the artcle: one from Arts and Antiques and one from Computer Artist; but these could be passing mentions rather than substantive reviews. They might not even exist. I can't find any other third-party sources even referring to the movement, let alone giving it the kind of attention a notable art movement ought to be receiving.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Ty rewrite.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment first, then motion for a deletion : Funny thing of the mention of artists and self promotion; in all fairness the Surrealists and Dadaists were notorious for self promoting themselves, and probably came under the same scrutiny during their time as well. I did follow up on some of the resources and in further mulling around I found what Ethicoaestheticist also found, numerous other examples of people either writing / commenting about massurrealism (coming from those who identify with it), or mentioning it as part of their lexicon not all seemed to me to be of a self promotional interest. All sources cited and additional ones I have found I do think there is a certain amount of notability, however I do not think notability is the issue here. Given the nature of the topic as an art genre / direction / philosophy this is something I would assume would be discussed ex post facto. These particular artists are in the here-and-now but there is not yet enough history to warrant anything more than a stub, and their impact IMHO can really only be determined after the fact. Please understand that I can appreciate all artists efforts, I really do. But because of massurrealism being more in the moment, I think this article falls short of making the grade at Wikipedia, and I'm inclined to agree for deletion, respectfully. --TheNightRyder (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If "notability is not the issue here", and the article provides sources (several magazine articles and a book) which appear to be reliable and substantial (the fact that they have the subject in the title suggests they are more than "passing mentions", as Ethicoaestheticist presumes), then I don't see that any valid reason for deletion has been given. Self-promotion and COI are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion; thus my original prod removal. Jfire (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If TheNightRyder's research is correct then the conclusion is that the article should be kept, not deleted. Notability in the here-and-now is good enough. On the face of it, this is a valid and well-sourced stub. Unless someone wants to allege that the sources are actually hoaxes (a point I'm in no position to judge) then the article's a keeper (although it still needs work). AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"KEEP". Notable. Brunhilda (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is the issue, and there is none. Beyond self-promotional websites, passing mentions in magazine articles, self-published books (which do not count toward notability), other Wikipedia articles (which are themselves promotional), etc., there are no citations for this "movement." With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article. This is clear Wikipedia policy. We follow, we do not lead. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotional article, ask User:Touchon and User:Alankinguk. --Switch-to (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the article. It is with the midwestern surrealists who do not know what surrealism is and who want to define it on Wiki[pedia, their only place where by number of votes they can define surrealism. You cannot change reality by votes and by bad thinking. By making bad articles and by voting away the truth or "fact," if you will, you only look like what you are. What do you think that is? Anyway, all of us in the intellectual community have pretty much abandoned all Wiki articles on surrealism as hopelessly controlled by non-notable and intellectually deficient cranks.Brunhilda (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I fail to see how that opinion is relevant to the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is just the problem, isn't it?Brunhilda (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The description in this nationmaster.com entry[11] helps focus what we have here, a "coined" word and therefor a neologism. As such it has to pass that guideline. A hand full of unreadable sources in what seem to be articles highlighting alternative terms published in equally alternative publications just doesn't cut it as reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nationmaster.com entry is just a mirror of a previous revision of the Wikipedia article. Jfire (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and used as an example, not a source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response :.

"With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article." ---RepublicanJacobite

No disrespect felt RepublicanJacobite. The above what you stated is what makes this debate interesting. This begs the question: who is the art world? is it really fair to state that just because an artist / art group / genre does not have involvement with what are considered mainstream galleries and museums in the world then they do not deserve to be noted in some way? The other issue here is what qualifies as good third party reference in the virtual world? I think this for example would have to count as a more credible source: [12] since this is directly from the University's web server (PS - if you do not read Russian just scroll down to the English transcript) as opposed to all the other blogs and websites connected with massurrealism by individual posters in cyberspace. In the same argument, does not these posters opinions count as well? My position of deletion however, still stands because of the lack of enough content worth writing about to substantiate a good article at this point in time, especially if the article were to be cleaned up. --TheNightRyder (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to the lecture is definitely worth reading. It is either a description of the humble origins of a notable art movement or a frank account of a made up art movement. In my view the latter, but I'm interested in what others make of it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response : Good question. I am inclined to believe the former. Came across an article from what I think could be considered third party: http://www.hatcityentertainment.com/ (Scroll down to where it says "Art Is Massive") a piece about co-founder artist Michael Morris. The difference here is that it comes from a more provincial source, as opposed to say a more mainstream site that the art world recognizes and respects. But then again do not provincial sources count? I'm only playing devil's advocate here. One could argue that the mainstream art world has its own Illuminati of a small select number of people who control who gets written about, who gets exhibited, which artists sells, etc. They are all connected to each other, and they all have their own agendas and method of 'hyping' people and projects. And if artists are not in with the "right bunch of fellows" in the mainstream art world, they're contribution goes unnoticed. In further looking I came across this [13] From Entertainment Wire in Miami - a Theater production that was described as massurrealism. --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I tend to agree with JFire, re: notability. The term eleicits 4400 Google hits. Most are not self-promotional. The article can be made worthwhile with some more sourcing/attribution.Bjones (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is considered worthy enough as notable, massurrealism being listed here: http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Art_History/Periods_and_Movements/ This is not something that anyone can simply either place or request with Yahoo. --TheNightRyder (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not know what the process is by which an article, or a category of articles, gets listed on the Yahoo directory, but, as far as I am aware, that is not sufficient, in Wikipedia's terms, to prove notability. The point is, as i said above, that Wikipedia follows, we do not lead; what I mean by that is that we have articles on topics the notability of which has already been proven by substantial coverage in reputable venues. No one has indicated anything here, that I have seen, that proves that for Massurrealism. Look at the three articles that are listed on the Yahoo directory, two of which are self-promotional and one is a Geocities fansite. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you have either located and reviewed the five sources listed as references in the article and determined that they do not constitute substantial coverage, or are familiar with the sources and know that they are not reliable? Or are you presuming these things? Jfire (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is none of us have seen these references (and I'm sure we've all looked). For all we know they could fully substantiate a claim to notability. Or, they could just be, well, made up. The cleanup to the article has improved it and it looks much less promotional. In its present state it looks fairly harmless, and might not have even been put up for AfD. But since it is here we have to apply some rigour. Given that in its former state it did look promotional, added to fact that no other reliable sources can be found, we have to assume that the movement is non-notable until some evidence can be presented to the contrary.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to be made up. This looks like it could be one of them. This shows that another exists (though the text is apparently not available online). Here's another. Jfire (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question, then, would be: who publishes these magazines? Are the magazines themselves notable or are they little more than 'zines? Who is responsible for the website to which you linked? What is the importance or notability of the person or persons responsible? I have never heard of either of those magazines before, and I am fairly familiar with contemporary art and literature. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : For the discussion, apparently an orthographic variant of massurrealism, spelled with only one "r" (e.g. massurealism) also produces other fan sites, online communities or discussions about massurrealism : [14]--TheNightRyder (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are (at present) five independent references, three of which have the term in their title. Unless it can be shown that at least 4 of those publications are not independent of the artists who are considered Massurealists, notability is proven. Argyriou (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been entirely rewritten. I've rewritten the article entirely with new sources, so anyone voicing an opinion above needs to have another look to confirm or change their position, which is about the earlier version of the article. I haven't used the references previously given, but they seem credible and if anyone can get hold of the texts, they would be a valuable addition. Ty 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite as in statement above. Ty 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent rewrite work above. - Modernist (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say this is the best version of the article to date, including good additional references on Ty´s efforts. --LAgurl (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Massurrealism" exists like Cecil Touchons book Happy Shopping: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for isbn:0615182445" (WorldCat). This website catalog is the main source: [15] so forget about it. --Switch-to (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, despite its revamp, is still borderline delete. The references to it being an actual encyclopedic "thing" are some very thin unreliable sources, including a directory entry and an eBay reference. To much "people who are the subject defining themselves" and not enough "reliable experts defining the subject". This article is much stronger as a description of a neologism, and seems to be close having the required references as such. It may even be there, but hard for me to say since I can't read foreign language references. All and all this probably should be in Wikipedia since I, for one, would like to know what it is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The directory entry is compiled by the University of Oxford and Manchester Metropolitan University. The "self definition" is a speech made at, and published by, Saint Petersburg State University. Ty 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though the rewrite by Ty has certainly improved it, this remains an article about a neologism used by "people who are the subject defining themselves," as Bryn Mawr put it. As such, I would argue it still qualifies for deletion as a nonnotable neologism for a nonnotable so-called "art movement." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be said of most art movements. The question is, can anybody else be interested enough to write about them (or buy them). Narrowly, I think the answer here is yes (as does FoBM it seems). Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In further digging I came across another web source from a university, located here: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/preparing/guides/chapter10/cjohnson_arts.xls University of Tennessee, Knoxville, it is a .xls file, but an html version exists here: [16] go up a few levels in the URL and it appears what I presume to be the source homepage: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/ --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: At first, this looks like Wikipedia in a self-installed mouse trap. As long as there is little control on edits and deletes, it may be free, but no encyclopedia - for it is technically innocent, and only hopefully controlled by the mass of contributors, administrators, etc. - In this special case, we probable face freedom, claimed by an artist (or a group) and powered by Wikipedia. One of my teachers used to categorise things like this (already in the 1960s) to be ungehörig (that means, in-obedient as well as impossible to be owned by someone); he even mounted an exhibition of smells, in these days. - All in all, one could state that art concepts now include the facilities of Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no reason to exclude them (unless Wikipedia redefines its standards). It's Neo-Dada, okay, let's see what happens. rpd (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun: An art movement with one artist. Who are James Seehafer, Alan King and Melanie Marie Kreuzhof? The "key figure among the Massurrealists" (Wikipedia), Cecil Touchon, "co-founded the International Post-Dogmatist Group (IPDG)". Never heard of, but their website links to "MASSURREALIST.COM" and "MASSURREALISM.COM". Tried to find Touchons "book" (Wikipedia) Happy Shopping - Massurrealist Spam Poetry. The result: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for 'isbn:0615182445'" (WorldCat). --89-dot-247 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 89-dot-247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's 5th edit. -- Ty 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Tyrenius' rewrite. It is weak as this appears to be a small thing, but it is (just) big enough to be notable I think. --John (talk) 04:45, 12 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. Black Kite 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Gracie[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film. No third party coverage or reliable sources could be found with a series of google searches. Dgf32 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No statement of notability. Was it ever shown? Tempshill (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 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. faithless (^speak) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrimBB[edit]

One bit of RS coverage is talking about a way to exploit the software. Ghits are forums, howtos, and other non-reliable sources. No evidence of notability. Creator is an SPA with a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per nom. Not able to establish notability through solid independent sources. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:47, 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 can be recreated if reliable sources found. --Salix alba (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onepoint project[edit]

WP:Notability Does not establish clear notability with independent sources (current sources are download sites & the like. Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A project management tool, references given appear to be blogs and similar sites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per nom. Fails to meet notability guidelines. Dgf32 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, or not as yet anyway. Author remains free to re-create it in future once/if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 09:38, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taskbar clock replacements[edit]

Delete Aside from advertising these ~~two~~ five very non-notable pieces of software, what does this article do? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, basically made to advertise software mentioned. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Not encyclopedic. Qwfp (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. --Explodicle (talk) 21:51, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veckefjärdens Golf Club[edit]

Non notable golf course. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A question for golfers: What would be the best reliable source (perhaps a print-only source) to find information about a Swedish golf course? You might find enough information there to save this article. --Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The golf course itself might be non notable, but I created the article because it might be of general interest anyway because of its ownership, since it was started by and is owned by ice hockey superstar Peter Forsberg. But I don't know however if that is a valid reason though, so it's all up to you more experienced Wikipedians to decide what to do with the article. Petey21 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr Forsberg's golf course doesn't inherit his notability. It could be mentioned in his article. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in order to meet WP:ORG either there need to be reasonable secondary sources or another claim to notability, for example the scene of a major golf event. Neither, is presently the case. BlueValour (talk) 03:23, 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 all. Maxim_(talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nrpn[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Financial Times group.
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails to meet notability guidelines. Also appears to be self-promotion/spam. Possible COI exists as well. Dgf32 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, advert, and keep an eye on that IP address range. Tempshill (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist separately. Just because these publications have the same publisher it doesn't mean that they should stand or fall together. The decision on deletion should be based on whether each particular one is notable, not on the imagined motives of the articles' creators. For the moment I have added a book and a newspaper source for Pensions week, which can be seen to be notable by the fact that it is frequently quoted by major newspapers and broadcasters. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. BWH76 (talk) 18:14, 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. I am posting the additional sources noted here to the article's talk page, and I leave it to the editors involved there to add them to the article as appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40 Days For Life[edit]

Article about a local pro-life group, unsourced, no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SOAPBOX; cites no secondary sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is about a national pro-life group who is being mentioned in news coverage (Sacramento Bee, The Guardian) and has up coming protests. Though it does stand to be expanded and could be better sourced. - Schrandit (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced shameless promotion. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:19, 28 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had press coverage in the The Guardian, ~~AP, and Reuters [17].~~ This appears to be a large national organization, not a local organization. While there is significant coverage in mainstream publications, there is even more coverage in major religious publications such as The National Catholic Register [18] and Zenit [19]. Dgf32 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; that is not press coverage! It's an automatically-printed press release issued by the group itself. I don't see any third party reliable sources anywhere in this article. Tempshill (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing that out. The Reuters article was a press release. However, there still exists third party coverage in The Guardian, Sacramento Bee, and a large volume of coverage in the religious media including the National Catholic Register, Zenit, and many other publications. I still think we should Keep this article. Dgf32 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and http://www.sacbee.com/city/story/452835.html looks perfectly fine. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Bee definitely is a reliable and third-party source, and I can't imagine why the Catholic matter should be discounted simply because they're also pro-life. If all are counted, this fulfills the notability criteria of multiple reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in the Sacramento Bee, The Guardian, and the National Catholic Register. --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business press[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; if someone can come up with a worthwhile article, let them write it. The present version is just a list, better served by a category. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 18:16, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incisive Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Incisive Media. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewrite though. Over 92 Financial Times hits [20] Computerjoe 's talk 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable company, enough sources are available. Article needs to be rewritten though. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability, 1,110,000 ghits. Clearly in need of expansion and assertion of notability. Billscottbob (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done SEO is now a measure of WP:NOTABILITY ?--Hu12 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Apax Partners. There's not much actual content here, so a merge or redirect to the parent company seems to be the right editorial course. If someone adds enough verifiable content justifying a separate article, it can always be spun out later.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 12 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; editors can improve and/ or merge through continued discussion elsewhere. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Happy to be Fat[edit]

There are about 140 episodes of the show True Life shown on MTV, which started in 1998. They're all listed on the show's page - not very pretty, but still listed. Yet there's only four episodes (three from which are the new season) that have pages about them. The main one I've listed has almost nothing in the article; the other four have good summaries but don't need pages in my opinion as about 135 pages of equal value do not. If the episodes do have pages, I say it be something like List of Supernatural episodes where each episode has a tiny summary but not a whole page where it's just a small article and wasting space. Plus there were no real references on the pages. EDIT: Only one to have references is the one that is two sentences long; the other three have none or have external links.

I also am nominating for the same reasoning:

I Don't Fit In

I'm Dead Broke

I'm Looking for my Father

Comment No real references? There are four references on I'm Happy to be Fat. Two of them are city newspapers. How is that not a real reference? Morhange (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only page to have references is the one that has two sentences. Sorry, should've made that clear. I just find it ridiculous that an article has more references than sentences. -Babylon pride (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would make sense to divide these up by seasons, not delete them. We need some way of discussing these is a more rational fashion than proposing them for deletion one at a time. DGG (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy to be fat: very well sourced for a stub. no clue on the other three. Agree with DGG that a season-based approach is the right one here, but that's not for AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into True Life so that the sourced sentence can live on. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:18, 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 with no prejudice against merging. I'll restore history to a subpage if an editor would like to merge. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Csf creative writing[edit]

No indication that this college course/department is independently notable. While WP:PROBLEMS with articles are not grounds for deletion, this article carries a promotional tone, which casts doubt on the authors intentions. скоморохъ 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that sufficient independent third-party sources exist to allow for a verifiable, neutral article without the use of original research or self published sources. --Allen3 ^talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree completely with Allen3. Paste (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organized and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, only one external source. fails WP:N. Filled with original research. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Merge into College of Santa Fe. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into College of Santa Fe. Information like major student publications are appropriate for the main page. The main article is quite small, I see no need for this split without inpependent sources establishing notability. -Verdatum (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Allen3. BWH76 (talk) 18:12, 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 as not being sufficiently notable and lacking any objective sources for the biography of a living person. Note that there is some evidence that this was an autobiography, which was created and edited in violation of said policy. Subject to re-creation at a later time, when an independent editor may find better sources, or the subject becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Fanning[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author in question, I feel this page satisfies your criteria. With my second novel due out at the start of next year, I'd imagine I could warrant an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Escol (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to know exactly why this is being deleted, if anyone could explain this to me, I'd be grateful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escol (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 March 2008

Esco, the primary arguments regarding the deletion of the article is that it does not pass the criteria set out on the pages these two links lead to: Wikipedia:Biographies, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may use links to multiple independent reliable sources to confirm the content of the article and its adhesion to our biography guidelines.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Autobiography before you continue. While you are welcome to argue your case, it needs to be done in an objective fashion or others might consider you bias due to the fact that you are the author in question. While we do take into account the possibility of conflict of interest, we also take effort to consider any arguments presented. I hope that helps, I have delayed the closing of this debate until more discussion can happen. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _(1 == 2)^Until 17:48, 12 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Monster[edit]

The subject does not meed our notability guideline. A quick search showed no sources independent of the subject. WODUP 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Search for the Next Elvira.--TBC !?! 03:32, 27 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability has not been established, and I highly doubt that the subject is notable. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:38, 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. - Philippe | Talk 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent A. Stanton[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Puff piece, previously comprised almost wholly of copyrighted text. Pluswhich (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete without any real notability connections (referenced gigs are redlinks). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:43, 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 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of quackery works[edit]

This is not a "list", it's just a jibe against one book (namedropping one other) which uses a forum masquerading as a book review to further the author's POV. I'd definitely be open to any improvements to this article, but in its current state, this article should be deleted and rewritten properly. Also, if it is rewritten, it should be done without use of the word "quackery" as an objective description, since this is a derogatory term we should not be using as such in an encyclopedia. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - a pathetic unreliably sourced POV coatrack. Always possibility for recreation as a well sourced verifiable list. EJF (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Qwfp (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just Speedy this? Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't think of a criterion it falls under. There's isn't one for "blatant coatracks", unfortunately. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. The lack of even a hint at secondary sources, as well as the edit summary it was created under (For the sake of non-fraudulent science), makes all of the above pretty obvious. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:44, 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 redirect. they're cheap, anyway. - Philippe | Talk 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N the Red[edit]

High School student newspaper. Simply not notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have done that myself except, IMHO, it really does not meet any of the speedy criteria. I tried to PROD it, but was immediately reverted by the author, which I pretty much expected. It's a good faith attempt at an article on the student paper. It's simply not notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just merge it into Fishers High School. Or delete it. — Scientizzle 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am redirecting it right now. I would have anyway. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:20, 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 no consensus to delete; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni (slang)[edit]

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this article can expand beyond a dictionary definition. -Verdatum (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though still short, this article has already been expanded beyond a dictionary definition. The history and popular usage is explained, as well as what area the term comes from.Hellno2 (talk) 00:12, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Granny[edit]

Non-notable direct to video/DVD horror movie. Google search generates an IMDB listing but nothing more. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged notability concerns on January 11. The article has been edited since then, but though the tag was removed, notability concerns were not addressed. I have myself been unable to locate enough to verify that this film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) although I did find that in 1995 EW called it "one of the finer pieces of trash to come along in some time" That's the only reliable source I could find, although I did run into a few blog reviews. It is also occasionally mentioned in directory style in biographies of actress Stella Stevens. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:57, 12 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Kompolt[edit]

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. ~600 Google hits, none of the top ones appearing to be major independent coverage. Fightindaman (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Dee, A-7 does not source anything that indicates notability; notability context also appears dim. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, so tagged by apparent consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:52, 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 - Philippe | Talk 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabiu Ibrahim[edit]

Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. Was originally prodded, but was removed by IP without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails accepted notability standard. English peasant 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 13:09, 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 - Philippe | Talk 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Abdulkareem Fartusi[edit]

Subject of article, while unfortunately recently deceased, is a casualty of a bombing which already has its own article - 2008 Balad bombing. Article does not establish that the subject has any notability beyond being a victim of that incident. Wikipedia is also not a memorial. Ozgod (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several journalists that died during conflict have articles. Died in a notable bombing. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case they should be listed within the article which covers the event that they died in. Much like the Virginia Tech massacre where most of the biographies of the victims are kept within the article - unless they were notable for something they did within the scope of that event that made them notable. --Ozgod (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a notable cameraman for a Shiite TV station. We have articles on almost all cameramen at American TV stations. Plus, he was the first journalist killed this year in Iraq. Deleting this ould prove how much systemic bias Wikipedia has. Editor of the wiki 09:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Just try to expand on info about his life/career ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:35, 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. A one-line mention in the parent radio station article would be enough. This should've been PRODded, to be honest. Black Kite 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Review[edit]

Non-notable subject matter. ukexpat (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red River Radio has an entry and Soul Review is a show that is featured on Red River Radio, therefore, it deserves an entry as well, thus should not be deleted. Ericejenkins (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete A one month old show needs a LOT of buzz to be notable. At best this is a short paragraph in the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 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 Speedy Delete - Philippe | Talk 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insiders' Guides[edit]

Non-notable website. I cannot find any significant mentions anywhere, and there are under twenty google hits (even including several from youtube). The references in the article (as of now) are mere 'placements', such as 'Award for best album, sponsored by Insiders' Guides', and a blog (which doesn't appear to contain any mention of the website). Orphan; contested prod; tagged for notability since September 2007. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:WEB criteria. No news/Media coverage, and Google comes up with Myspace, Aol, and the website itself. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 07:19, 28 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete pure self-promotion of a non-notable web site. I put a WP:SPEEDY tag on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartGuy (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit - I did notice at first that this article has been around for awhile, so I removed the speedy tag. It should still be zapped, though, as it appears from the discussion page and the original author's user page that the article has been prodded at least once, and the original author has been asked in the past to clean up the article. Zap it, baby. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:43, 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:SNOW --JForget 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 55[edit]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a news source. Event is a minor occurence in aviation. This article fails to meet notability. In addition the article is an orphan Trashbag (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an aviation incident database. The events are not significant and happen too frequently for there to be any encyclopedic purpose in highlighting some that make the media. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a news service. I can not see why there would be any lasting significance of this event. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just about a flight number with a collection of things that happened on one occasion or another. It would set a bad precedent to keep this, since we could have articles on every scheduled flight with a log of incidents (tire blew, bomb threat, unruly passenger, dirty restroom, bumpy ride, diverted to another airport.) Edison (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; too trivial an incident for encylopedic inclusion. --MCB (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But I'll wait for the next flight, since this one appears to be jinxed. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Stuff happens TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, just another bad day at the office nothing unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the incidents mentioned were serious enough for any non-trivial mention in any kind of reliable source. Major airliner incidents are of course worth writing an article about, but not stuff like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very serious incidents which imperiled the survival of the aircraft, such as Air Transat 236 running out of fuel in midair are notable, as are some events which gained unusual levels of interest (e.g. JetBlue 292). However, the incidents listed here are routine snags, handled routinely without any drama, and presented little danger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentialy those hydraulic problems are interesting, but interest does not equal notability. Will rethink if the FAA changes regulations or grunds aircraft something comparable due to this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:14, 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 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion A. Marshall[edit]

Procedural nomination; prodded and deprodded twice now. Prod concern was that he is an "air force pilot and POW with nothing to distinguish him from any other air force pilot and POW". Some discussion of notability on talk page; I am neutral. Jfire (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case that cuts right to the center of the issue of notability. What is lacking is the sense that the outside world thinks of this guy as having some personal importance. The LOC cite seems to be predicated on him being a typical example of a class, not a individual remarkable in his own right. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this needs more than just an accumulation of highly honorable medals. Our precedent is that for the US, only in the case of the Congressional Medal of Honor alone is it considered reasonably certain to be notable. otherwise significant press coverage must be demonstrated, and it hasn't been here. DGG (talk) 16:32, 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 Speedy Keep. Notable footballer, article has strong sources/references. Tiptoety ^talk 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waldir Guerra[edit]

Retired soccer player with no assertion of notability. —BradV 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a national team player is a claim to notability, but since we are here I'd like to see that claim backed up by sources. Player had no entry at National Football Teams. Punkmorten (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Expand -He is listed here [21] as a player on the El Salvador team in the CONCACAF Gold Cup qualifying tournament played under the auspices of UNCAF. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He played at the highest level (for El Salvador national football team in the CONCACAF Gold Cup qualifiers - similar to Euro qualifiers) and was notable as joint top scorer of the Salvadorean top flight in 1999 ([22]). Jogurney (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has full international caps for El Salvador. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now asserts notability. GiantSnowman (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international footballer = automatically notable. matt91486 (talk) 00:23, 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, nominator changed !vote to keep and ~~no deletes~~ sources added. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alenty[edit]

no notability per WP:Notability

The article besides having references to a few blogs does not establish notability per WP:Notability guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't look notable here is a company with a demo for a web audience measurement tool, so delete unless the currently cited blogs are backed up by reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company gets plenty of hits (especially in France) and probably is notable - article will be a sure keep if it provides verification references.--VS ^talk 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy I would say keep if WP:v can be established. I tried Googling for secondary references like news paper articles but could not find any in English. Mayabe there asome in French. I do not know if they could be used? I have found reference to venture capitalist funding for the company in this blog article Also I recommend that the author declares any association with the company as to avoid WP:COI issues. And to be extermly careful when editng this article and any other articles in the related field, if such relationship exists. Igor Berger (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliantly funny set of requests coming from you Igor - thank you that'll make a lot of people have a good chuckle. I also wonder if you should be voting twice (given that you lodged the request for deletion and not just as a procedural request.--VS ^talk 22:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please count my vote as one. After I nominated the article for deletion I found additional information on it that I thought would be useful with respect to the article's case. Igor Berger (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can change Delete and Userfy to Userfy being that I nominated the article for deletion and that was my vote that has not changed. Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP. Notable especially in France. --Veritas (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per CORP it must be notable per secondary Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Has this notability been established? Did you find a source in French language? Igor Berger (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CORP. I like to change my vote because it seems notability has been established. Although in French, it is still notable per Wikipedia. an award from industry source. The article will need some help for wikifying because the editor is still not aware of all the wiki syntax. Igor Berger (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to change to keep as the nominator then a withdrawal of this AfD is probably a fairer process.--VS ^talk 20:07, 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 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Murphy, Jr. (2nd nomination)[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was Delete. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo wars 2[edit]

Unverifiable claims and original research; "Original halo wars" section was copied and pasted from Halo Wars. The first Halo Wars hasn't even been released yet and it talks about Halo Wars 3. Belinrahs (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL --Pmedema (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism-- creator has been indef blocked. Dloh cierekim 06:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't science and technology. Please move to some more suitable category. Thanks, Qwfp (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok im sorry i just wanted to get peoples hopes up (falce hope, sure) lol though, right? is that how you spell false?

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

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

The result was delete all - Philippe | Talk 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aporia Society[edit]

non-notable per WP:MUSIC; part of a group of article intended to promote a single artist - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles included in this AFD:

Kelvin Tan (Artist) (and the redirect Kelvin Tan), and his songs:

The Nethe(r);R - nn book

None of these claim any notability whatsoever, and none can be found. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't done any research on these articles so I'm not voting but Bound for Nowhere should probably be included as well. Fightindaman (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I guess he's creating them as I'm nominating them. Thanks for the catch. I've added it to the list above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:20, March 4, 2008
Delete, all appear to fail WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:38, 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 - Philippe | Talk 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen McKeever[edit]

Multiple problems here, for one it is very likely an autobiography, thus the npov, verifiability, and conflict of interest are present. It asserts notability, thus can't be speedy deleted under section A7. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to back up the barely asserted notability. --JD554 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear conflict of interest, and no coverage in reliable sources to verify the bulk of this material. Can anyone ascertain if he has competed in a professional championship? If not, then he fails WP:BIO anyway. PC78 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - COI is grounds for cleanup (and this article needs a big cleanup for NPOV) - not for deletion. I find references that he has performed at the highest levels of Irish motorcycle racing. I don't expect to find a lot of refs because Ireland is relatively small and motorcycle racing is not nearly as popular as other sports. Combine the two and you have a small niche but still I think he satisfies WP:Athlete. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is nothing in the article which says he is a professional rider, so that's out. Is racing Aprilia 125s in clubman championships the highest amateur level available in Ireland? If not, then he fails WP:Athlete. --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, the subject asserts (at the Help desk (see below) that he is a professional and that he has been racing at a national level in Ireland. If those statements can be verified then are we okay for notability per WP:Athlete? And then we're okay for Keep with NPOV cleanup, aren't we? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, if it can be verified I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. WP:ATHLETE simply needs 1 race at a professional level - a bit of a joke, but that's another argument ;-) --JD554 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not very bothered by the self-confessed conflict of interest since the article seems not to inflate the chap's achievements. The problem is he clearly has not achieved much so far, which is not to say that he will not do so. Looking at the redlinks on the List of Grand Prix cyclists, I think I would suggest he concentrates on making them into blue links, learning about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment at the help desk detailing the WP:COI issues here may be considered relevant or not. Pedro : Chat 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see references that back up that claim of being a professional in the article itself. --JD554 (talk) 14:43, 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 Speedily Deleted. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JobsBroadway.com[edit]

previously tagged for speedy as a non notable website. AfD may be the more prudent way to go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was the speedy nominator: I saw this as an article on a non-notable company being written by one of its founders, and failing WP:COMPANY. I don't know why speedy deletion is inferior to AfD in this respect meaning I may have misinterpreted a CSD guideline, and so will await comments before !voting - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CSD was removed (out of process) by the creator of the article, but with foreign sites for witch there are a lot of google hits (though none seem to be to independent, reliable sources), I prefer to be on the safe side, trying to avoid systematic bias. Someone from the area may come up with some good refs. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-Notable, etc. Speedy delete should have been fine I would have thought. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per my reasoning above - Fritzpoll (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability meets A7 criteria at WP:SPEEDY --JD554 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/web. No assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obviouse speedy... no thought involved. ~~Retagged as such~~ Re-tag removed by User:Phil Bridger saying "has an indication of importance/significance so we should let the AfD run its course"--Pmedema (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:SNOWBALL? --JD554 (talk) 16:30, 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 keep. John254 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation and its Discontents[edit]

Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. No indication of notability and no sign that the book is notable GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references which show that the book meets criteria #1 of WP:BK. --JD554 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Book is notable and meets WP:BK, per JD554. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — was reviewed in The Economist, Scientific American, Newsweek, The New York Times, as well as by many scholarly publications. It is also assigned reading at a number of universities. As such easily and obviously meets notability requirements #1 and #4 at WP:BK. --Fastfission (talk) 16:14, 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 Speedy delete per author request. _GB^T/C 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound (software developer)[edit]

Insufficient secondary coverage; fails WP:N. One notable game, but notability is not inherited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; prod should have stood. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless the nominator can name a policy this article fails. --Pixelface (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This company developed the PC games Desperados: Wanted Dead or Alive, Robin Hood: The Legend of Sherwood, Chicago 1930, Desperados 2: Cooper's Revenge, and they're currently developing Gothic 4. They've also developed 3 games for the Game Boy Color: TOCA Touring Car Championship, Dukes of Hazzard: Racing for Home, and Colin McRae Rally. [23] --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response - No such information is in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Terris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD)

Prod contested because WP:N is "not a policy". No independent coverage; fails WP:WEB, WP:RPG/N, WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; loved the fact that this was written-up in his diary; the ultimate self-published source. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever the reason may be for contesting the prod, there seem to be no independent coverage, failing WP:N Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pixelface said "removed prod template, WP:N is not a policy" diff. See also Percy's link: "not a policy". Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. WP:N is not a policy and the nominator does not specify which policy this article violates. --Pixelface (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite WP:N being "merely" a guideline, failure to satisfy it is indeed a valid reason for deletion. Please see WP:DEL#REASON. Jfire (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/nn-web. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Non-notable MUD. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable: notability not established through reliable sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:05, 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 and end the madness before someone gets hurt. I realize this debate has not matured to its full 5 days, but 3.5 more days of this will lead to the inevitable deletion as this subject qualifies as a Speedy A7 (bio) anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hobson-Dupont[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable author. Few Ghits. Books seem largely self published. Xdenizen (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great write-up. Top notch author who has long deserved credit for his honest and insightful narratives. Couldn't put down his last book and wouldn't be surprised if it finds mainstream appeal with the right packaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.143.85 (talk • contribs) — 76.179.143.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User also blanked this AfD

As a young sailor growing up on Nantucket Island, I was fortunate to know Jack Hobson-Dupont. His book, The Piloting Workbook: 3,500 Exercises in Coastwise Navigation: A Practical Course of Study and Review for Both Beginners and Experienced Navigators, encouraged me to find success in racing 420 sailboats and later working as the Head Adult Sailing Instructor for Nantucket Community Sailing during the summers of 2005 and 2006. With personal instruction from Jack Hobson-Dupont, I have furthered my knowledge in sailing and recently was awarded a 50-ton Master's license with a Towing Endorsement from the United States Coast Guard, making me a Merchant Marine Officer. I am thankful to his teachings and base my financial success around my trust in the knowledge learned from him. Captainconnor (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC) — Captainconnor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jack Hobson Dupont's The Benzo Book changed my life and the lives of many others as can be seen on the website www.thebenzobook.com. The guestbook on this sight offers just a small sample of the people who this book has touched. Although I realize the original wikipedia entry was lacking in information, I am a connoisseur of books on Nantucket. I knew several Nantucket-related books had featured chapters devoted to Hobson-Dupont and his status as one of Nantucket's most noteable authors. Looking through my library this morning, I was able to find the chapters pertaining to Hobson-Dupont in both Nancy Newhouse's We Are Nantucket: Oral Histories of Life on Nantucket Island and Jean Berrouet's Here's to Nantucket. These books offer some important biographical information on Jack's life and offer informative quotes from interviews with the author himself. These sources enabled me to flesh-out the Wikipedia article and I now believe the article serves as a significant addition to Wikipedia.--Biggytre (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) — Biggytre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Does anyone have any further reccomendations for improving the page? I think it looks good right now. Solid summary of Hobson-Dupont's early life, writing career, and current status. The references look good. The two book's that have featured chapter's on Hobson-Dupont and his work help add substance to the Wikipedia page.--Biggytre (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been addicted to benzos and tranquilizers at one point myself, Hobson's book and personal discussions I have had with the man spearheaded my quest to get clean. I can attest to the validity of his publications and the hope of getting his message to other people. The more people exposed to Hoboson's publications the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshepp (talk • contribs) — Bshepp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin: 76.179.143.85 (talk · contribs), Captainconnor (talk · contribs), Biggytre (talk · contribs) and Bshepp (talk · contribs) would all appear to be the same person. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The users listed above are not the same person. I had informed several individuals whom I had met online through our appreciation of Hobson-Dupont's work and informed that I had created a wikipedia page for the author. I was hoping they would give me some positive feedback + provide any additional information they found relevant. I did not intend for them to post positive messages supporting Jack's work in this thread. I think this is simply a case of them misunderstanding the purpose of the thread. I am well aware this forum is not decided by majority vote. --Biggytre (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is still regarded as sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. All accounts mentioned above have been blocked indefinitely and the article creator has received a 1 week block.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I can't find anything about this guy that isn't either him pushing his books are prob. naive medical websites uncritically passing it along. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magoe, the entire point of Wikipedia is too use sources to back up your argument. If you "can't find anything about this guy" then you probably haven't read either the book by Newhouse or the book by Berrouet (listed in the references section of the Hobson-Dupont article), both of which dedicate a chapter to Hobson-Dupont. What are these so called sites you speak of that are "naive medical websites?

Actually, Mr. H-D, I have checked every reference in the article to the degree possible on-line. We Are Nantucket, ostensibly a collection of oral histories, is obviously not sufficient to establish the kind of notability needed; also, this article claims that it is self-published. The Piloting Workbook is real, but given that I get a single page of hits, it didn't make much of a splash. Referencing your own book website obviously gets us nowhere. The next tow links (by my count) are a service directory and a list of real estate transactions. The Kerry Hallam website also doesn't get us anywhere. The last ref doesn't seem to prove what it's claimed to; indeed, it doesn't seem to be a reference at all. So what we've got here is a lot of nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a great deal of energy, but no notability.DGG (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save Tranquilizer addiction clearly doesn't receive the same press as say cocaine or heroin addiction, but has more potential for affecting a much greater segment of the population, and is clearly no laughing matter. While it is true that Jack Hobson-Dupont isn't an established research scientist, his writing does have potential to help those, as it has helped my sister, sharing addiction issues similar to his. This Wikipedia article is useful in that it helps parties interested Jack's book to learn more about the author. (deleted) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)— 24.241.23.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete non-notable according to what is in the article coupled with some research of my own. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published author who does not meet WP:BIO --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wholly non-notable. This AfD is infested with socks. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a non-notable author. I think I may be finally able to find my missing socks from my laundry here too. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:11, 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 23:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Santoro[edit]

Delete or get citations. See WP:BIO. I had previously asked for citations to be placed i article, but the writer ignored the request. It reads like an campaign ad. I am someone that hates AFD's and believe most bio's should be allowed to remain, but since there are no references after being asked to provide some, I decided to nominate for AFD. Callelinea (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with citations this does not qualify under wp:bio#politicians, the sole notability this article asserts is the fact that he is running for office. The criteria for political inclusion are very liberal, but do state that the subject must have held office barring any other qualifications under wp:bio. I quote:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone."

No assertations of notability, no article. Mstuczynski (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clause you quote does not mean that it is impossible to be notable by reason only of a run for office (several of us are of the view that major party nominees for gubernatorial office, for example, are almost always notable), just that, unlike for people holding national elected office (for example), unsuccessful candidates are not inherently notable - as always, WP:N is the deciding factor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the major party candidate would generally qualify under general WP:BIO criteria even if he does not under WP:BIO#POLITICIANS. Mitt Romney when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts being a perfect example for his notability with the Salt Lake City Olympics. My initial statement mentioned that the sole claim of notability in this article would fall under politicians. My final statement indicated that this article makes no assertion of general notability and I stand by both. Mstuczynski (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I agree with you about this article. It's just that there are many editors who see "unelected candidate" and automatically assume non-notable when, as you acknowledge, it's substantially more nuanced than that. I wanted to make sure that you weren't one of these. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. Thank you. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, candidate with no apparent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of inherent notability (per WP:BIO) and lack of evidence of significant coverage in reliable third party sources (per WP:N). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 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 --JForget 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"spy incident"[edit]

Not notable enough for own article. Include in Oklahoma Sooners football if notable enough for that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in Oklahoma Sooners football. The added information is not verified. If it could be verified, I'd say to expand (a little) on the portion that is in Oklahoma Sooners football. --Pmedema (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, best covered in general article on the team or the season. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient for own article, covered already in Oklahoma Sooners football. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 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 keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harlow's Casino Resort[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harlow's Casino Resort

Delete and Salt - Commercial entry, Not notworthy and reads like a marketing flyer Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, I'm very consensus based and therefore don't have a vote on this one. And since IMHO I really don't like the article in the first place, I'm fine with it getting deleted. So count my vote as delete if it comes down to it. Anyways: *bops User:Pfrancois for saying Chet wrote it like a "marketing flyer"* :P. Chetblong^{T C} 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I have changed my vote to keep based on this, the person who nominated this for deletion was doing it out of vengeance that I had deleted an article they created. --Chetblong^{T C} 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it reads like a flyer. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most casinos are notable. Being a poorly written article is not a reason to delete. I did some minor cleanup and tagged it for the advertising tone. We some additional cleanup and better sources there would be no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eshu (World of Darkness)[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable character creation option; fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Great Original Research, though: They embody the spirit of adventure, wandering the world in search of excitement. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty much a straight out copy from the text of Changeling the Dreaming. Concern about Copyvio, possible. OR? Not so much. 68.101.17.108 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Changeling: The Dreaming or a related article if reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I like Changeling (seeing as I started the article) it really isn't necessary as far as Wikipedia standards go. Deafgeek (talk) 03:50, 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, non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elbow Room[edit]

I can't find any reliable, third-party sources that address this venue. It has a history, but is it truly notable on its own? If so feel free to correct me. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can tell, the notability standard for nightclubs is existence. In that wise, this place is notable, as it is certainly easy to show it exists. Googling also shows its fifteen minutes of notoriety in that it was the venue for an infamous attack four years ago. If it were up to me, I would say "delete", but it's obvious from reviewing the categories that my standards are stricter than would be accepted. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This title may need a disambiguation page. There are other places of the same name that are also notable. The Elbow Room in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for example, has multiple sources referencing it. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael J Swassing - likewise, there's a well-known club in Albany, New York off of Lark Street with the same name. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 12 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 02:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (political activist)[edit]

This is a hoax. No such person exists. Tryde (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, he definitely exists [24] [25]. These articles are from 2001, though, since when he appears to have disappeared from the scene. I suspect the only reaons he's even quoted in those reliable sources is the novelty of being a 16-year-old political activist. I have moved the article to a more neutral title - I see no evidence of a Knighthood and there's no direct sourcing, externally or through wikilinks, for the "Baronet" either at the moment. Black Kite 12:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been going through the article deleting everything that was unsourced, most of which is palpable nonsense. There are a few references which survived the cull, but they don't pass the multiple references in independent reliable sources test. He is simply not notable except for his talent for publicity and lack of political nouse. I strongly suspect the article was created and enhanced by the subject. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. An inch away from being a speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed - As per WP:BIO - a bang on the table and the ball would drop into a speedy! --Pmedema (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Kite. It does indeed appear that he exists, but a few one-para mentions in the papers over does not amount to notability per WP:BIO: this kid was a one-minute wonder. I suspect that Kittybrewster is right about the COI, but while the article contained a lot of hoax/vanity material, the core of it is demonstrably not a hoax, so it's not speediable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS there is a redirect to this article from its former name, Sir Matthew Brown, Bt.. I suggest leaving the redirect in place while the AfD is underway, but even if the article is kept, the redirect should be deleted - there is no evidence that he is a baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non notable and fails WP:BIO by the proverbial mile. - Galloglass 16:10, 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. Both sides of the debate raise strong points, which I will discuss briefly. The primary reason cited for Deletion is WP:CRYSTAL, of which the first criteria is relevant to this article: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This is refuted by the noted facts that 1) there are sources, in the form of interviews and independent coverage of the event, that indicate notability, and 2) As confirmed by these sources, the event is almost certain to take place. As there is verifiable information on the project, there is some value in providing that information at this early stage, as noted by Phil Sandifer and others. I caution editors on this article to avoid speculation, and to rely on secondary sources, as it is correctly noted below that an article consisting exclusively of a plot summary for a future storyline would be justifiably deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern: The Blackest Night[edit]

The article lacks: notability, information, and cited sources for what information is there. Most information that like articles support with primary source information cannot be supported that way in this article as the story will not see print for a year and half, at the least. The article is a stub, the creator's protestations not withstanding (see edit summary here, that is crystal balling an unpublished comic book storyline. J Greb (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is crystal balling and, as has been discussed a lot in the Comic Project, DC can often be tricky with some of their previews. I'd suggest the creator sandbox this, it can be updated with anything that emerges (I'd imagine things will go quiet again until closer to the time) and we can return to this entry in a years time when we know this is even a proper project. (Emperor (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The article does not engage in speculation, but instead reports the known facts about this storyline, which there are many of. The "primary source information" argument is both strained (I'm pretty sure there've been a good number of interviews on this by now) and beside the point. And I don't think anybody seriously disputes that this story is something we're going to have an article on when it comes out. In which case having the non-trivial amount of verifiable information about it in an article now seems harmless. The story already exists as an object that is being marketed, and we can discuss it meaningfully. Furthermore, an article founded now will have certain perspectives about the build and marketing that articles written after the fact rarely have in detail - that is, having an article now improves the article later. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments — First a point of clarification regarding the "information from primary sources", generally this is the stuff in the infobox which is based from the actual comic. At the moment three and a half of those items are supported: publisher, writer, scheduled release date (not a publication date until it actually sees print), and half the proposed cast. The other half of the cast is a very, very good assumption, but the rest is an "I think".
  The allusions section, aside from the quote which seems out of place here, covers the teaser sequence from Green Lantern v4 #25. There is no information there about other allusion, potential or otherwise, in Rebirth, Recharged, GL, or GLC as pointed to by Johns, reviewers, or critical discussion of the series.
  The facts section does indeed have cites, 2 of ich correspond to the 2 sentences relevant to the article. The third, and its sentence, is tangential at best.
  Is there an argument that this article is going to be need, yes, when there's the information to warrant it. What's there currently doesn't. If there is more, if there is that good number of interviews, if they provide more than just the same info over and over and over, please, lets see it added. If it is there I'd rather be shown wrong than for us to have a stub encyclopedia article just, as it appears, to have it and reads as "More news as it happens." - J Greb (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, it can be said that the article (as of this writing) does a great job of avoiding speculation. It's a decent placeholder until more details are inevitably revealed over the next couple of months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it could fall into WP:CRYSTAL, the expectation of this comic is notable and verifiable in its self.--Pmedema (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominating an article for deletion a day after it was created and citing lack of sources and that it's a stub is a fool's errand. Articles don't just spring out at FA quality; they have to work to get there. Give it time. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Greb and Emperor. We can reasses it when more information becomes available. But pretty much all that's available about the story right now amounts to "Hey, Geoff Johns has this Green Lantern storyline coming out in 2009!" and nothing more. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Making an entry for something coming in a year doesn't seem so asinine considering the same is done for movies on this site. There's enough to go on in that article for this entry to be active. Cubzrule (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment films tend to have to have a long time in production because they have to finalise the script, get funding, cast. shoot, edit, etc. so you know it is on its way quite a while ahead of time (barring incidents). Even then starting an entry for a film possibly a year and a half away might be frowned on. We have previously discussed this issue in the comics project and given the fact that some companies have floated series as misdirection for other developments it was felt that it'd be unwise to start entries so far in advance - at least until we can be sure this is going to happen. As has been said a deletion now won't prejudice bringing it back when the publicity machine gears up closer to the launch (if there ever is one) but 15 months (at a minimum) is a long time in comics. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - agreed with User:Emperor. DC is noted for last minute editorial/storyline shifts (ala Monarch/Atom/Hawk). A similar argument arose with comprable topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lantern Corps which also resulted in delete. Whereas this current page focuses on the storyline and does a better job of avoid most (not all) of the orginal research/speculation, the primary issue why Black Lantern Corps was deleted, and this page should be to is crystal balling. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think you're having problems distinguishing between speculation and sourced speculation. Black Lantern Corps was rightfully deleted because nobody knows anything about them. But there are sources for this article, and Black Lantern Corps' deletion shouldn't factor into this discussion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note with my lead sentence, my primary objection is that of editorial shifting even after promotional material and interviews have taken place. IGN's article did point to the storyline, but over a year can create difficulties. The Corps are of a related nature and used the same sources the for that article. My recommendation, is that future comic events could be article after the solicitations are released for that event (merely a suggestion). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Any judgment of this story's significance is crystal balling. Not every storyline gets its own article. Doczilla _RAWR! 07:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's going to be more and more information with each issue in Green Lantern and Green Lantern Corps. By starting the article early, it will be a great resource of information when the event finally does roll around with a comprehensive break down of the hints that Johns and Tomasi will undoubtedly be planting. It's also received the Future class rating by WikiProject Comics. --CmdrClow (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Just for clarity, does that mean you see the article as a place speculation about what panels, pages, character actions, and events may feed into the arc should be collected? - J Greb (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO. I see the article as a place to accumulate known facts about the event that are revealed through interviews, issues of GL, statements, etc. --CmdrClow (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Stark facts and quoted, uninterpreted hints from interviews with those with a hand in the story are one thing. Pointing to issues of Green Lantern and/or Green Lantern Corps directly is something else.
    It would be reasonable to cite statements from Johns, and quote him, such as "This or that issues issue sets a lot up", "Pay attention to this sequence", or "Keep tabs on that character." That's nice and clear cut, without any interpretations, conclusions, or deductions being made.
    Pointing to an issue, character, panel, or sequence directly is drawing a conclusion in this case. It is assuming that what is pointed out is a hint or pivotal to a story 15+ months down the road. Implicitly or explicitly positioning an article to include that is crystal balling and sounds like setting up for original research. - J Greb (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that there is so little known about the story (largely because it hasn't been written yet) that what is known can probably just be merged into a Green Lantern article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And an addendum: this edit and this one add nothing but plot summaries of current issues that are not explicitly, either in story or by way of cited comments from secondary source, identified and as moving towards the proported topic of the article. This is speculation at best, at worst it is OR, an editor using a Wikipedia article to present his interpretations of the subject. - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needed to go to the infobox to discover what this was all about. It's a comic book? Right? Poorly presented article. 222.153.71.173 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a writing-based problem than something that requires deletion. And it's fixable. And I fixed it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I can see the arguments in favor of keeping the quotations, as indicated, this company is noted for changing things at the last minute. Would not necessarily object if the quotes were to be merged to some other appropriate location or placed in userspace if someone so desired, though. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that DC cancelling the highly-anticipated sequel to a highly-anticipated story would garner sufficient reaction to become notable. And if they don't cancel it, the story either meets expectations and becomes notable or doesn't meet expectations and becomes notable for being a failure. Either way, it's notable. Of course, that's all speculation - but no more so than speculating that because DC changed one storyline in the past it's going to do it with this one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will most likely be notable, but right now next to nothing is known about the story. There's been a few short remarks by Geoff Johns to the comics press about it, but there's little sustance on which to build an article on, even given it's an upcoming release. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This story is going to need an archive of related information for new readers to keep up with it, and a Wikipedia article would be a great place to go for facts in-story and from the creators themselves. --ComicsPlace (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, but right now very little is known, or even worked out. The story's over a year away, and Geoff Johns has to write all the Green Lantern issues in between first. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Emperor and WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Because WikiProject Comics has rated the article as Future class, and as long as no predictions about what happens within the story make their way into the article, WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't really apply. It's not a prediction since we know it's going to happen. As it stands, the article doesn't violate the policy. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: The "Allusions" section from the 4th paragraph down ("In Green Lantern #28,..." on) is speculation about what plot elements lead into the event. Further, classing the article as "Future" is the most accurate classification available since "Speculation" and "Far future" don't exist. Having the article properly classed is neither an endorsement or condemnation. (And this is coming from the editor that "fixed" the class and is tempted to likewise fix the infobox.) - J Greb (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The allusions are substantiated by the creators. For instance, an allusion is that Atrocitous will have a role in the event because the Red Lanterns will have a role in the event, as confirmed by Johns and Van Sciver. --!CmdrClow (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then they need to be cited back, and pared down to the creators remarks, not just on the stories or drawn conclusions. With the example above, what exactly does Johns and/or van Sciver say? Do they name the character as being important? Or do they just mention the Red Lanterns along with the other 4 new Corps? If it's the character, they, the writer and potential artist, need to be cited on it. If it's the Corps, then that needs to be the sourced statement, with the impetus points for the 6 Corps stated factually with minimal plot. An editor's logic chain about a just published plot element and its impact on a future story, cited to nothing but the just published primary source, is at the very least original research, and does rise to crystal balling. - J Greb (talk) 11:08, 12 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. Perhaps this would be a useful redirect to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), but there's no consensus here, so I leave that to the interested editors.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tejo Mahalya[edit]

Per WP:Fringe, WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE - the P.N. Oak theory can never be effectively supported "in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" - Stephen Knapp isn't a reliable or independent source. It's an interesting idea - but without any academically accepted evidence it must remain a theory. An [RFC] has already been held to determine the weight that the idea should be given on the Taj Mahal article - this, and the Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) article both represent POV forking Joopercoopers (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this is already more than adequately covered in Taj Mahal, P.N. Oak and Taj Mahal: The True Story (book). Paul B (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : --Ne0Freedom 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1. First of all, please inform yourself on what a conspiracy theory is.
2. Second, you conveniently forgot to mention the convincing photos the book is based on.
3. Third, describing the beliefs and opinions of minority as one of many "myths" is NOT "adequately covering" and certainly not NPOV, if any one even cares about that.

Comment: There is already an article on the book. Your own comments clearly indicate that the article is a POV Fork. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'm a little concerned about this user's Hindu gods (no capital G?) for the same reason - would someone take a look for a second opinion (that's as opposed to the existing article Hindu deities - I think he should perhaps be using his userspace for this sort of thing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that the Maharajah Jai Singh mentioned in the article redirects to Jai Singh II of Amber who was apparently born 40 years after the completion of the Taj rather than Jai Singh I to whom the Mughal court chronicles refer to? Or is secret time travel also alleged? The redirect was another creation of this user - Shouldn't 'Maharajah Jai Singh' be a dab page? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too shallow too little notability --BozMo talk 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Tejo Mahalya and Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) (which also does not have any independent references) to P.N. Oak. Mahalya needs to be changed to Mahalay? Doldrums (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything useful can be merged to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), or P.N. Oak. Does not merit a page on its own. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:54, 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 Delete --JForget 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frouke[edit]

Move to Wiktionary. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree dictionary entry already exists. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NAD --Pmedema (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as noted above. --Darkprincealain (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above Beeblbrox (talk) 21:26, 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 by Maxim (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ash & Pichu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ash & Pichu

fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. nn subject, and no third party reliable and verifiable sources. nat.utoronto 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I ran into the creator of the article a couple times back when he was active, and he had a habit of vandalizing Pokémon articles, such as changing "Pikachu" to "Pichu". The Japanese Wikipedia article for Takashi Teshirogi does list a Satoshi to Pikachu, so my guess is this is a copy of that article. —TangentCube, Dialogues 12:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 2 ghits for "Satoshi to Pichu" (quoted), and they're wikipedia and a mirror. No ghits for "サトシとピチュ" on japanese pages from Google. Agree with hoax evaluation — TheBilly^(Talk) 15:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A CSD G3 even. WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP etc...etc...--Pmedema (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kick Ash~~ Speedy delete G3 as pure hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:24, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mex files

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

The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mex files[edit]

Wikipedia is not a How-to guide to "increasing the efficiency of your MATLAB programs". Delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. This clearly is. Might even qualify for a speedy delete? Qwfp (talk) 20:02, 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 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regional radio stations[edit]

Article only provides limited spectrum of one geographical area, therefore should not hold a main generic article title. In addition, websites, player links, and type of player are superfluous as well as grounds to consider a spam article. If it is to be made into another article, it needs to conform to current radio station market articles currently in place in other areas around the world. Unreferenced information, Uncategorized. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've created this article and forgot to insert regional radio stations in LITHUANIA. So, I think this article must be deleted or changed and the word Lithuania added. I've added this article for hoping to turn on the radio station that doesn't play in my town.So I also recommended this article because not so many people listen to the regional radio stations in my country and many listens popular. I hope you understood me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.239.63 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, a list like this will rapidly go out of date. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to list of radio stations in Lithuania, as far as I can tell, and not a suitable article title for a redirect. ~Matticus ^U_C 11:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above; also, Wikipedia is not a web directory (note that the primary purpose of this page appears to be listing stations' online streams and web pages). Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article contains information useful to the List of radio stations in Lithuania such as station frequency, community of license, and such. - Dravecky (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of radio stations in Lithuania per Dravecky. DHowell (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And to address the bad title issue, rename/move to a more sensible redirect term like Lithuania radio stations before merging. DHowell (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge Radio stations are by definition regional; Lithuania doesn't have dibs on the term. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Agreed about the term but there is useful information in the article in question that belongs in the Lithuania article so a merge is in order. - Dravecky (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under WP:NOT#LINK as a list of links and a vague criteria that isn't made clear in the article and could be about almost anything if it wasn't just about Lithuanian radio (such as clear channel and region dominant radio stations). Do merge other information that can be salvaged to List of radio stations in Lithuania. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move any information that isn't already present there to List of radio stations in Lithuania. However, the title is not appropriate as a redirect to that list, as it could just as legitimately be a redirect to absolutely any radio stations list on Wikipedia. Merge but do not keep the title in place as a redirect, WP:GFDL or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Softconnection[edit]

Already speedily deleted article about a company, brought here so that it can be discussed together with their backup software. The given sources are mostly republished press releases and a quick search didn't unearth more substantial coverage. Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above... --Camaeron (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:35, 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 speedily deleted under G12. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and i by sam milby[edit]

Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:35, 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 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phzil Bowrey[edit]

No evidence that this character exists, or the "Beyond Imagination" series. Appears to be a hoax. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Even a very obscure DC comics series would manage plenty of Google hits. This has none besides Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is found it can be deleted as a blatant hoax --Camaeron (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. There appears to be some effort to get this name into Wikipedia under various guises[26]. Weregerbil (talk) 08:42, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highfield Park[edit]

This is not notable enough for an article, see Notability (Places and transportation). PROD removed without comment by author. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:N. --Camaeron (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability (Places and transportation) has less than 15 Edits (total) and no consensus. Thus it can only be considered a proposal under creation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; but there are also the precedents from previous AfDs summarised at WP:OUTCOMES#Places; and in the end we fall back on the basic principles of WP:N. Whichever way you look at it, I don't think this is notable. To put it in context consider that, Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia, if this article were to stay its name would need to be changed to something like "Highfield Park, Dundrum, Dublin, Ireland". JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no opinion abouth this Article. I mearly caution against using a non-policy as evidence, and also against believing that precedents exist on WP. see WP:CCC. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:25, 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 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Bell (entertainer)[edit]

Procedural nom. Has been speedied twice before; here it is again with possibly an assertion of importance. However, I don't think there is enough substantial independent coverage of this subject to pass the notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable. Xdenizen (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe one day, but not yet notable. Alberon (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Only reference sources are YouTube and the subject's own blog. --DAJF (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A YouTube "celebrity" who has yet to achieve notability. PC78 (talk) 14:03, 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.

Laterose[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete as non-notable. Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fancruft. This is a fictional character in a series of books, having no real-world notability. No encyclopedic content. The article is written as in-universe style, is solely plot summary, and is original research. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe semi-notable within the Redwall universe, but unfortunately, this character has absolutely no out-of-universe notability whatsoever. This is purely a plot summary and original research. (What is it about fantasy series that they attract cruft like iron filings to a magnet, anyway?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly that WP people find them notable? DGG (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fictional character. Dgf32 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cut drastically. From the description she's a principal character in a notable series. The qualifty of the article is an example of what encourages such nominations, but thats for editing, not AfD. DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable fictional character. Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge back to Redwall. Catchpole (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable fictional character. Anything salvageable can be put into the Redwall article. Bardcom (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have not read the books, but agree with DGG that by description this character seems significant within it. By my reading of the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), I think it would serve Wikipedia better to trim this article substantially and merge it. I don't, however, think that Redwall is the best destination for it, as that article is already quite substantial. I think it would more appropriately be merged into Martin the Warrior. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Martin the Warrior, which already mentions Laterose. This is basically just an unnecessarily detailed plot summary of the book. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this is an example of how to not write an article about a character is a separate issue from whether it is appropriate to have one. Whether it should go be merged into he article for the book or stay separate is a matte of style; to avoid repetition, it might perhaps go with the book. DGG (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to note that, if this AfD closes as merge, I'd be happy to performer the merger myself. I've watchlisted the AfD, but I can also be tapped on the shoulder with a note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - disagree with DGG; it appears she's not notable enough for a mention on the Redwall article; the notable series. I don't think sufficient notability is there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Santonocito[edit]

Non-notable youth footballer. Has never played at professional level therefore fails WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTY/Notability English peasant 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator English peasant 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (btw, I am Italian and I've never heard of this guy before). --Angelo (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO John Hayes^talk 11:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete below professional level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:59, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collision Theatre Company[edit]

RS coverage is trivial and local in scope, not even the big Chicago papers. Ghits are primarily play listings and participant information, nothing to assert notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:04, 27 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) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someday this theatre company may be notable, but it has not yet been clearly established as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:21, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars[edit]

This is a seemingly random listing of people who happened to have served in either/or Afghanistan or Iraq, some of whom are world famous and some of whom are obscure. As such, I believe that it should be deleted as it is an indiscriminate collection of information and a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Appropriate categories already seem to exist for people who served in these wars, so this kind of list serves little purpose and will never be complete. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Not as indiscriminate as List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star recipients, but served by categories already --Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessive. Carom (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list that is pretty much impossible to make complete in any way and even harder to satisfy WP:V --Pmedema (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above; also WP isn't a memorial of service. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 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 Speedy Delete (CSD A7). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Www.aksplace.com[edit]

Is this relevant. Alexa returned no rank.. Anshuk (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just tagged that article for speedy deletion as CSD G11. Obviously I support it's deletion. :) Xdenizen (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support this article to be tagged for speedy deletion but to be added to wiki regarding the character behind www.aksplace.com

He is a legendary offshore insider and he has yet to be added to wiki with others in this industry. It would be a shame without knowing the facts and knowledge before considering deleting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhilton (talk • contribs) 07:37, 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 Snowball delete --JForget 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership at Patrican Brothers' College, Fairfield[edit]

Article on non-notable topic: the student leadership system at one particular school. A disputed PROD, PROD tag removed with the comment "i object to this banner" Mattinbgn\^talk 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Non-notable topic, some of the content can be merged into main article, not even worth a redirect. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable topic, and close to being speedy-able under G11 as advertising. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I tried speedy, tried prod. Heavy Seltzer (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to those above who nominate this page for delete. it was created to remedy an issue with this content on the orignal page. it was agreed by discussion that the information could be included on a seperate page. to Nick Dowling, i question how on earch you can possibly classify this as advertisment. to Cquan, i agree that this should not be a redirect, the information can be included on the orignal page, however there were users who used bully-like tactics to have it removed. it was agreed that there would be a redirected page. if you are prepared to second me to have it reincluded on the original page then i would apreciate this. thankyou Zebra91 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page was created to remedy issues with the content on the original page Patrican Brothers' College, Fairfield. it was decided through dicussion that this content should not be incuded on the main page, but could be linked to another page, hence this addition. it is not of any consequence that this is the leadership strucutre at one school. the point of wikipea is to provide information to the general public. this is information that some people may find interesting, and if only one person finds it useful, that it has a right on wikipedia.

i would request that the referal for deletion is removed for this reason. cheers Zebra91 (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From reading the discussion at Talk:Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield it looks like there was a consensus that this material doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As such, this appears to be a content fork of the article on the school, which is probably also a good reason for deletion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content is not notable; similar content could be constructed for any school. For it to be considered notable, it needs to pass a test stronger than "information that some people may find interesting" Murtoa (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content is not notable and is of little interest. This has been an ongoing issue and clearly the creator has misunderstood the result of the discussion at Talk:Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield. Loopla (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why doesnt loopla explain what he is enforcing, i mean, suggesting, aa a remedy. because this was the conclusion that was reached. Zebra91 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the suggested remedy was to add an external link to the article that had contained the information; "external" meaning "not Wikipedia". ... discospinster _talk 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic information, which had been explained to the original author when s/he kept adding it to the main article. ... discospinster _talk 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on remedy There was a content dispute on the school page, regarding the list of all former head-students at the school. The eventual outcome was to remove the names of the head-students, and have a link in the external links section of the page to the list (which is hosted on an outside page). It appears that Zebra91 has interpreted this and made a page on wikipedia listing them, which is hence why this page is created. Hope that helps everyone understand the problem. Twenty Years 14:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic. Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Speedy delete as A7/nn-club. No notability asserted, basically just a big list of non-notable people. Wikipedia is not your school yearbook. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thinking a WP:COI or WP:POV here. Read through the discussion and the removal of the contents that is in this article was clearly indicated as un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too much detail - information is not useful to anyone except a vanishingly small number of students and ex-students of the school. WP:N applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ball Delete--JForget 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomi Deutch[edit]

Delete, I do not see any suffucuent reasons to claim notability. Student scholarships are not the reasons to include into wikipedia. Also the article appears to be a an autobiography Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article appears to be already nominated to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomi Deutch/temp), the author have not formatted the AfD because thought that A7 is sufficient, the A7 template was then removed by the author Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject hasn't been covered in any reliable sources and thus isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons as above, no sufficient reliable sources to establish notability Steve Crossin (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. JJL (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough, no proper sources --Camaeron (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A prize winner is well and good, but it's not a notable professional or an accomplished individual. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:54, 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 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar Bomb (Cocktail)[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up while mixing whatever booze you can find in the dorm room one day. Weregerbil (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Alberon (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is original research, it fails WP:NPOV as a tribute to its alleged creators, and most of all WP:V as it is completely unreferenced (unreferencable?). I tried a search for any information on this and came up empty save for its mention in wikipedia, which means to me that it is also a long way from meeting notability standards as well. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 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. Black Kite 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Protas[edit]

Decline a speedy on this because I thought consensus is a great thing. I know, WP:NOT#INHERITED, but the guy is mentioned in at least ten New York Times articles, and the legal battle could be something... I'm not sure about this one. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic WP:BLP1E. The lawsuit doesn't even really make him notable, and can be wholly dealt with in Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance (which already mentions it). --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was not notable only for one event, the lawsuit. He became important in her life during the 1970s when she had to quit dancing because she had gotten too old. She descended into alcoholism and depression and almost died. He nursed her back to health, helped take care of her, and became increasingly important within the company itself, often conducting rehearsals, etc. Together, they restructured the company. Then, nearly 20 years later when she died, the lawsuit resulted. So, a span of 20-something years cannot be referred to as "one event." -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dhartung. MrPrada (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the criterion for notability on Wikipedia is not that a person be "famous" but that they be important within their genre. The Martha Graham Center for Contemporary Dance is the oldest continually performing modern dance company in the world. Martha Graham is the only dancer in US history to receive the Medal of Freedom. Time Magazine voted her the "Dancer of the Century". She is considered the most influential person in the history of modern dance. Ron Protas was her heir, became the most powerful man in her company, and almost brought it to the brink of closure. (In other words: 1. This is the most notable modern dance company in the world. 2. This means that within the genre Ron Protas was already notable even before the legal battle. 3. The legal battle received a great deal of coverage.) There are ample articles that mention him (in VERY NOTABLE publications), which would seem to suggest that he is notable enough for his own article. Take, for example, this article in The New Yorker which refers to him in the very first paragraph: The Martha Graham Dance Company returns to New York. I think he is a person of importance within the genre, and you will be depriving future scholars of a valuable resource if delete this page. Just because most of you don't care much about modern dance doesn't mean he isn't notable. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not insult other editors. Whether or not one believes Protas is notable has nothing to do with whether one "cares much about modern dance". That said, your edits are improving the article's demonstration of notability over what was there before, showing his professional standing within the troupe and within the dance world. --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By the way, I wasn't meaning to insult other editors. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance as the material in the latter is a bit skimpy. Otherwise he is not notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this company is probably famous enough that even the associate director is notable; probably covered in some depth in biographies of her. DGG (talk)
Keep per DGG. Though on a personal note, if I ever have to watch this company dance again I'll cry. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 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. While spin-out articles may rely to a certain extent on the notability of the parent, notability is not inherited, and WP:FICT indicates that "editors should strive to establish notability by providing as much real-world content as possible for...spinout articles." Consensus in this debate has been that this article does not demonstrate that this information is of sufficient notability outside of the game to warrant separate coverage. While it is advised that editors who consider fictional topics non-notable pursue various steps to establish notability, it is not a requirement prior to AfD, particularly if the AfD nominator does not believe those concerns can be addressed. I note that a number of those arguing for deletion have also proposed transwiki of this material. It has accordingly been relocated here with its editing history intact on the discussion page. I have not userfied the material, but am quite willing to do so if the editors who propose to keep the article would like the history to help found a new article that addresses the concerns that led to deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that, according to a note on my talk page, User:KrytenKoro has eliminated the transwikied article from Wikia as redundant to information already there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Devil May Cry Demons[edit]

This article was created on February 8, 2008, since its creation deletion or merger have been proposed on the talk pages of the Devil May Cry Task Force and Characters in Devil May Cry, however the scope of these discussions has been small, currently consisting of three supporting merger and one opposing it. Still only members of the task force have debated over the matter and a consensus of the community as a whole is certainly welcomed, my reasons for deletion are several: #1 The article is a long list mostly consisting of characters that not only are minor but have absolutely no background information available for them. #2 The article is completely written from a in-universe perspective with the chances of out of universe information appearing being extremely slim. #3 The notable characters in the list are already listed in Characters in Devil May Cry as well as their reception information. #4 The scope of the list seems to fail WP:FICT, mostly consisting of what is usually considered WP:GAMECRUFT and its content would serve better in the Devil May Cry Wikia. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose strongly It's barely been created for a few weeks and is far from its initial conception which was largely stupid and most certainly fancruft. There are people attempting to work on it and provide all manner of information possible regarding their design and creation and importance to events in the game and the propagation of the fictional story. The characters page not only omits important characters but in some cases is incredibly basic information that by itself would not validate importance. Nero for example is a main character now and yet has a basic paragraph with no real information and the same can be said for most entries on that page. It exists however because they play a role within the games narrative. THe enemies of the DMC series play a role which in many cases fits into a particular style or theme for the narrative of the game they feature in.

This is information you cannot get anywhere else apart from in-game, anime or from manga sources or a DMC Wiki which isn't as prominent as wikipedia. Even the official site confusingly features only a few and seemingly non-prominent enemies and characters but it DOES feature them. I am under the impression that wikipedia is a place for obtaining knowledge on things and these, which with time we can improve, are not less notable than half the film articles that feature year of release, a picture and an IMDB link or even music albums and songs. We are working on it, prominently myself and KrytenKyro but we are working on it and improving it where and as much as possible.

EDIT: It also isn't any less notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_resident_evil_creatures or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_of_Final_Fantasy and yet this article is the one thats being given no chance to grow or improve and being put up for deletion so readily despite any opposition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - There needs to be some assertion of notability through reliable sources for this article, meaning you have to show that there is something to work on, like you have interviews on character creation and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk)

Comment: Well, seeing as any character creation for the series is almost certainly going to be about demons, its kind of clear that the information is there - give us time to find it.

Background information is going to be easy to find, since it is quite clear in places what the character is based on (Beelzebub, for example), and good bit of the "reception" and "creation" information in the Characters article is about the demons, not anything actually discussed in the article (One of them is about the White Knight enemy - I don't think that has a character entry, does it?).

The Characters article, minus different sections where reception and creation is discussed, is written in the same style as this article, and the scope of this article is not to be a list of minor characters, but to be a discussion of the universe in which the games occur - there's a quite large header at the top going over this. A merger would be a good bit incongruous. The Task force and the characters page keeps on attacking this page for not being a good-quality "characters" list - but it's not supposed to be. It's a "universe"-type list. If it would please the court, it should be sufficient to cut out or merge many of the sections into larger groups - a discussion of artificial demons, with detail from Trish, Secretary, Savage Golem, etc, a discussion of the Temen-ni-gru, with detail from the gatekeepers and seven seals, etc.

And ahh...I don't see how it's guide/gamecruft if there's no "how to beat" going on.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact.

22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this article falls under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. A guide just to show each and everything of a certain topic isn't something that articles should be. To respond to the above comment: a game guide isn't just how to beat the game. It includes instruction manuals, as well as other things. I agree with the nominator's point about gamecruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. No applicable merge target, and list is nothing more than a gigantic list of enemies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, anyone going to explain how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Silent_Hill_monsters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_resident_evil_creatures or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_of_Final_Fantasy get a free pass and this article is not considered as good and/or possible for editing and bettering? That Silent Hill monsters has been around for well over a year at least without being deleted and this has been given 4 weeks.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the cliché response and true in this situation. If you have issues with the aforementioned articles, then bring them to AfD as well. Attacking other articles is a red herring - explain why this article should not be deleted and how it meets current policy. In any case, note that you can link to articles using brackets ([[Article Name]]). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...how does this article fall under GUIDE or GAMECRUFT? At the worst, its travesty is too much plot summary, and this could be easily remedied by removing some of the less important enemy types, or combining them into over-categories, like "Artificial", "Temen-ni-gru", etc., as explained above.

One of the other guidelines is to let something have more than a few weeks to grow, especially if it's not a copy of an existing article - contrary to the claims of the nominator, this article is not meant to be a character page. Its meant to cover the setting of the series. Yes, it has too much detail in places, and gets listy. Big f'ing deal. How about letting us fix that, as we've said we're working on, instead of immediately putting it up for deletion?

If I could make only one other request - I am extremely busy this week with midterms and labs, but next week I have spring break. Could we possibly let me use Spring Break to add assertions of notability, reception, etc., and reevaluate this after its been given a chance? We didn't have any of the "problems" against this article notified until this went to deletion - all that was mentioned was that a duplicate of the characters page, and as I've explained over and over, it's not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They apply because at its core, this article is a laundry list of the enemies found in these games. It diverges from the list of characters model appropriate under WP:FICT by being a list of enemies that are not relevant to the plot of each game in a significant fashion. Sure, a few are, but then the proper initial action is a merge into Characters in Devil May Cry; however, the grand majority of these characters are so tertiary that they don't even deserve mention in the character list. Include the few that deserve mention and then delete this list. The subject of the list itself doesn't really meet the allowance for character lists under FICT. In any case, I really, really doubt the subject of this article can show an iota of reception that would come close to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Reception or Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Reception. As for your assertion concerning the amount of time you've had to work on the article, it's been here for a month. If you're failing in your attempts to assert why it should be kept at this point, then that's a tell-tale sign that it really doesn't deserve an article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to re-read the part about "spinout articles" in WP:FICT (and also at WP:SUMMARY and WP:Article series). --Pixelface (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to create a spinout article of something that's entirely unnecessary. This is a list of enemies in a series of games. The utter majority of these monsters appear briefly and have zero significance to the plot. If they were important to the plot as a character in the series, it would be at Characters in Devil May Cry. Per User:Caribbean H.Q., any character that was important in terms of comprehension to the plot has been merged into the aforementioned character article, meaning that this list has no redeeming value left. As there's no need for a spinout article, especially considering that this fails WP:NOT#INFO for simply being a laundry list of the enemies in all the games, the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....It's discussing the nature of demons in the series, a really important part to the series backdrop. As for "no plot significance" - well, I wasn't aware that Phantom, Griffon, White Rabbit, the Seven Seals of Hell, and the Hellkeepers (which have about a chapter devoted to them in the manga) had zero plot significance.

It is not simply a laundry list, because it is more than names, and because it is not designed to be a minor character list, like you keep implying. It can and probably will be compressed to cover the types more in groups, to easier facilitate the discussion of Demons as a whole.

And how can it be a spinout article if none of the entries between the two games are shared? Besides Mundus and Argosax (and the character article has a piss-poor section on Argosax, considering he drives the events of the second game), there's not a single shared demon, and even then, the focus is entirely different. These articles have separate focus, so it is not a duplicate article, and this article has several sources of real-world coverage. These are two different articles, and I'd really wish you'd get that into you heads - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS swings both ways.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't defined why this spinout article is necessary or appropriate. It is a spinout article, or this article wouldn't exist and all of the material would be present at Devil May Cry (series) (in a heavily condensed fashion), which it probably should. It is a laundry list, as it lists every single demon in the series, from the most minor to the most supposedly "important," and if it was important, it would be at Characters in Devil May Cry as a character, essentially meaning that there's no reason to have this article, as it consists entirely of completely trivial characters. If the demon is important, then include an entry at the character article. The term "character" effectively includes every single protagonist, enemy, etc., including the demons here. The utter majority, however, have zero plot importance beyond being the next set of enemies the player has to kill, which doesn't constitute a reason to have a laundry list on all of them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator gives no convincing argument for deletion. WP:FICT is a disputed guideline, and this list does not tell readers how to beat the game. There's nothing wrong with lists of characters. If the article is written in an in-universe perspective that's a cleanup issue. And the characters in the list don't have to be notable, per WP:NNC. Characters in Devil May Cry is already pretty long as it is. This is fine as a sub-article of Devil May Cry (series). The list should probably be renamed to List of Devil May Cry demons though. --Pixelface (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you've used the argument that the notability guides don't apply before. You're wrong, they do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying that WP:N is a guideline, not some rule to be followed blindly. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. Can these characters be verified to exist? Are they characters in a notable game? Is this list too long to be included in an existing article? The mention of WP:N on a policy page, WP:DEL, seems to turn WP:N into a policy, which it isn't. Even though the trend of voting "nn" got turned into WP:NN, there are other guidelines to apply to articles, like WP:SUMMARY and WP:Article series. Why does a long section have to establish notability if it was split off per our size guidelines? How can a concept like "notability" be objective? How can you even say any topic is notable without quoting a reliable source that uses the word "notable"? --Pixelface (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage at all, just references to the games and the official website. No other assertion of notability; fails WP:N. Further, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, again - yeah, people keep saying the GUIDE thing, but wouldn't you know it? The deletion guidelines specifically say you're supposed to show how something breaks such guidelines, not just claim it. I've asked over and over how it does so, since I can't find a scrap of "here's how you beat such an enemy". PLOT, I can see. Overdetail, I can see. GUIDE and CRUFT, no, I'm not finding.

And as I've said before, can we please give this article some time to be fixed? It had no notice of specific complaints until this AfD, something highly irregular - no specific critiques to use for fixing itself up.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had no complaints because the only people who saw the page were the ones who wanted to add a load of DMC information despite there being no secondary coverage of that information. When someone who was familiar with the notability guidelines spotted that, they AFD'ed it - nothing irregular there. You're right to say that WP:GUIDE is a side issue here; but the reason the article should be deleted is that the subject of DMC demons isn't a notable one - there's no secondary coverage of it. No amount of time is going to change that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....there's coverage about it already mentioned in part on the Characters page, as I've said before. And yeah, it is kind of irregular - the guidelines suggest giving an article time to grow, and using AfD as a last resort, not as a precursor to discussion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no substantial independent secondary coverage on this page. If you add some, then I'll change my vote; until then, this article will fail WP:N. Regarding using AFD as a last resort, that is where WP:GUIDE and WP:CRUFT become relevant. Some topics may deserve time to grow; but with detailed lists of in-game topics, the burden of proof is on those who want to keep them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may well be a quality article waiting to happen on the subject of demons within this series, but listing every boss and minor enemy isn't the way to go about it, the other lists are good example of what not to do. None of them have risen to a good standard and all would be improved if the "must.. list.. everything" approach was replaced by some proper paragraphs and examples of real-world information. If someone could give a few examples of quality sources and examples of how the article could become something other than an in-universe list which could have been culled from a guidebook then it would be very useful. Potential is all I'd like to see, coupled with reliable secondary sources which go into enough depth to hold up the subject. Someone another 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the entire series is built around a devil who hunts demons and every enemy is or becomes a demon in every single story told so far in that universe, I would thought demons in Devil May Cry would be notable to the knowledge base of the universe. Again a lot of stuff isn't just plot or in universe but descriptive of the character design such as the Alto Angelos and their comparison to the Bianco Angelos with horned helmets and halo helmets. Its a design that revolves entirely around the storyline of the game and while secondary sources may be hard to find it does not mean they do not exist and we should be given the time and opportunity to find them and improve the article. As Kryten said, AfD is a last resort, it even says that in the guidelines for AfD. Also, I'm not attacking the other list articles, I'm asking why they continue to exist in a state similar to this article and yet this one is considered more worthy of quick removal without chance for the growth that they are granted. Its an observation and a criticism of the process, not the articles.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think anyone's saying that demons aren't notable from the perspective of a character in DMC. That's not the issue. What's important here is whether demons in DMC are notable from a real-world perspective, and that hinges on whether there's significant secondary coverage. People are claiming that there is and that the article should be given more time, but unless they start to add at least some it seems far more likely that such coverage doesn't exist, and that no amount of time will reveal it. No-one has even come up with a good reason why a reliable source would devote significant coverage from a real-world perspective to the demons of DMC, let alone begun to come up with that coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't suggesting you were attacking the other articles, I meant that they're bad examples for exactly this reason - they're cited as a comparison and a reason to create more of the same, when they are in poor or relatively poor shape themselves. Both Silent Hill and Resident Evil contain enemies which have individual notability, instead of capitalising on this and moulding articles to reflect that, instead we have laundry lists which resemble bare-bones fansite pages. Final Fantasy may or may not be appropriate, but since it is the most talked about RPG series it's more likely than most other series to have these details. These are far less likely to find themselves on AFD because there's most likely something in them that could be merged/expanded etc., if contributors felt like doing so. That isn't the case here.
- Every game series has a setting, be it Atelier Iris' alchemy-fuelled fantasy world or Disgaea's Netherworlds, information will be available on both, but that doesn't mean articles on those topics are feasible. The setting is one of several aspects of game series that can be covered within a series article (which already exists), giving contributors plenty of leg room to cover these things in more detail whilst keeping articles moving toward higher ratings. If sources exist to cover a topic in more detail, great! That hasn't been demonstrated and it's not surprising since the article wasn't created with that in mind.
- This article started life as a laundry list of enemies and bosses within the series and it remains that way, new hat or not. What's being suggested is a different article. If contributors want to build that wall on this plot, dandy, in your own time, but I'd like to see the bricks. Nothing helpful has come from a search, yet. Someone another 18:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please-don't-forget-to-transwiki-delete User:Krator (t c) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ...as explained before, it's taken a month because we were locked up in a basic organizational dispute. If you look at the history over the last two weeks or so, you can see that a lot of growth and sourcing has been done.
  - From the Character Article itself;

"Some of the demonic forms of Devil May Cry 4's antagonists resemble angels, these were designed to be "cool" while providing a contrast when compared to other demons in the game." - this has a ref.

"Yoshikawa noted that several of the boss characters presented some difficulty when creating them, but that Nero's design was one of the biggest challenges he had experienced in his career, based on the fact that the character would have to be accepted by the public and fit in the series' universe." - this also has a ref

"Outside of the main character the demonic enemies were reviewed as "ferocious" while the sub-bosses where "incredibly tough" and the bosses were "very tough", providing a significant amount of the game's challenges." - this also has a ref

"Eurogamer reviewed the design of the demons as "some of the most bizarre looking creatures you will find this side of American McGee's Alice." while the proportion of the bosses were perceived as "vast" and their battles were descrived as requiring different strategies, making a exclusion when pointing that the fights with "Nightmare" prove repetitive." - this also has a ref.

"The publication labeled the game's enemies as "mindless", noting that most of them including the "bosses" could be defeated using the default attacks." - this also has a ref

"The designs used for characters in Devil May Cry 4 were described as resembling a "legion of seraphim the likes of which gamers have never seen before, and it puts an interesting spin on what all of our preconceptions of 'good' are in a video game", the publication also said that they shared visual elements with military personel employed by real religions, by noting that "Considering the visual nature of the heavily-armored, winged, angelic warriors scattered around the various missions, it'd be easy to confuse these characters with crusaders of Christian origin."" - this also has a ref

See, its funny because I've talked about these from the very beginning of these AfD, and they plainly satisfy WP:N. Not only are they plainly not about the characters actually in the character article, but they are exactly what you have been asserting "does not exist".

Yes, there is a problem with WP:PLOT on the demons article. Yes, it sometimes ends up being regurgitation - that is because it is a new article, and the two primary editors have been extremely busy with other disputes and with their own real-world lives.

However, WP:N is plainly satisfied - there is ample evidence that coverage exists. GUIDE and GAMECRUFT are never rationale for deletion - they are rationale for cleanup. The primary editors have shown great willingness to perform this cleanup, if given any opportunity.

As far as I can determine, these are the critiques:

"Minor characters with no background information" - its not meant to be a character list, but ample background info does exist, as shown above.
"In-universe perspective, with null chance of real-world coverage" - again, refuted above.
"All useful information already on characters page" - not true. The characters page covers only three demons, even though many others were major characters in the games. Furthermore, it gives two short sentences for Argosax, three for Mundus, and more for Sparda (who isn't really covered on this page anyway). Finally, the only "reception and creation info" on the character page not about Dante, Vergil, Lady, or friends, is not about any of these characters - its about the demons as a group, which also asserts independent notability for this topic - not only does that reception info not fit on the characters page, it outright establishes notability for this one.
"Would serve better on the DMC wiki" - no, because the DMC wiki is much more in-depth info usually including strategy. This page has no strategy guides to it.
"It's a laundry list" - fine, yes it covers each enemy indiscriminately (though without undue bias). But you know what? That is not a rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for trimming. For crying out loud, is deletion really thought to be a solution for every problem?

Finally, there is the recurring claim that goes like this:

"They apply because at its core, this article is a laundry list of the enemies found in these games. It diverges from the list of characters model appropriate under WP:FICT by being a list of enemies that are not relevant to the plot of each game in a significant fashion."

Not only is this not true in several cases (Phantom, Gatekeepers, Berial), but it's not relevant. As I've said over and over, this isn't meant to be another character article. As you can see from reading the lead, it's meant to explain the nature of demons and the demon world in the series, and to cover examples of types. Its meant to be a "Universe of" article, and I'm really getting tired of people ignoring that completely.

We've had one month. The article creator left early on, and it took a while for me and DarkWarriorblade to find the article. I've only been working on it for I think a week and a half, and a lot has been done to bring it up to code.

Notability exists. Independent usefulness exists. Background information exists. Give us a chance to continue cleaning up the article, and I believe you'll eventually see how useful it can be.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "notability exists", but haven't provided any independent coverage to prove it. There are zero independent references in the article. You say "usefulness exists" and "information exists", but that's irrelevant. If you can't establish notability by adding independent secondary coverage, then the article fails WP:N and should be deleted. If you want more time, ask the closing admin to copy it into your user space, and in the unlikely event that DMC demons gain secondary coverage you can recreate the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???? I listed spots where the Character article already has specific references that

Aren't relevant to the character article, and
Prove notability for the Demons article

Did you actually read my post? Have you read anything I said? There is plainly coverage for the design and reception of the demons - there are developer interviews for creation that include substantial bits on the demons, and there are ample reception info on for example, the DMC4 Boss Demons (for example, one 1Up review goes over how they're size will "wow you".) and the game's multitude of angelic lesser demons.

Yes, the references haven't been actually put into the article - and as I've said over and over, once I don't have three f'ing midterms to study for, I'll work on putting them in. You can't honestly expect me to just throw the refs in ad-hoc and have it look like anything but a mess. However, there is a large difference between the deletion counter "proving that notability/coverage exists" and "having this assertion adequately sourced in the article". I've proven the notability exists. This satisfies the criteria for keeping the article. What you're asking is minor fix-up - something unrelated to deletion discussion, and I can do it as soon as I get some time.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, until you can provide significant secondary coverage of this specific topic the article will fail WP:N, no matter how much coverage there is of other articles. If such coverage exists, but you aren't willing to ad dit now, I suggest you recreate the article once you are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This specific topic"?? I keep telling you, it's refs that I could find on that page that don't even belong there, and were put there because of the constant mindset that "the demons must be put on a character article".

But fine, here's proof of notability:

"We also had the idea of trying to confuse the lines between demons and angels, devils and gods."
"The angel type characters are really cool. They feel more like what we imagine 'seraphim' to be than we've seen in any other game before."
"Well I'm really happy that you like the angel characters we have created for Devil May Cry 4. I am really proud of how some of these characters turned out. I think my experience at Capcom really helped me to create some interesting things here. When creating games, there is often a request to "make something cool" and my experience has helped me to create designs that are not simply cool in their own right, but cool in the context of the game that they will be appearing in. In the case of Devil May Cry 4, the idea of a religious order brings up a lot of ideas for characters, and the pure, clean image of an angel is very interesting in the world of devil May Cry as well. I was able to really make the angels look cool when contrasted to the equally cool demons of the game. These characters are some of my favorite in the game, and I'm really pleased that you like them!"
"DMC4's enemies come in both big and small sizes, from Berial's immense size to the tiny monsters you fight on regular levels. Are the big bosses the most enjoyable, and which of the game's many bosses is your favorite and why?"
"Designing bosses is certainly a lot of fun, but at the same time it can be a difficult as designing a main character! As I mentioned earlier, the design of Devil May Cry 4 is so closely connected to the gameplay, and that is fact is most apparent when designing enemies. You have to think about how the player will approach each enemy you create. Bosses are really fun but difficult to design as a result. If I had to pick a favorite boss in the game, I think it would be Credo's Angel form. That boss really came together very nicely. I also really like Berial, he is so strong and cool."
"The bigger they come, the harder they fall. The game's bosses are huge. If Berial -- who is featured in the downloadable demo -- is any indication, then consider him 'medium-sized.' Yeah, we were surprised, too, but the development team has obviously taken some cues from the God of War series, increasing the scale of DMC's bosses to WHOA proportions. That makes them all the more fun to cut down to size, though. Just make sure you bring your Depends in case you're not ready for what the game has in store for you. These guys are big."
"The ultimate battle between Heaven and Earth. The angelic and the demonic have never been so forcefully and gracefully portrayed in any of the Devil May Cry games as they are in DMC4. Both Nero and Dante take on a legion of seraphim the likes of which gamers have never seen before, and it puts an interesting spin on what all of our preconceptions of 'good' are in a video game."
"Along the way you will be indulging in the wholesale slaughter of some of the most bizarre looking creatures you will find this side of American McGee's Alice. There are grim reaper phantoms with lethal scythes, fast-moving lizardmen warriors that burst out of the ground in a cloud of dust, cackling ghost witches with what look like giant shears, and life-size marionettes which drop down from their strings to attack you."
"These special powers become particularly useful when you take on the vast demon boss characters, which include a giant lava spider and a skeletal eagle the size of a small jet liner. The game only includes four real bosses, plus Mundus himself, and you will meet each of them three times, but luckily most of them will behave slightly differently each time you fight them, with new locations, powers and strategies to overcome. It's not all good news though. Battling the icky looking nightmare boss does get rather repetitive, and the game in general tails off a bit towards the end. Most of the monsters are introduced in the first half of the game and just become more numerous and more powerful later on, while less attention seems to have gone into the dramatic camera angles in the closing stages of the game."

Significant coverage obtained just by looking through the sources used on the character article.

.....It's not that I'm unwilling, I don't have the time to do it now without it looking like crap, and having you guys ping the article for that. You are critiquing a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue - coverage for this specific topic has been shown. I've been editing the article for about two weeks now, and am in the middle of midterms as it is.

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. Some mentions of demons in an article about DMC isn't substantial coverage. What you're looking for is coverage of the demons themselves, not just coverage of DMC that contains the word "demon". Then that coverage has to be added to this article. Otherwise the article fails WP:N, and that's a deletion issue, not a cleanup issue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below for my rebuttal to this - these are in no way just mentions of the word "demon", these are paragraphs specifically about the demons themselves.

For the umpteenth time, I remind you that we weren't given any notice that that was a problem we needed to work on immediately until the deletion started, and the Notability guideline never suggests that the article should be deleted if notability has been shown, but the refs just haven't been inserted yet.

Also:

"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

I have repeatedly shown that the problems with the article are merely ones that will take some time - that the gamecruft can be reduced, that the plot-summary can be reduced, that reception and creation sections can easily be created. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF IMPOSSIBILITY, IT IS A MATTER OF TIME.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence "Some of the demonic forms of Devil May Cry 4's antagonists resemble angels, these were designed to be "cool" while providing a contrast when compared to other demons in the game." was directly discussing Credo's demonic form, Credo's place is in the character's list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the demonic forms of Devil May Cry 4's antagonists resemble angels, these were designed to be "cool" while providing a contrast when compared to other demons in the game."

Especially since a large number of the new enemies are more angelic, and it talks in the plural, how are you getting it to only mean Credo? And in any case, the above still display that there are plenty of real-world reception and creation info that's already been found.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were specifically discussing the bosses there, only giving Credo as a example (the artist noted that he was pleased with the result) regardless of that there is no point in having the same reception information in both articles, and the demon's list potential to collect the ammount of out of universe information in the character's list is small, I am sure some of the established members of the task force can confirm that finding the information in the list proved difficult, the ammount there was quite small until February when I summarized a extensive interview with the producer and art director of Devil May Cry 4, if the characters wich have Dante pulling for them (including very early concept art) proved hard, just imagine how the demons will turn, the fact that Capcom uses the "lets design characters that are cool so they can contrast with Dante" mentality won't help the information search either. Some of the things that you may be considering as a source of out of universe information may indeed only hold it back, particulary adding the origin of some of the bosses' names and even direct references to the Divine Comedy are original research if no sources are provided, the Comedy's references are more hard to find than what some may think, wich led to all of them being removed after the GA and FA pushes began. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article I read containing the exact quote, the most he says is that "the angelic enemies were among his favorite characters in the game."

He does say "Designing bosses is certainly a lot of fun, but at the same time it can be a difficult as designing a main character! As I mentioned earlier, the design of Devil May Cry 4 is so closely connected to the gameplay, and that is fact is most apparent when designing enemies. You have to think about how the player will approach each enemy you create. Bosses are really fun but difficult to design as a result. If I had to pick a favorite boss in the game, I think it would be Credo's Angel form. That boss really came together very nicely. I also really like Berial, he is so strong and cool."

But that is in a different part of the interview entirely.

I found all the above info in about fifteen minutes. Substantial, as well.

"Same reception info in both articles" - except for the bit about DMC4's angels (including the bosses and regular enemies) - the mass of that info shouldn't be in the character article, as I've said over and over. A lot of it (the one about Nightmare, for example), has nothing to do with anything on that page.

Except for Cerberus, Geryon, and Mundus' association with three, hardly anything about the demons in the series is associated with the Comedy (even Cerberus is more based on its greek mythology than Alighieri's vision, and Geryon seems to have been the victim of a name-switch with Beowulf). However, most of the creatures, like Beelzebub or Puia, have blatant design and name origins with regular mythology. If it's considered OR to link to the article on Beelzebub, and have something like "Beelzebub's name means "Lord of the Flies", and is commonly associated with flies.", then fine, we won't do it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem that every time we say "we can improve it, we need more than just 4 weeks, we can look for sources" the only answer given is "There are no sources, give up, we're deleting it? As Kryten said, AfD is a last resort and an article is to be given time to grow. It shouldn't even be up for discussion as an AfD at this point. WHoever is saying it is a guide is terribly wrong. Admittedly I can't track every change made but I don't recall any that say how to beat an enemy. If a weakness is listed it is likely because it is relevant to the demon as a description such as Sin's existing only through their mask which if shattered will destroy them. There is no walkthrough/guide stuff in there or there shouldn't be and if htere is, thats the kind of thing we take out in copyediting and proof reading. The characters page isn't suitable or near comprehensive when it doesn't acknowledge characters like Phantom and Griffon. Again it'd require sources but Phantom ended up in DMC2 because he was a popular character and all 3 main enemies played a large role in the plot since hte main villain doesn't show up until 20 minutes near the end. Things like the Angelos', their design is integral to the entire plot of DMC4 and the concept of the enemies thinking of themselves as Angels. Some of it will be vapid at the moment because, as Kryten said, we have lives and don't have hour upon hour to improve every entry but we do, do our best where we can with the demons that are considerably notable and play a considerable role in the plot and therefore progression of the DMC universe.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons. 1. you haven't offered anything even approaching evidence that those sources exist. 2. If "more time" is what you need, then the article can be userified for you to work on until it meets WP:N. In the meantime, it should be deleted so as not to encourage other gamecruft. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....what.

"We also had the idea of trying to confuse the lines between demons and angels, devils and gods."
"DMC4's enemies come in both big and small sizes, from Berial's immense size to the tiny monsters you fight on regular levels. Are the big bosses the most enjoyable, and which of the game's many bosses is your favorite and why?"
"Designing bosses is certainly a lot of fun, but at the same time it can be a difficult as designing a main character! As I mentioned earlier, the design of Devil May Cry 4 is so closely connected to the gameplay, and that is fact is most apparent when designing enemies. You have to think about how the player will approach each enemy you create. Bosses are really fun but difficult to design as a result. If I had to pick a favorite boss in the game, I think it would be Credo's Angel form. That boss really came together very nicely. I also really like Berial, he is so strong and cool."
"The bigger they come, the harder they fall. The game's bosses are huge. If Berial -- who is featured in the downloadable demo -- is any indication, then consider him 'medium-sized.' Yeah, we were surprised, too, but the development team has obviously taken some cues from the God of War series, increasing the scale of DMC's bosses to WHOA proportions. That makes them all the more fun to cut down to size, though. Just make sure you bring your Depends in case you're not ready for what the game has in store for you. These guys are big."
"The ultimate battle between Heaven and Earth. The angelic and the demonic have never been so forcefully and gracefully portrayed in any of the Devil May Cry games as they are in DMC4. Both Nero and Dante take on a legion of seraphim the likes of which gamers have never seen before, and it puts an interesting spin on what all of our preconceptions of 'good' are in a video game."
"Along the way you will be indulging in the wholesale slaughter of some of the most bizarre looking creatures you will find this side of American McGee's Alice. There are grim reaper phantoms with lethal scythes, fast-moving lizardmen warriors that burst out of the ground in a cloud of dust, cackling ghost witches with what look like giant shears, and life-size marionettes which drop down from their strings to attack you."

How are you still claiming that these (directly copied) quotes are not specifically about the demons? THEY ARE RECEPTION AND CREATION INFORMATION. Explicitly so.

"2. If "more time" is what you need, then the article can be userified for you to work on until it meets WP:N. In the meantime, it should be deleted so as not to encourage other gamecruft."

DELETION IS NOT A SOLUTION TO CLEANUP PROBLEMS
You have yet to provide any evidence to your constant claims that this is a guide or gamecruft article. Yes, it is overly plot summary in places, and yes it is STUBBY in places. GUIDE it is not. Almost all of it is based on quotes from the game, and we've agreed to continue cleaning it up to reduce the cruftiness - if you'd take ONE LOOK at the article, you'd see that that's what we've been doing for the last week or so.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: This is a purely fancruft listing of non-notable monsters from a video game series, and as such has no place on Wikipedia. This listing could be valuable or interesting as part of a game guide or fan site, but Wikipedia is neither. The entries that are not already covered by the Characters page are mere gameplay obstacles, of no more noteworthiness than a simple block in a Mario game. --Boradis (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario series enemies. No blocks there but still. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Lists and [{Wikipedia:Five pillars]]. The article is a discriminate, verifiable list consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on the notable game series Devil May Cry. Moreover the article is only a month old and has improved drasticlaly from its original draft. Finally, the "delete" votes are overwhelmingly violations of here, here, and here. Wikipedia does not benefit in any way from removing this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and kill it with fire. This is pure game-guide material, and is utterly unencylopedic. This type of material belongs on the Devil May Cry wiki -- not here. Nandesuka (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article is totally encyclopedic and WIkipedia is just the place for it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you reading to declare it a game guide? It in no way is intended to give advice on killing enemies. I honestly don't think half the people involved in this discussion are even reading the article or at least the edits made by the two main editors who aren't just IP addresses.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a well-written article about a non-notable subject. Send it to Wikia if you like, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a well-written article about a notable subject that belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RotoResume[edit]

No evidence of secondary coverage. Less than 100 Google hits. Appears to be a non-notable company. Delete. Fightindaman (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Initially I thought this article might be salvaged with a re-write (it reads like an advert) but with less than 100 Ghits, I agree it's non-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Dee, A7 Non-notable company. Does not establish notability with clear independent references. Also appears to be blatant advert WP:Spam. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:31, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randaline Fortune[edit]

Tragic, notable but simply a news story. Clearly falls into WP:NOT#NEWS. In six months time there may be an article but currently there is simply a tragic news story. Wikinews is setup to cover this type of material Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I was tempted to vote "Abstain") - I respect your nomination, Peripitus. Perhaps I should wait a little longer before creating the article anyway, until the matter is settled in court and we know what kinds of movements (activism) come of it. I would still like to see the article stay, but I'm not going to be deeply offended if it gets deleted. Thanks for your sensitivity. Following are my reasons why I would consider it good to stay. That said, each of these issues could be answered by giving Randaline a mention as part of another, bigger, article:
- It highlights issues of teenage pregnancy (Her mother is 17)
- It highlights issues of child rape, particularly in South Africa
- It will turn into a crime story when more information about the suspect becomes available. This will make it a good candidate for the WPCrime project
- In short, it highlights all sorts of issues which I think could be good for an encyclopaedia. -GrahamDo (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I believe an article should assert some significance, and that must be attributed to sources. The article creator's defense above indicates a great desire to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and highlight areas about the case that he thinks are important. We have no indication as of yet that this story, other than generating some headlines, will have a practical effect on things like the rape epidemic in South Africa. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I apologise for giving the impression that I was trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. In truth, I have no personal interest in the case whatsoever. I simply thought the story was very interesting, and that people deserved to see it. Of course, I drew personal conclusions and made personal observations about the story's implications. But I'd like to think that those opinions and observations don't come accross in the way the article is written. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awful that it is, it isn't inherantly notable. That might change in time when the page can be recreated, but as it stands I don't think it deserves a page of it's own. Alberon (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and wikipedia's purpose is not to highlight the issues that author's POV tell them should be highlighted --Fredrick day (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK how is this event not notable?! Even the original nominator said it was. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The original nominator was wrong. Sadly, murders of children happen far too often. For this particular rape and murder to have a page it needs to be notable above and beyond the average reporting that surrounds every similar event. That might seem a bit callous, but it is the only reasonable policy for this enclyclopedia. Otherwise you'd need hundreds of pages for all other similar murders. Alberon (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And what's wrong with that? :P Seriously, why shouldn't every murder that earns a place in the news have an article here? WikiNews is all well and good, but (a) it's not nearly as popular as Wikipedia, and (b) each and every murder/rape/whatever that occurs in the world involves different people, who have different reactions, and speaks to different philosophies and issues. Those far-reaching reactions to a particular story go way way beyond what's expected of WikiNews. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vile though it is, this is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It could be re-written to sound less like a newscast, but I don't think the content itself is encyclopedic TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't find WP:ONEVENT. What does it say? -GrahamDo (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct link is WP:ONEEVENT. See also WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops sorry for the typo on that. What it says is, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."
    - Great, thanks! After careful consideration, I've actually decided I agree with all that this article is not warranted. Should I go and mark it for speedy deletion now, or wait until this process is completed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamDo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 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 per discussion. Ckatz^chat _spy 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chili Cheese Chalupa[edit]

Speedy delete Nonsense, even though a chalupa is a kind of taco, the article is not encyclopedic at all. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Article is a direct copy from chalupa with minor variations, primarily the addition of the "inventor's" name (which the author of this article has been adding to several other articles as well). Fightindaman (talk) 05:20, 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 keep per discussion below. Any cleanup issues should be handled on the article or its talk page. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t^

Howard King (public-address announcer)[edit]

Non-notable announcer. Mikeblas (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's at least worth mentioning somewhere -- Michigan Stadium, perhaps? Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has no references at all, but that's precisely why there's not enough information to glean notability. Fix the article to show some references. --GrahamDo (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it a reference and keep it as a stub. --Pmedema (talk) 17:46, 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 keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lights (singer)[edit]

Non-notable musician - searching doesn't reveal any substantial/significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. [27] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability per WP:MUSIC is unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is an artist who's basically sitting right on the cusp, and there are sources out there if you use the right search terms. I've already added one, and have several more at the ready. Keep vote from me; I'll personally look after improving it. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow for improvement by Bearcat. Already has some third-party sources, so it's well on its way towards WP:N. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 12 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Levin[edit]

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Created by user who has created a long list of such articles sourced to partisan sources, see WP:BLP/N#American academics. Contested prod. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oslo syndrome should have its own article if its creator were notable... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. His early book on Freud is cited by scholars

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&rls=WZPA,WZPA:2005-50,WZPA:en&q=%22kenneth+levin%22+freud&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

http://www.jstor.org/search/BasicSearch?si=1&hp=25&Search=Search&gw=jtx&Query=%22levin%2C+kenneth%22++freud&wc=on

His later work, the Oslo Syndrome, is probably more influential. When I typed his name into news google. He popped right up, being interviewed about the recent events in Gaza http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A6BAC60D-3F0C-4059-838C-1761F6084311 —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere citation doesn't make someone notable, nor does being quoted by FPM. Relata refero (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from talk page: discuss here please.
- Please back and take another look at the article.
  But Levin is being discussed by serious journalists. The Jerusalem Post and the New York Sun are to the right of center, but they are respected for high journalistic standards. Heis ideas are also being discussed by by authors writing books on Israeli society.
  But on this quesiton of notability. A guy writes a book that is published by a respectable press and widely reviewed. (this one is also widely discussed, but even supposing it wasas not discussed in the press, just reviewed)
  Why not have an article on him. poeople will want to know who he is.
  And we have infinite space. We really can agree to put up interesting figures who may not be world famous. In fact, I think that this is the great opportunity Wiki phas. After all, if I want to know about, say, Francis Fukuyama - easy as pie. But Kenneth Levin - where else cna you go to find out what degrees he has, what his early books were, etc.
  Please don't be so eager to delete. American Clio (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I looked through the sources, and I don't think there's enough there to pass WP:RS. The coverage from the Jerusalem Post and New York Sun is trivial; the only significant coverage is from Frontpage Magazine, and I'm not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source. Articles written by Levin aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability: that requires articles about him, and I just don't think this article has enough of them to show that he is notable. Terraxos (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Retain. From his blog: "His articles have appeared in The New Republic, The Boston Globe, The Washington Times, and The Jerusalem Post and have also been distributed through the Knight-Ridder syndicate." He is also a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press which is the biggest independent American Jewish weekly newspaper. Don't know if relevant but he is married to Andrea Levin who runs pro-Israel media watchdog CAMERA. Hecht (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is he the subject of articles? (Thanks for the Andrea Levin tidbit, by the way.)Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His blog carries reviews from the New York Post, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. See also Commentary, Jewish Political Studies Review and Outpost (right-wing Zionist monthly). And this news report for his role in a highly controversial CAMERA conference. Hecht (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe This fellow is right on the cusp of notability. Certainly when his book came out three years back, he was all over the Jewish press. It's not clear that he has staying power, however, as I don't see much in the way of references outside that community. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 4 March 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!☺} 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a writer, due to the reviews. DGG (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hecht. John254 23:37, 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 speedy deleteper A7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Abbas Jalali[edit]

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:PROF. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:58, 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elégy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a personal webhost. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Appears to be part copyright violation of Allen Ginsburg and/or WP:Original Research.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per WP:COPYRIGHT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:29, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Green (computer scientist)[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability and for use of solely primary sources for quite some time, and I can't find sufficient third-party sources about this person to demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for biographies. JavaTenor (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for his academic accomplishments, and the phrase he supposedly coined has no hits in Google news, Google books, nor Google scholar. (There are 700 or so in Google proper, but that could easily be accounted for by self-promotion alone.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's done nothing notable yet. Alberon (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I created this article, I now see that Robin Green is not notable enough. --Loremaster (talk) 16:43, 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 per notability of topic indicated in discussion below. Cleanup and disambiguation issues can be handled through the normal editing process. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Taiwanese Literature[edit]

This article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and {{importance}} both since June 2007. I beleive these are still valid taggings. Since then, no attempt has been made to address these issues. Rockfang (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. According to this bibliography I found on Google Books, there is at least one book entirely about this subject. I'm not surprised that no one has addressed the tags; I suspect only a small percentage of editors know the slightest thing about 1930s Taiwanese literature. But this article does have potential; be patient with it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag, mainly because there is an article on it in the Chinese WP, and I thought the wider community should have a chance to see it. DGG (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in English, appears to be more commonly referred to as:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Cheers, cab (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though, there's going to be some confusion here, because as far as I can tell, 台灣新文學 is the name used for the literary movement which started in the 1920s as well as a journal (and the organisation which published it) established in 1935. cab (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:22, 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 no consensus. Merging is left to editorial discretion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Odyssey Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. No independent sources on page. Bizarre claims that this was the largest tour in the music business and last stadium tour in music are supported by a link to the DVD on Amazon. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The tour was publisized and it was fairly big. I agree that better sources are needed though. Undeath (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into the band article. The list of venues isn't required (WP:NOT#DIR). Black Kite 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should have its own page. It was the largest stage and tour in the business. That information can be found by watching their Biography special and on the DVD release of this concert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.44.160 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It did win awards in its own right -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:54, 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 Speedy Delete A7. Tiptoety ^talk 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate True[edit]

Unnotable minor inventor whose claim to fame seems to be minor hacking of the iPhone and other various minor products which are just small updates of other inventions. Most links within the article are from the person's webpage or other projects for other websites and Google hits are under 200. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support of deletion If he was the first person to hack the iphone; then I think we should keep. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, simply hacking an iPhone doesn't make you notable, and there's no evidence that he was the first to do so. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 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. The discussion below notes that notability concerns have been addressed and that the currently-available primary sources have confirmed that the event will take place, thereby satisfying WP:CRYSTAL. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note from closing editor - the AfD tag for this discussion was removed from the article a little less than 24 hours after the start of discussion and not replaced. While the discussion that did take place was, in my opinion, sufficient enough to determine consensus, this factor should be taken into consideration should this closure come under review. --jonny-m t 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss World Tour 2008[edit]

Future tour article violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Sources on page are not independent. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added references to (help) satisfy WP:RS and the official announcement satisfies WP:CRYSTAL (Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place, I wouls say yes and yes). As it seems to have been officially announced, and it is KISS I think we can pretty much assume that it will be covered by multiple more reliable sources in no time at all. Fosnez (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tour for a notable band is notable, sources demonstrate that tour will occur, addressing any supposed WP:CRYSTAL issues. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any more sources? Fosnez added one for Prague, but is just a quick listing of their show there. Fosnez also added one for Belgrade, which says the band will be visiting, and that the band is well-known. But this is an article about a tour of the band. I would expect sources like this [28] (for a tour by Madonna). Articles on the children of notable people have been deleted, articles on products of notable companies have been deleted, and I don't see how this is any different. Also, tours are notorious for ending prematurely, due to health, break-ups and other reasons. Paddy Simcox (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentYour nomination for deletion was because of WP:CRYSTAL, I presume because of item 1 - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place - I believe that my souces satisfy those issues. Without trying to sound offensive, are you now changing your nomination to say that a concert by KISS is not notable? Fosnez (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the second sentence of my nomination covered that. I'm quite surprised, really, at how infrequently tours get media attention, even for well-known bands. These tours are corporate products, and I think that old-school music journalists don't find them interesting. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there's nothing old-school about wikipedia ( WP:NOTPAPER :-) etc. Would you agree that it passes notability guidelies? Fosnez (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not with the sources it currently has. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you looked for sources to sadisfy your own requirements? Fosnez (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. Searching Google by '"KISS Alive/35" tour' there were only 467 hits. As far as I could see, all were ticket sales outlets, blogs, and so forth. Paddy Simcox (talk) 15:04, 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 except signature updates.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson[edit]

She apparently is notable for being a former cocktail waitress, appearing on a reality show, and dating George Clooney. Insufficient, in my book. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a Fear Factor winner and the girlfriend of someone famous isn't enough per WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited was designed for cases like this. When an article flat-out says the subject's biggest claim to fame is being someone's girlfriend, it's begging to be deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not our job to make value judgements. Since she has been noticed in several ways by reliable sources, she is notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the one who made the article from a redirect to Clooney that was embedded within the article on Clooney. Wikipedia isn't lessened by people who may have flash-in-the-pan ephemeral fame, yet are still somewhat notable, but strengthened by it. The information is verifiable and she's a hot topic in actual magazines everywhere. I'm not a celebrity gawker or anything, but anyone who I'm forced to read headlines about while I'm waiting in line to buy my groceries sure seems notable enough to want to look to see what wikipedia may have to say about her. JesseRafe (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:N#TEMP addresses that argument. Both Fear Factor contestants/winners and Clooney girlfriends have come and gone with no corresponding notability. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another comment on the talk page of the article proper by what looks like a new wikipedian, also supporting the existence of the article. Unfortunately this is the only edit he made after signing up, but that IP address seems to have made some valid edits over the prior year. Basically, remember that wikipedia belongs to the readers -- not the secretive cabal that wants to control what wikipedia should be. People will want to look her up, and see if there is anything pertinent to say about her. Finding nothing would be dissatisfying for them, and perhaps reflect poorly on wikipedia's reputation as a compendium; while finding an article that says she ain't done much (yet) will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Remember, it is for the readers that we write. JesseRafe (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules and guidelines are established via consensus of all participants who care to express their opinion, not "a secretive cabal that wants to control what wikipedia should be." Please assume good faith in the rules and their application. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have your opinion, I have mine. Just so you know, talk to any non-wikipedian, and they have no idea who makes these types of decisions-- not just about which articles are deleted, but who sets these policies as well. And it is not a true concensus, it is a concensus of those people who "want to control what wikipedia should be" -- the common reader has no say in these issues. Remember, wikipedia is written for the reader, articles are not written so that they should conform to the MOS. JesseRafe (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here from the article, I don't check AfDs. Keepscases (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are much more noteworthy individuals who somehow have not yet merited a Wiki page, so why this broad? She's no one, no one important, no one interesting. Nothing. Not much is known about her to begin with, and come on, doesnt Wikipedia have some sort of STANDARD to live up to? Much more interesting articles, like that of Johnny Baima, which DO have significance, were deleted for less. And by making her a page, we are contributing to more than one problem. The girl was a nine.com T&A for hire, girls who by common knowledge are regularly know to provide "extra" services at parties for the right price. You cant even find much by googling her--because SHE'S NOBODY.Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 21:57, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of democratically elected governments[edit]

Despite its name, this appears to be a POV-motived page of original research. It appears to have originated as an articled titled List of democratically elected governments opposed by the U.S., and was moved to this page, which clearly is not what it attempts to describe. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - it's a terrible attempt. I don't know how it survived this long. Grsz11 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ew. It's an essay, not a list, and a fairly POV essay too. --Gwern (contribs) 03:51 4 March 2008 (GMT)
Strong Delete - it's not even remotely accurate in certain things, since Hitler was not elected Chancellor, but appointed by the president. Nothing like putting common historical misconceptions front and center. matt91486 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly inaccurate essay. Another example: "he passed the Enabling Act of 1933". No, I believe that the Reichstag passed the act at his behest. Unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: information in this article is available in other places on wiki, better organized and sourced, less problematic POV-wise. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list (which so far has four governments on it, Chile, Germany, Guatemala and Haiti) is actually intended by the author to be a list of "democratically elected governments" that were "destabilized or overthrown" with the assistance of my homeland, the bad old imperialistic United States. As others point out, this is filled with inaccuracies and POV so far, and there's no reason to expect that it will get any better. I expect it's probably redundant to another article anyway. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to give me time to fix it. I originally intended it to be a completely neutral examination of governments which were "elected" and yet which someone decided was not democratic enough to be maintained. This, however, may be too large a topic for me to address all by myself.
1. The real question is, "What makes a government democratic?"
2. A related question: "Do elections always result in democratic governments?"
3. I'd like to collect published opinions on both sides of these and other questions.
4. I am not pushing any POV - if I were, the nominator would have either (a) stated that "Ed is pushing viewpoint X" or (b) simply revised the article so that it was neutral about whether X is true. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment You may not be pushing a POV but at the very least this article constitutes OR.--Woland (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of stuff to take on in one article. Heaven knows that there are plenty of published sources about Guatemala, Chile, Iran, etc., but setting the boundaries is where the POV has come in. It calls on judgments about whether an election was "fair", whether the government remained "democratic", and how you define whether the U.S.A. was "responsible" for the overthrow or destabilization of the government. You suggest that in 1945, the U.S. nullified the results of Germany's 1932 elections, and overthrew a democratically elected government. To be nice about it, that is a point of view I have never read before today... Mandsford (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the way this article is done, we could use the POV (correct POV in my opinion, but yet a POV) that Reagan's administration's actions ultimately forced the downfall of the USSR, whose government was formally elected very democratically — after all, the USSR was always proclaming that it stood for democracy. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church virus protection[edit]

provides advice to churches on the use of the internet. OR, wikipedia is not a How To guide. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki if an appropriate destination can be found, else Delete. Powers ^T 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a How To. Xdenizen (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, the article is a How To. Red Act (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't specific to churches in any way, and it isn't even very good advice. (Disk-infecting boot sector viruses have been uncommon since the mid-90s, for instance.) The list of advice is a direct copy of this web site, also. Might be a highly convoluted attempt at promoting the sketchy-looking software advertised there. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedy delete given that much of the text is a copyright violation. I have removed and flagged that text as such. Without the text copied from the blog, we're left with a very brief article with no showing of context, minimal content, and no notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was working under the assumption that the author of the blog was the person who contributed the text to Wikipedia, but I suppose we're better safe than sorry. =) Powers ^T 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the case, they can always pipe in and say so. Then again, I am unaware of any sectarian divisions in malicious software, so it's a bit hard for me to grasp how church virus protection would differ from more secular kinds. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a How To Guide, and much of the text before the above noted action was possibly a copyvio. With that removed, we're not only left with unsourced generalizations, but a stub that does not assert notability. --Darkprincealain (talk) 19:06, 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 merge into Bratz Babyz. KrakatoaKatie 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Babyz: The Movie[edit]

This direct- to- DVD movie doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) as the only RS coverage is trivial and a google search is mainly product listings. No reviews, no major awards, not a significant work. Appears entirely non-notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after vigorous trimming, to Bratz Babyz until evidence can be presented to demonstrate that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Moonriddengirl. Powers ^T 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the directly above....--Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Merge The Dominator (talk) 19:25, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The position of Iranians in scientific competitions

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

The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position of Iranians in scientific competitions[edit]

Trivial list Adoniscik (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR NN --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic. JJL (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entry, due to a failure to establish notability of the subject through the provision of reliable sources. AGK (contact) 07:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, nationalistic POV, essay-like... --Itub (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly empty, and what is there is pretty trivial. Note that we do have an article Science and technology in Iran, which would be a better place to put any notable content relating to this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Prime Ministers by nicknames[edit]

Page verges on CSD:G10 -- "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". For the top half of the table, large chunks of WP:BLP apply. This is unlikely to ever change: politicans' nicknames are inevitably almost always going to be disparaging, leading to BLP issues for the living and NPOV issues for the dead. -- simxp (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Were it any other blog that was used as a source, I'd have my doubts, but http://www.number-10.gov.uk is from the office of the Prime Minister, and if it's good enough for Gordo, it's good enough for me. Presidential nicknames are considered encyclopedic, from "Father of His Country" to "Dubya" and this is the equivalent for the British p.m. Mandsford (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the twenty-four nicknames given for living prime ministers (i.e. which must meet WP:BLP), a grand total of one is sourced to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/... -- simxp (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A grand total of one? Where did you get that? Footnotes #27 through #50 add up to 24. So which of those is the "one"? Mandsford (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "one" is #11. The others, unless someone's been indulging in a little prime ministerial necromancy, rather fail to qualify as "living".... -- simxp (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I overlooked that your "grand total of one" statement was qualified to living British prime ministers (of which there are "a grand total of four" -- Brown, Blair, Major and Thatcher). Not as grand as it might look at first blush, but at least one person seems to have been persuaded by your observation. Not surprisingly, the nicknames cited for the four living persons are from sources other than the Office of the Prime Minister. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per simxp's comments. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per precedent (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names). If the President of the United States has a list of nicknames, why not the Britsh Prime Minister - surely one is as relevant as the other? --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per precedent at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names).Grsz11 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, if you feel that way, I hope you'll be putting the equivalent list for US Presidents up for deletion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm strongly thinking about it. Stay tuned for further developments. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add reliable sources to those that can be sourced and remove those that can't. Just because they are nicknames does not mean they are unencyclopedic. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicknames such as the Iron Duke or Welsh Wizard are not disparaging and are, in any case, very notable. Contemporary nicknames need good sourcing to minimise abuse but this is normal editing. The title seems unsatisfactory and would be better grammar as List of nicknames of British Prime Ministers. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel W., I only yesterday learned about Churchill's codename during World War II; not a nickname, certainly, but an interesting choice. I'm an admirer of Sir Winston as well. Mandsford (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing more than a trivia collection, as it is written. Surely this information makes more sense in the context of the articles on the individual PMs. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grsz....--Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Graz, you are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This page reqiures much sourcing but at present breaks WP:BLP. Lizzie Harrison 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns can simply be address by removing all nicknames that are not sourced, there are enough sourced ones to make the page valid. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historical information,adequately sourced; its reasonable to bring this together.DGG (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and delete the unsourced nicknames: there's no reason to treat this differently from the US Presidents. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 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.

The result was delete , original research. KrakatoaKatie 03:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Hazrat Sultan Bahu (R.A)[edit]

Unsalvageable OR Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, unsourced, OR. JJL (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suspect it might contain cut-and-paste copyright violation as well.--House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 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 - term made up by article's creator. KrakatoaKatie 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exogenetics[edit]

Non-notable protologism. Previously speedied. Prod deleted by author. JuJube (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy again as per nom. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per recreation of deleted material. If that doesn't apply because a {{prod}} was removed, delete due to no sources. --Pixelface (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this article was not deleted through discussion, it is not eligible for WP:CSD#G4. However, the term seems to be a neologism at best and is not defined even by the scientific community (see Google Scholar results). As it stands, the content is original research and thus unverifiable. --jonny-m t 16:17, 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 speedily deleted by Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 03:39, 04 March 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwrecked[edit]

Notability not established; possible hoax since query provides no conclusive results. Entirely unsourced. seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already prodded it and also, the creator of the article said on the talk page that he made it as a new idea for a movie that he needed to show his cinema teacher. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this qualify under speedy deletion per G2 (test page)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe hoax+test page, but I recommend "hoax" because it wasn't really a test. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as hoax/test, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:38, 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 speedy delete. I agree with Warthog. I see no real assertion of notability at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Rebellion (band)[edit]

Non-notable band - no reliable secondary sources - mostly just blogs and myspace [29] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be speedied as dbband. -WarthogDemon 02:42, 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Alldredge[edit]

This is rather funny, and I would like for it to survive, but I can't seem to find any information on it that would justify WP:Bio inclusion in Wikipedia other than blogs & such. Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wacky underdog campaigns may be WP:INTERESTING, but they are not inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment He's a cutie, and I love the hat. As much as I'd LOVE to see his pretty face continue to grace the pages of Wikipedia, I'm affraid I just can't find a reason to justify it. Dgf32 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wish I could vote otherwise on this too. Someone go find some notable external links quick! Alberon (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I had closed this AfD as a delete, but then noticed that the AfD tag had been removed from the article already on the 26th of February (not by any of the above people). Since this would make the AfD nearly invisible for those people interested in the article, this may have resulted in an unfair result (though I doubt it, in all fairness). I would suggest leaving this AfD open for another four or five days, just to play it safe. Fram (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does need improvement, citations of newspaper articles have been added. They are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the two newspaper articles are from the same paper and the same columnist. If some alternate source can be cited in addition, I'd be willing to reverse my delete nomination. What has been presented is not enough to show more than 5 minutes of fame-- much less fame than most failed mayorial candidates usually generate--many of whom are not regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia article themselves.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Funny as it may be, there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. He is not a major political figure, but a failed candidate (non-notable per WP:BIO lacking other criteria.) He is not an ambassador. If this person's notability should gain legs beyond one columnist in two editorials in one paper in a single month, he may achieve notability. Not there yet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sources added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.202.85 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources don't seem to indicate that the individual is notable by Wikipedia's definitions. Note that "a short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note You have only produced two sources by the same author, Greg Campbell; the two more recent articles are near identical mirrors of the previous two, also by the same author. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted per Fram. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting but trivial. Wiki can't have a site for everybody who has ever run for office and lost. Renee (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anyone wants to consider it an A7 I wouldn't object, for I do not find the claims to notability plausible.DGG (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heehee, this is a funny article, but the local newspaper coverage doesn't qualify him for notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a huge overhaul, but it appears this actually meets notability standards. I'll do some cleaning up. нмŵוτн τ 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I cleaned up the article. нмŵוτн τ 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good job on the clean-up, but I wonder where you see that he meets WP:BIO. He doesn't meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians. Failed political candidates may receive press coverage—and probably will—but are not notable for their candidacy. In terms of other criteria, the sourcing still all refers back to a single author, which would in my opinion not seem to meet the "multiple independent sources" test. Can you be more specific about how you feel it meets notability standards? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I guess I was thinking WP:BIO basic criteria. I didn't look at the politician criteria. Your point is correct. I'll strike out my "keep" comment. нмŵוτн τ 18:05, 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 Deleted as WP:CSD#A3 (No meaningful content). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Piece[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns a non-notable "piece of coffee cake", and is believed to constitute original research. John254 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:54, 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 Speedied CSD:G7. Clearly not a viable article, and AfD'd by its own author, no point in letting this one run. Black Kite 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Intention[edit]

Delete this article.
It doesn't have notability. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to open an AfD when there was already a PROD on the article. I've removed the prod now that this AfD is open, since I assume that you meant to contest the PROD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete gibberish. Wouldn't this qualify as a speedy delete? Renee (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, at best it's WP:OR. No references that this term is comonly used this way.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much WP:OR. You could've placed {{db-author}} on the page and saved the trouble. Precious Roy (talk) 02:25, 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 Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#A3 (No meaningful content). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mancake[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns a non-notable neologism, and is believed to constitute original research. John254 01:40, 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 / Categorise (it's the intersection of two categories anyway). Black Kite 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatian-Australian Socceroos[edit]

Content can be covered in a category, not worthy of an individual page GiantSnowman (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to category per nom. At first, I thought this would be a non-notable junction, but the high number of blue links seems to indicate that it could be a useful category.(P.S. "Socceroos" is cute; 'roos are my second favorite animal.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do as suggested in nomination. Renee (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Once it can be absorbed as a sub-cat and that category explained then fine with a Delete per nomination move. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment, but if the names aren't related back to WP:RS, then it will be a delete. fchd (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if reliable sources and information about caps(goals) years etc could be added I would be more inclined to keep, although a rename would definitely be in order. If no improvements are made I'll !vote delete. English peasant 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category:Croatian Australians is enough. Punkmorten (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category/delete this page--VS ^talk 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise; list doesn't hold any information that a proper category could not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. some of the players listed here have limited if not questionable Croatian heritage. Its not really worthy of a list article anyway - Tomperc (talk) 10:03, 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 except signature updates.

The result was ~~delete, but I'll be pleased to userfy if someone needs it.~~ - Philippe | Talk 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC). I'm undeleting it. I screwed this one up. There was no consensus to delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the gameplay and plot sections of the various Legend of Zelda games where Link uses a musical instrument. This topic warrants 2-3 sentences in the series article, but this article establishes no notability beyond that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Someone put a lot of time into this analyzing and describing the different instruments. I know nothing about the series but is the information useful to someone in the know? If references could be added and/or someone could make the case that this is useful information for people into this game, then I would keep. Renee (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if not already included with game articles, weak keep otherwise. This feels reasonable, since the page may provide additional insight not provided in the game articles. Unsourced information can eventually be backed up. <3 bunny 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - keep may be tad strong, but I think it is worthing considering keeping. Initially I couldn't see much point to keeping the article, but as per normal I looked around for any materials that might suggest it is a notable topic in preparation for a delete vote. I was surprised by Google Scholar - it seems the issue of the use of instruments as an in-game controller is of some interest in academia, and Zelda turns up as part of that. The article as it stands doesn't reflect this, though, so while I think a good article could be written (noting that I've only followed up a couple of the academic papers), I'm not sure that it will be. And it might use the existing article as a base, but it would need to be much more expansive. The current article would be fairly easy to reference, though. Anyway, the topic seems worthy of further consideration. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article would need multiple sources of that kind of stuff, so you'd have to show, by adding to the article that stuff to show that it exists, google searches don't establish notability in the way we need. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I found three academic papers discussing the use of musical instruments in Zelda. The issue wasn't ghits, which don't establish notability, but Google Scholar hits, which do. Or rather, they point to articles that will establish notability. I'll see if I can get the time to do something for the article, but really I'm just suggesting that - to my surprise - the topic is more notable than one might assume. - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the project is supposed to be working on combining all these sub-articles into one "universe of The Legend of Zelda series" article, and the instruments are a big part of that series. However, few seem to be working on it now, or at all, anymore, so if this page could instead be moved to User:KrytenKoro/Musical instruments form The Legend of Zelda (series), that would be great.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per KrytenKoro. Gameguide-ish information with elements of original research. Not totally unsalvagable, but would require a major rewrite and refocus which is better done in userspace (since we already got an editor who volunteered). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that per Bilby's work. If someone is not content with the current article now, a merge proposal is the way to go, not this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information about the game, not a game guide. Not useful in playing the game--I dont immediately see how this would help in that. DGG (talk)

But what about the notability question? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was merchandise made (i.e. the ocarina) for the instruments, and it's a fairly integral part of a very notable game series. I think there is definitely some notability here. <3 bunny 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of notability established thus far indicates it would make a few sentences in the main series article, but there needs to be a multiple or many sources, and that hasn't been shown yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some time, so I'm looking at whether the notability question can be addressed. At this point there's a particularly good little discussion in Play Along - An Approach to Videogame Music published in Game Studies 4(1), a mention of the use of musical puzzles in Zelda in Levels of Sound (Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association), and about half a dozen others that I still need to wade through. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a new section and some references which should be sufficient to establish notability. There's clearly a lot more referencing to do, but most of it is easy stuff to find. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Judge's well-formed nom. Eusebeus (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as I already merged this into The Legend of Zelda (series). --Pixelface (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after Bilby's improvements. --Pixelface (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It doesn't seem to fit at all on the Zelda page, and I don't think you should have merged it right in the middle of a deletion discussion. I think a better target would be the universe of article. If someone is willing to do a proper integration, not just a cut/paste, the universe article is being built at User:KrytenKoro/Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have de-merged the article, I don't think that the article is short enough to merge in to the main artilcle. The Zelda series article is way too long to merge something like this in to it. For now I'd be in favour of keeping but I agree it needs more cites. BigHairRef | Talk 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a few more citations (17 now), and I'll extend it further if it survives AfD. In regard to merging - I can see an argument for merging, but I agree that there is too much for The Legend of Zelda (series). However, I think that it would be a better choice for merger than Universe of The Legend of Zelda, as the focus shouldn't be on simply what the instruments are (a "universe of ..." topic) but also on the significance of instruments to the game and, in terms of notability, as a game mechanic. That aside, while I had never encountered this topic before the AfD (so thanks Judgesurreal777 for raising it), researching it means that I'm now happy that the instruments are a notable topic, rather than fan cruft (which was my initial reaction when I saw the AfD). Whether or not the article displays this (or others agree with me) is another issue. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can all be adequately covered in their own articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I applaud your efforts, but I still think the references you have found would make a very good, large, and comprehensive paragraph addition to the Zelda series article, and also the universe article if and when that comes back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly so, which is why I don't object to the merge option, I just prefer keep: mostly because of the "large" part of your point. My feeling is that the instruments are notable in their own right, and that they would take a lot of space in the main Zelda article. Even better (and, from what I've read recently, even more notable) would be a "music of zelda" article - but for that I'd probably use the instruments as a base and move out, rather than starting from scratch and moving the instruments in. Still, if consensus is merge, I'm happy that the merge will be with properly sourced information. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this article necessary, though? Shouldn't the musical instruments be mentioned in the logical articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question; at this point, perhaps it would be prudent to not delete, but focus on where to merge, as the question of notability has been, to at least a limited extent, established. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the content from this article, put the appropriate content in the appropriate article (ie, Harp of Ages to Oracle of Seasons and Ages), and delete. The likelihood that someone would visit this article through the Search is very, very low. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can hash that out on the talk page, but can we agree that outright deletion is no longer necessary? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 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 except signature updates.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasar and Chuy[edit]

Not notable. —BradV 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone provides indication of notability, such as comments about them in a non LATV media course.--House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE ARTICLE Very notable article.

Links to Ceasar and Chuy on other media besides LATV:

1)TV GUIDE: http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?id=7266925

2)http://www.1888pressrelease.com/ceasar-and-chuy-to-host-amateur-night-pr-2if4431zh.html

3)http://www.hispanictips.com/2007/10/30/ceasar-chuy-latv-latv-signs-over-man-productions-comedic-series-ceasar-chuy/

This is a legit show/production which gets some of the highest ratings in its demographic. There is no reason for deletion. --Qreyes

Note: The author (User:Qreyes) has made further contributions to the article. —BradV 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article still needs a lot of work, with the author's contributions, as well as those of an anonymous IP who I assume is the editor, the article is already nine times larger than it was at nomination. The author has provided more reliable references for this show, establishing notability. There is a clear incentive to improve the article, and with the help of any relevant WikiProjects, this should turn out to be a very good article. Let 'em work on it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the article as a possible conflict of interest, as I suspect the author (Qreyes) is tied to the show. The username is similar to one of the authors (Keu Reyes). Also, three images that were on the article before they were speedied were listed as original work. The images were similar to those found on Google Images, but were not identical, which suggests that the contributor had access to original unpublished images. All of this is purely circumstantial evidence, but is important enough to be noted here. —BradV 21:23, 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. - Philippe | Talk 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nl'akapxm Eagle Motorplex

Nl'akapxm Eagle Motorplex[edit]

No assertion of notability. —BradV 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search of this under Google news and absolutely nothing came up. May not even be true. Renee (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Google searches prove notability. Undeath (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs major improvement, but appears to be notable. Black Kite 12:08, 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 Speedy Deleted as WP:CSD#G10 (Attack page). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Cortland - (slang term)[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns a non-notable neologism, and is believed to constitute original research. John254 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this should be moved to the wikitionary. And tell me (on my talk page please), if there's a project for article deletion. If so, tell me how to join.Mm40 (talk)

Delete per WP:NEO. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never heard it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 01:52, 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 merge. Information from this article was evidently used already to fill in information at List of radio stations in California, so this is no longer a candidate for deletion for GFDL reasons. However, there is no consensus to keep this as a stand-alone list and plenty of arguments advanced for deletion or merger. With respect to incorporating this material into any future articles on Media in Stockton, such material can of course be obtained from the article's history as long as the merger is properly noted per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Stockton[edit]

Article is a list of radio stations in a particular arbitrarily-defined radio station market. List of radio stations in California already covers this particular area and is both current and of the currently accepted form (United States radio lists are on the state level). This is one of only two lists covering United States radio stations in this manner. JPG-GR (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination, already exists in the California list. Renee (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered. In event of being kept/merged, needs renaming as Stockton -> Stockton, California. Black Kite 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from being "arbitrarily-defined", media markets such as these are well-defined by Arbitron (see list of markets here and see how Stockton is the #79 market here). Radio markets are the industry standard for geographical categorization of radio stations. This list has been recently updated from two reliable sources: RadioStationWorld page for Stockton/Tracy/Lodi and an Inside Radio station search (type Stockton into the City/Market to get an equivalent list). List of radio stations in California does not incoprorate all of the information from this list, instead, the statewide list is now simply a wikified FCC database dump which does not have Owner and Format information updated, and omits Branding entirely (many stations are known more by their branding than by their callsign, yet this important information is omitted from the statewide lists). The statewide list contains 800+ radio stations and is 62KB long, and such a long sortable table causes performance issues in some browsers, as well as being unhelpful for the reader and/or editor seeking information about stations within their own market area, which is generally the set of stations to which such a typical reader or editor will be able to tune and listen. The only reason so few of these market lists remain is that the nominator recently {{prod}}-ded many other lists I was working on, and I had not objected in time. (I am often away from editing Wikipedia for extended periods of time due to other priorities in my life.) When I requested undeletion, the deleting administrator did not restore the articles as is usual practice for a contested PROD, but userfied the content instead. Other similar lists (including statewide lists which were organized by market area), which had existed in the past for years, were also redirected a few months back, also by the nominator, and replaced by wikified FCC database dumps. The FCC does not track radio market areas, but many other reliable sources do. Market-area lists such as this one conform to our content policies of verifiability based on reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view, and conform to notability guidelines and list guidelines, so there is no policy-based reason to delete these lists. Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion, and similar to how categories, lists, and navigational templates are encouraged to co-exist and be used to update each other in synergy, the market lists should be considered to complement the statewide lists and market templates, and each should be used to update the others. DHowell (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stations can be part of more than one market or none at all, making this an inefficient way to sort stations. The shift in the state radio lists from the horrendous inconsistencies and disarray that existed only occurred after discussion at WP:WPRS. Moreover, as each Arbitron market already has its own template, a template which each included article contains (or will eventually), these lists are wholly redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While stations may serve or have listeners in more than one market, every station serving a market has a primary market to which it can be assigned, and is assigned, according to the sources (RadioStationWorld and Inside Radio) that I cited. And that some stations might not belong to any market is certainly no reason to delete lists of stations which do serve a market. And sorting by market is only "inefficient" in your opinion. I happen to think having to sort and search through a list of 800+ radio stations, to find the 5 to 20 percent or so that I can actually hear from any given location in the state, is rather inefficient, especially on slower computers which may take a while to sort that table. Then having to know the name of every city in the region which has a radio station to find them all. I may not be the only one who thinks these large statewide lists are unwieldly, because so far very few have bothered to update the Owner and Format fields in List of radio stations in California, or List of radio stations in Texas for that matter, both large unwieldly lists. The "horrendous inconsistencies and disarry that existed" before, were SIX statewide lists for each state, which were in widely differing formats, and largely became unecessary because of the new sortable wikitable feature. There was consensus in the discussions at WT:WPRS to replace most of these with sortable wikitables, because the lists sorted by city, owner, format, and frequency could all be sorted in one sortable table. But there was no consenus on what to do about market areas, and you solely made the decision to keep them out of the new tables. I asked that the separate market area lists remain, and you appeared to concede to leave the California market lists alone so that I could work on them. Now, less than 5 months later, you've proposed and nominated them for deletion! I know I am to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if I am being "punished" for having other priorities and not working on them in these last few months, or if I would have wasted my time had I actually worked hard on them and completed them, only to still have them nominated for deletion? Furthermore, as WP:CLS says, templates are not redundant to lists and can should be used complement each other. The templates are a basic navigational aid, while the lists give a more comprehensive overview of each region's radio stations. Even deletion policy says that duplicate articles should be merged and redirected, not deleted outright. But if market lists are redundant to statewide lists, does that also mean that the state lists redundant to the nationwide callsign lists? All the information in the 50 state lists should also be in the 12 or so national lists, so they're "wholly redundant": should one of these sets be deleted? DHowell (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Owner and format information from this list has now been used to fill in appropriate blank cells in List of radio stations in California. JPG-GR (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were about a dozen more of these California radio-stations-by-market lists a week ago; the bulk got prodded. We normally use templates to group stations by market rather than individual lists, so delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not suggesting that a number of contested PRODs represent a precedent for deleting the remaining ones, just because I contested them a day late? Please see WP:CLS for why the existence of templates does not justify the deletion of lists. DHowell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't need separate lists for each individual market, and until these California ones were created early this year we didn't have separate radio lists for any other individual radio market. California doesn't get to have unique treatment. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - These California lists were created in May and June 2007, not "early this year", and other lists outside of California have existed even longer, until they were redirected by JPG-GR in October 2007, such as:
      - List of radio stations in Chicago by name, created December 2004
      - List of radio stations in Las Vegas, created November 2006
    - As well as several statewide lists sorted by market area, such as:
      - List of radio stations in Arizona by market area, created December 2006
      - List of radio stations in Missouri by market area, created October 2006
      - List of radio stations in New York by market area, created October 2003
      - List of radio stations in North Carolina by market area, created October 2005
      - List of radio stations in Ohio by market area, created June 2006
      - List of radio stations in South Dakota by market area, created October 2004
      - List of radio stations in West Virginia by market area, created May 2006
      - List of radio stations in Wisconsin by market area, created September 2005
    - And several "Media of ..." lists still contain market area radio station lists:
    - These lists have existed on Wikipedia for much longer than the 5 months that the statewide radio station lists have existed in their present behemoth format, and I suspect have been updated by far more people. I also believe that the larger state lists are intimidating to newbies and occasional editors (some of whom may be radio industry experts but not Wikipedia experts), and are dependent on the watchful eye of a tiny number of dedicated editors, who could leave the project at any time or go on extended wikibreaks, without whom many of the present state lists would eventually become even more out-of-date and inaccurate than their predecessors. DHowell (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of radio stations in California per JPG-GR. - Dravecky (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The state list is just fine. There is already a market area nav box so we don't need a list, category and nav box. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Stockton, California article has a [[Stockton, California#Radio broadcast stations

much less complete list]] in its "Media" section. Would it be acceptable to refactor this list into a Media of Stockton, California or List of media in Stockton, California article, which would comprise the television station and newspaper lists from the current city article along with the radio stations? Then the city article could simply link to the media article. See the various media articles referenced above for precedent. DHowell (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 05:50, 12 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. Information from this article was evidently used already to fill in information at List of radio stations in California, so this is no longer a candidate for deletion for GFDL reasons. However, there is no consensus to keep this as a stand-alone list and plenty of arguments advanced for deletion or merger. With respect to incorporating this material into any future articles on Media in Monterey Bay, such material can of course be obtained from the article's history as long as the merger is properly noted per Help:Merge.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in the Monterey Bay area[edit]

Article is a list of radio stations in a particular arbitrarily-defined radio station market. List of radio stations in California already covers this particular area and is both current and of the currently accepted form (United States radio lists are on the state level). This is one of only two lists covering United States radio stations in this manner. JPG-GR (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination, already exists in the California list. Renee (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of radio stations in California per JPG-GR. - Dravecky (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from being "arbitrarily-defined", media markets such as these are well-defined by Arbitron (see list of markets here and see how Monterey-Salinas-Santa Cruz, CA (AKA the Monterey Bay) is the #81 market here). Radio markets are the industry standard for geographical categorization of radio stations. This list can be updated from at least two reliable sources: RadioStationWorld page for Salinas/Monterey/Santa Cruz and an Inside Radio station search (type Monterey into the City/Market to get an equivalent list). List of radio stations in California does not incoprorate all of the information from this list, instead, the statewide list is now simply a wikified FCC database dump which does not have Owner and Format information updated, and omits Branding entirely (many stations are known more by their branding than by their callsign, yet this important information is omitted from the statewide lists). The statewide list contains 800+ radio stations and is 62KB long, and such a long sortable table causes performance issues in some browsers, as well as being unhelpful for the reader and/or editor seeking information about stations within their own market area, which is generally the set of stations to which such a typical reader or editor will be able to tune and listen. The only reason so few of these market lists remain is that the nominator recently {{prod}}-ded many other lists I was working on, and I had not objected in time. (I am often away from editing Wikipedia for extended periods of time due to other priorities in my life.) When I requested undeletion, the deleting administrator did not restore the articles as is usual practice for a contested PROD, but userfied the content instead. Other similar lists (including statewide lists which were organized by market area), which had existed in the past for years, were also redirected a few months back, also by the nominator, and replaced by wikified FCC database dumps. The FCC does not track radio market areas, but many other reliable sources do. Market-area lists such as this one conform to our content policies of verifiability based on reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view, and conform to notability guidelines and list guidelines, so there is no policy-based reason to delete these lists. Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion, and similar to how categories, lists, and navigational templates are encouraged to co-exist and be used to update each other in synergy, the market lists should be considered to complement the statewide lists and market templates, and each should be used to update the others. DHowell (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stations can be part of more than one market or none at all, making this an inefficient way to sort stations. The shift in the state radio lists from the horrendous inconsistencies and disarray that existed only occurred after discussion at WP:WPRS. Moreover, as each Arbitron market already has its own template, a template which each included article contains (or will eventually), these lists are wholly redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While stations may serve or have listeners in more than one market, every station serving a market has a primary market to which it can be assigned, and is assigned, according to the sources (RadioStationWorld and Inside Radio) that I cited. And that some stations might not belong to any market is certainly no reason to delete lists of stations which do serve a market. And sorting by market is only "inefficient" in your opinion. I happen to think having to sort and search through a list of 800+ radio stations, to find the 5 to 20 percent or so that I can actually hear from any given location in the state, is rather inefficient, especially on slower computers which may take a while to sort that table. Then having to know the name of every city in the region which has a radio station to find them all. I may not be the only one who thinks these large statewide lists are unwieldly, because so far very few have bothered to update the Owner and Format fields in List of radio stations in California, or List of radio stations in Texas for that matter, both large unwieldly lists. The "horrendous inconsistencies and disarry that existed" before, were SIX statewide lists for each state, which were in widely differing formats, and largely became unecessary because of the new sortable wikitable feature. There was consensus in the discussions at WT:WPRS to replace most of these with sortable wikitables, because the lists sorted by city, owner, format, and frequency could all be sorted in one sortable table. But there was no consenus on what to do about market areas, and you solely made the decision to keep them out of the new tables. I asked that the separate market area lists remain, and you appeared to concede to leave the California market lists alone so that I could work on them. Now, less than 5 months later, you've proposed and nominated them for deletion! I know I am to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if I am being "punished" for having other priorities and not working on them in these last few months, or if I would have wasted my time had I actually worked hard on them and completed them, only to still have them nominated for deletion? Furthermore, as WP:CLS says, templates are not redundant to lists and can should be used complement each other. The templates are a basic navigational aid, while the lists give a more comprehensive overview of each region's radio stations. Even deletion policy says that duplicate articles should be merged and redirected, not deleted outright. But if market lists are redundant to statewide lists, does that also mean that the state lists redundant to the nationwide callsign lists? All the information in the 50 state lists should also be in the 12 or so national lists, so they're "wholly redundant": should one of these sets be deleted? DHowell (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Owner and format information from this list has now been used to fill in appropriate blank cells in List of radio stations in California. JPG-GR (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were about a dozen more of these California radio-stations-by-market lists a week ago; the bulk got prodded. We normally use templates to group stations by market rather than individual lists, so delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not suggesting that a number of contested PRODs represent a precedent for deleting the remaining ones, just because I contested them a day late? Please see WP:CLS for why the existence of templates does not justify the deletion of lists. DHowell (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't need separate radio lists for each individual market, and until these California ones were created early this year we didn't have separate radio lists for any other individual radio market. California doesn't get to have unique treatment. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - These California lists were created in May and June 2007, not "early this year", and other lists outside of California have existed even longer, until they were redirected by JPG-GR in October 2007, such as:
      - List of radio stations in Chicago by name, created December 2004
      - List of radio stations in Las Vegas, created November 2006
    - As well as several statewide lists sorted by market area, such as:
      - List of radio stations in Arizona by market area, created December 2006
      - List of radio stations in Missouri by market area, created October 2006
      - List of radio stations in New York by market area, created October 2003
      - List of radio stations in North Carolina by market area, created October 2005
      - List of radio stations in Ohio by market area, created June 2006
      - List of radio stations in South Dakota by market area, created October 2004
      - List of radio stations in West Virginia by market area, created May 2006
      - List of radio stations in Wisconsin by market area, created September 2005
    - And several "Media of ..." lists still contain market area radio station lists:
    - These lists have existed on Wikipedia for much longer than the 5 months that the statewide radio station lists have existed in their present behemoth format, and I suspect have been updated by far more people. I also believe that the larger state lists are intimidating to newbies and occasional editors (some of whom may be radio industry experts but not Wikipedia experts), and are dependent on the watchful eye of a tiny number of dedicated editors, who could leave the project at any time or go on extended wikibreaks, without whom many of the present state lists would eventually become even more out-of-date and inaccurate than their predecessors. DHowell (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The new format was discussed at WT:WPRS. Millions of editors working on a list that's constantly in flux doesn't mean that a newer, fully up-to-date version shouldn't exist. Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, frankly. JPG-GR (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Discussed, yes. Consensus for sortable tables, yes. Consensus for the exact format, no. Consensus to eliminate market area information from all radio station lists, no. Your BOLD action of replacing all 50 statewide lists is what determined the current format, not discussion. But since I'm not arguing to delete anything, I don't see how my argument has anything to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nor am I arguing against fully up-to-date lists. I'm suggesting that market area lists are more likely to be kept up-to-date than the state lists, unless you are personally planning to keep all 50 state lists always up-to-date yourself. And none of the state lists are up-to-date re: owners and format, and they omit important information like branding and market area. DHowell (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are a lot more people working on the state radio lists than just I. The same can't be said for the California market lists. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The state list is just fine. There is already a market area nav box so we don't need a list, category and nav box. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "Media" sections in the articles on Monterey, Salinas and Santa Cruz all contain the same duplicated information about TV stations and print media. Would it be acceptable to refactor this list into a Media of the Monterey Bay area or List of Monterey Bay media article, which would comprise the duplicated television station and print media information from the current city articles along with the radio stations? Then the cities' articles could all simply link to a single article on the area's media. See the various media articles referenced above for precedent. DHowell (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of radio stations in California per JPG-GR. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 05:49, 12 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 Planck scale and relevant information that is solidly referenced can be merged there, please. Eyes on the target article would be useful here. Black Kite 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Planck[edit]

Article fails to assert notability and searches reveal an utter lack of reliable sources for this POV fork or fringe theory. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for speculation. The only source at this time is a letter to the editor, which is not at all a reliable source. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody can demonstrate reliable sources sufficient to write an article that is more than a stub, I'd be willing to change my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote below for an explanation of Nature's idiosyncratic terms for "articles" vs. "letters" vs. "correspondence". The Zurek source is in fact peer-reviewed. Skinwalker (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- "Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence" may carry the title of a "letter", but is in fact a publication in Nature, a peer-reviewed journal. This article doesn't concern "things made up in school one day", but research published by the respected Los Alamos National Laboratory-- see "Sub-Planck Structures in Phase Space and Heisenberg-Limited Measurements". John254 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar finds over 200 articles with sub-planck in them somewhere, 16 of them with it in the title, and the Zurek Nature letter has close to 100 citations. So it seems likely that there's enough content for an article on the subject. However, the article should be rewritten to describe what the literature actually says about this regime, rather than the current article which besides being "hypothetical, speculative, and conjectural" is also too vague to be useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planck scale. "Sub-Planck" is just a dicdef, like submillimeter or subsonic or subbass, and there's nothing particularly worth saying about it that's not better said in the longer article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a theoretical physics concept. It is not a dictionary definition, and has a far more subtle meaning than the mere linguistic result of prepending the prefix "sub" to Planck scale. John254 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per John254. -- Antonio Lopez ^(talk)03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The actual physics concept is the Planck scale, all of the relevant theory deals with defining this scale and describing what happens at this scale. You're going to see exactly the same theories (if any) in this article as in Planck scale, with nothing particularly new occurring as you shrink things further. I'd be happy to see a counterexample---what on earth is imagined to occur at 10^-38 m that doesn't also occur at 10^-35? Bm gub (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not fringe, and not made up in school one day. The Planck scale is the limit of conceptions of physics; what happens beyond is a legitimate subject of scholarly inquiry, including whether anything we know applies. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority view in Physics is that nothing can be observed on a sub-Planck scale. Hence, this article is a fringe view. It is also original research. The topic can be covered in Planck scale quite nicely with a simple definition. There's no need for a separate article that has no reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as original research or novel synthesis. I checked for reliable sources and found none. The discussions comment that this might be a hypothetical cocnept if it ever gets accepted, which is fine, but it hasn't been yet. We need peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ...what happens beyond is a legitimate subject of scholarly inquiry... ...but Wikipedia is not the place to do that scholarly inquiry. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a legitimate subject and the article as it stands now is harmless and represents the external sources well. CKCortez (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't actually say that much and seems more like someones musings on the subject. Alberon (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planck scale. I accept that the term "sub-Planck scale" is used in physics but not that it needs its own article. Merging to a more watched article will help ensure it keeps a neutral tone with no original research. At present this is of a size where it would be fine as a subheading in Planck scale and I'm not sure there's scope for much expansion. If I turn out to be wrong and it grows too large for a subheading it can be split at that time. (PS If it is kept, please consider renaming to "sub-Planck scale"! "Sub-Planck scale" means "sub-(Planck scale)" not "(sub-Planck) scale", and I prefer nouns to adjectives for article titles.) Qwfp (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absolutely no content here. "Hypothetical, speculative, and conjectural physics" -- if any were presented, that would be original research; but in fact nothing is presented at all, the article has no real content. All it says is "it is possible ... or maybe something else ... or maybe no conceptual or mathematical description can be found..." and that's all. Nothing here that isn't already in Quantum gravity, or Planck scale, or any of the much better-written physics articles we already have. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Current activity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ekjon Lok. linas (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If it's explored in Nature, it is nearly by definition not fringe. It may be new, or small, but it's certainly worthy of an article. – Clockwork Soul 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced sections to Planck scale ater cutting out the majority of the current article which is primarily, original research, speculation and essay like prose. Guest9999 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Planck scale, as there doesn't appear to be enough sourcing to warrant a spin-off or standalone article. If the article is kept, then at bare minimum it needs to be stubbed and tagged for a complete rewrite, and the WP:OWNership issues will need careful attention as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Planck scale. (Though the real problem with the article is the total lack of quality, not the subject matter.)PhysPhD (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planck scale. Legitimate topic, but not much more to be said than 'gosh, it sure would be nice if we could probe those energies'. If it is kept as a stand-alone article, rename to Sub-Planck scale per User:Qwfp. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a heavily pruned subsection into Planck scale. About the only good source I can find is the Nature letter by Zurek, which is in fact peer reviewed. Short articles in Nature are termed "letters", and are subject to rigorous peer review. This[30] section of the journal's guide to authors explains the difference between articles and letters. What would be considered "letters to the editor" are termed "correspondence", as indicated here[31]. Everything in Sub-Planck but the Zurek reference, frankly, reeks of the Bogdanovs. Skinwalker (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that part which is not speculation and WP:OR, and is from a WP:RS, into Planck scale. Even if all the speculation were included, there's not enough for a separate article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Too much speculation, too much discussion "We cannot know, but we can make fun guesses." Heisenburg is rolling over in his grave. Justin Eiler (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is solidly referenced to Planck scale. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indeed a real term, but the page as it is now is completely original reserach. Delete without prejudice to recreation RogueNinja_talk 19:28, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thee armada[edit]

Not a notable band that has a fan admiring them on their article. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7 --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:50, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Agent (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and poorly referenced. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't been covered in any reliable sources yet; therefore it's WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "To be" released, and the information is from a news announcement. Wikipedia is not a news service. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joell Ortiz, the information is already there Mstuczynski (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment then a merge isn't really necessary, is it? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, would you prefer Redirect? Mstuczynski (talk) 19:07, 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 – the term/game appears notable, but this article needs cleanup and wikifying. Specifically, the 'how-to' part must be rewritten or removed per WP:NOT#HOWTO, and the third-person tone ('you need', 'you can', etc.) must change. KrakatoaKatie 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game of "S.K.A.T.E."[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP is not a game guide, electronic or otherwise. No evidence of this game's notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe the article doesn't yet show enough of what's expected for notability, but every kid who skateboards knows the game of SKATE-- just as every kid who has ever picked up a basketball knows the routing for the game of "HORSE", where you have to duplicate the other person's move or have a strike against you. Look at how many google results you can get from "game of SKATE". All it needs is a little more sourcing to make it a viable article, and that's easily located. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the SKATE name being more notable than HORSE (although they are the same idea, just different name) since SKATE is pretty much only known among those interested in skateboarding while HORSE is pretty mainstream. IF the content is kept, it should be moved to HORSE (or something similar) and explain the general concept. TJ Spyke 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the ambiguity of the search phrase, Google results would be, at best, irrelevant.--WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know-- every single one of those results that I clicked on seems to refer to the subject. Of course, if you can find one that doesn't, we're all receptive to hearing about it, but it doesn't look ambiguous to me. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Provide some citations and merge essential info with the Skateboarding article as an alternative to deletion. It certainly does not have greater notability than "HORSE" and "HORSE" does not have its own article either (nor does it seem to merit one). A few sentences in a section of Skateboarding should suffice it seems. An in-depth "how-to" is not what Wikipedia is for. Fightindaman (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The game is notable enough. The article needs "wikifying" and serious copyediting for grammer. Other than that, I see no problem with it. -GrahamDo (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not just grammar, but significance. In what way is there a larger context affected by this game? In what way has the game demonstrated effects within its own sport? A dictionary definition at Wiktionary is sufficient, as, without contexts and history and effects, it's not an encyclopedic topic. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No less encyclopedic than articles like Variations of basketball or Hopscotch. Kids' games are as much a part of culture as TV shows, movies and books. Mandsford (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean this should, part of culture!encyclopedic notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a very well known game in its community, and plenty of sources seem to exist (from article and above discussion). Hobit (talk) 03:22, 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. нмŵוτн τ 05:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station M1IOS - Islands of Scilly[edit]

Just as non-notable as any other average amateur radio operation. Denelson 83 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It claims to be the only Class A amateur station on the Islands of Scilly, which may have some significance, particularly to those amateur radio enthusiasts who want to communicate with every island that has an amateur radio station. No references in the article, but see http://www.google.com/search?q=M1IOS for a Google search. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's still an amateur station. Not only is it a dreadful precedent to have amateur stations of any stripe in (all the low-power FM's in the US are waiting), but if we're drawing lines on a map and saying, "Only one in X," we invite endlessly small divisions. I agree that the Isles of Scilly are fascinating, interesting, geographically and historically important, but I find it hard to believe that the residents are not served by normal media, that the amateur station achieves a significant effect on the world around it. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm not opposed on philosophical grounds but without any sort of sourcing from reliable secondary sources this article just can't prove notability. - Dravecky (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:V. A Class A license appears be a distinction in the amateur radio world (like a 1x2 Extra Class callsign) but not outside. If a 3rd party source like Qst noticed the station and called it special or at least important for the area, I might be impressed. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specifies right in the first sentence that it's an amateur station. Remainder of article is technical details and asserts no notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 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 speedy delete per CSD G3, which covers blatant hoaxes. Hoaxes in general usually are not speediable, but I felt this one was obvious enough to qualify. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam James Carpenter[edit]

Procedural, CSD denied as the article asserts importance. Probably hoax, no information available for any such player on the Kansas City Wizards. Montco (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK They deleted the article anyway while I was AFDing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs) 02:45, 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.