Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition[edit]

Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not every software release is significant or notable, even if the company releasing the software is. This seems to me to fail because it fails WP:NOT, so I am nominating it, supporting its deletion, and delivering it here for a consensus either way. The release appears to be well documents in Microsoft Office in any case. This is not about loving or hating Microsoft. This is about the article being genuinely suitable to be here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict), if it's already well-documented, we can redirect and not waste our time discussing a deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep following addition of sources - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has more information than the main article, and appears to be broken out in WP:SS just fine. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to find several references, so I added them to the article. The software is significant because it introduced some features before they were available on Microsoft Office for Windows, and because it made the Macintosh more attractive to people who needed an office suite. The current crop of references prove notability, I think. -- Eastmain () 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. In addition to reasons given by Raven1977, Jclemens and Eastmain, the introduction of Internet Explorer v 4 for Mac was notable as the Mac version of IE, while it lasted, was known for better implementation of web standards, especially CSS, than the Win version. BTW re Eastmain's point that "it made the Macintosh more attractive to people who needed an office suite", the article needs to examine portability of files between the Mac and Win versions. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep signifiance factor jumps in here... widely used, notable, important... worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Discworld characters . Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Tze[edit]

Lu-Tze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of Discworld characters (per WP:FICT). I would also urge the nominator to quit mass nominating such articles and perform the mergers themselves or request them on the appropriate page. - Mgm|(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important character and needs coverage somewhere. This is mostly good information that would quickly make the already long Character article unwieldy.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is no evidence that the subject has any notability independent of the books. This article fails WP:FICTION. McWomble (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:FICTION says "Notability may be shown for an individual element[3] or for a certain grouping of elements, commonly characters or episodes.[4] When notability can be shown, the element or grouping of elements merits a separate article." I find it hard to believe it would be impossible to show notability for discworld characters in general; that having been done, notability does not need to be shown for this one specifically, only enough importance within the subject of discworld characters to warrant discussion. JulesH (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as above. No grounds for an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important haracter in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity ofthe series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character. Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per MgM. I'm a fan of the Discworld so admit there's a bit of WP:ILIKEIT here - but I still consider inclusion in the list with other Discowrld characters more appropriate than the separate article.Plutonium27 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in multiple books of an important fiction series. JulesH (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Discworld characters. I agree with WP:FICT that plot descriptions of fictional elements can be covered in a list until real-world information gets too much (currently not present). – sgeureka t•c 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Discworld characters. Spartaz Humbug! 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard of Quirm[edit]

Leonard of Quirm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Important haracter in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity ofthe series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character. Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. The RSs for this are the books itself, more important & more reliable than secondary sources. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Mgm. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Stupid Johnson[edit]

Bloody Stupid Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important plot influence on multiple books. But yes, the article could use improvement. Lots42 (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important plot device and needs coverage somewhere. Also much of this information deserves to be kept and would be unwieldy in the Discworld characters article.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the immense popularity of Terry Pratchett's Discwold books, the fact that Wikipedia authors have already covered many other sci-fi & fantasy worlds in equal detail, and the tragedy of Mr Pratchett's suffering from Alzheimer's disease, I'd say there is ample reason to keep this article. Textor (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. The notability/popularity of the books is not inherited by the characters. There is no evidence that the subject has any notability independent of the books. McWomble (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other stuff exists is not a good keep argument, but it is a good argument to let editors attempt to improve article to the level of the better 'Other stuff' if possible the lack of a tag or merge suggesion before the article was brought here seems abuct. --Nate1481 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • p.s. I just read Other stuff exists, it seem to say the exact opposite of what you ar saying here, i.e. a fair comparison deserves a hearing. --Nate1481 14:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed: Other stuff exists is far more balanced and nuanced than McWomble makes it appear. Accepting the validity of subject has no notability independent of the books means that a huge number of articles on fictional characters, objects, or settings would have to be eliminated, or folded into those on their respective sources. Please also note: Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument. In our case, the BSJ article could perhaps be merged with existing ones on minor Diskworld Characters, though it is rather long, but should not be deleted. Textor (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per mgm above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important character in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity of the series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character--though there actually isn't much discussion of plot in this particular article. . Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. This series in particular is noteworthy because of the complexity of the setting, and the setting is expressed in terms of the contributions of characters like this, who are thus a major part of the notability. The nominations seem to take no account of t he special characteristics of the work being discussed, neither its overall importance, nor the relative importance of different elements. Not all science fiction is identical. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I agree with most of what you say in the other discworld-related nominations we've seen recently, IIRC this character never actually appears in any of the books, but is only mentioned on a few occasions. I doubt therefore that he is an "important character" who will be "discussed in all the reviews". JulesH (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is arguable that a character who has never appeared in person is not major, his inventions play significant roles in several books and he is mentioned in a majority of those set in Ankh-Morpork (so roughtly 1 in 3 books). Also unless we have an article called BSJ's inventions then all that content will have to be move to Minor Discworld concepts or lost. --Nate1481 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.should be moved to Bergholt Stuttley Johnson technically :D--Nate1481 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to take issue with "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article" Is there a deadline no one told me about? the article has been growing steadily & no one had tagged it to be sourced till this month, I only came across it when the AfD was mentioned on the discworld project talk page, give the editors a chance to fix it first. --Nate1481 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is (depending on your views) a major or minor character that does influence the City quite majorly so how is there "unnecasary plot details". Also how, for a fictional character in a series of books from one author, can there be third-party infomation when the only official source is (in this case) Mr Pratchett himself. The only way to find out if B.S.J. is important or not in the timeline of the Disc is to ring him (T.P. I mean) up, therefore we would have to do for most of the Discworld articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdunn (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In other words, there are no independent reliable sources supporting any claim of notability independent of the series. This the subject fails WP:V. McWomble (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually its WP:N were discussing, the information is freely there in the various books to be verified. --Nate1481 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point exactly. Also if an article fails WP:V because there is no other sources, then WP:V cannot apply to the situation. Common sense should be used. rdunn 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ponder Stibbons[edit]

Ponder Stibbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of Discworld characters (per WP:FICT). - Mgm|(talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important character and needs coverage somewhere. Where is the OR? It is all directly from the books or companions. The same goes for most of the articles in the discworld series.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Beligaronia said. The books are not original research. Lots42 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "Ponder Stibbons and Harry Potter have similarities" and "The creation of this device borrows heavily from the real world splitting of the atom" is original research. In any case the article is full of unnecessary plot details and there is no evidence of notability independent of the books. McWomble (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Author has commented on similarity of Ponder Stibbon and harry potter. Commenting on supposed similarity of artwork he said "Ponder Stibbons was indeed first drawn in 1996. I, of course, used a time machine to 'get the idea' of Unseen University from Hogwarts; I don't know what Paul used in this case. Obviously he must have used something."[1] Can't find ref for thaumic/nuclear reactor similarity but seems to be a very clear parody. Pratchett even set the thing up in a squash court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beligaronia (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important character in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity of the series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character--though there actually isn't much discussion of plot in this particular article. . Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. This series in particular is noteworthy because of the complexity of the setting, and the setting is expressed in terms of the contributions of characters like this, who are thus a major part of the notability. Some aspects of the article do not seem well thought out, but that can be dealt with by editing. The nominations seem to take no account of the special characteristics of the work being discussed, neither its overall importance, nor the relative importance of different elements. Not all science fiction is identical. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mgm. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major character in several books of an extremely important fictional series. JulesH (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drenai Series. MBisanz talk 20:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skilgannon the Damned[edit]

Skilgannon the Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Drenai Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drenai Series. MBisanz talk 20:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drenai[edit]

Drenai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional race does not establish notability independent of the Drenai Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail. TTN (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drenai Series. MBisanz talk 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Druss the Legend[edit]

Druss the Legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Drenai Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drenai Series. MBisanz talk 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dros Delnoch[edit]

Dros Delnoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of the Drenai Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail. TTN (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything salvagable and Redirect to Drenai Series (per WP:FICT). - Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main article. No evidence of notability independent of the series. Notability of the series is not inherited by the characters. McWomble (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T*Witches. MBisanz talk 13:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Fielding[edit]

Alexandra Fielding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of T*Witches through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is about the main character of the series and thus is a suitable target for an article. Including in-universe information on a fictional character is not original research and the plot details are mostly needed to explain her life. Anything else can be fixed. - Mgm|(talk) 00:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main article. No evidence of notability independent of the series. Notability is not inherited by the characters. McWomble (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect no independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. No notability. -- nips (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T*Witches. MBisanz talk 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Barnes[edit]

Camryn Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of T*Witches through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect where?? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 J.delanoygabsadds 04:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traeonna Wagener[edit]

Traeonna Wagener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable occult author, only one minor book published. Note: I declined to speedy deleted it because notability is asserted but I think it can't be established by the sources or a Google search. SoWhy 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related items to also delete:

  • Comment: Amazon has subject listed as a contributor to the book. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'm going to restrain myself to simply saying that this is obviously simply vanityspamcruft. Obviously non-notable, no sources, has contributed to one book at best. Delete with extreme prejudice. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And in the interests of honesty, I looked for sources via Google and found squat, but hadn't looked at the page history. It surprises me not a jot that the page was created by a user named "Traeonna". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana bint Abdulaziz Al-Saud[edit]

Sultana bint Abdulaziz Al-Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable on her own DimaG (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge and redirect. I was under the impression that real royalty was default notable. If that's not the case, it can be merged in House of Saud. I see no reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While notability is not inherited in most cases, royals are an exception: by its very nature, royalty is inherited. Surely a woman who was the daughter of a king and the sister of several kings is notable, especially as we have several sources discussing bits about her life. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, oppose deletion Royalty establishes nobility. Scanlan (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Royals, as mentioned, obtain their notability by inheritance in most cases. The widesperead public interest in them demonstrates this. Some are particularly important politically, but the children and spouses of all ruling monarchs are notabel. DGG (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freebiejeebies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Freebiejeebies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was speedy deleted but restored by consensus at DRV following substantial improvement in userspace. Questions remain about the strength of the sourcing and whether the article does in fact meet WP:WEB. The appropriate place for that discussion is AFD not DRV so here we are. This is a procedural nomination as the DRV closer so I personally have no position. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete having examined the latest version of the article, I still believe it falls under Wikipedia:ADVERT#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I am doing a little work in it to see if it can be turned into a useful article, I fear this may prove impossible, at least at this stage in the site's life. For me the issue is citations from sources that are not forums, blogs, etc. The advertorial can be rewritten, which I am having a crack at. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've done my best with it, but I see nothing that I have done that reverses my recommendation. I am happy to be persuaded by the work of others, however. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all blogs are by default unreliable, so they shouldn't be treated as such - like you did. - Mgm|(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to reinstate, after all this is Wikipedia. I do not perceive RSness for those I removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment following the article creator's note below that the article has had substantial changes, I have reviewed it again. While I see references, I do not see sufficient that make me believe that this passes WP:WEB. I do not accept the forums and blogs quoted as WP:RS, though may be persuaded. I do appreciate the work that has been put in to the article. I simply see this as an article "before the website is ready for one", and suggest that it be deleted but left unsalted, thus able to be recreated in the future when sufficient notability has accrued to it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RS : I reviewed this and believe the author of the reference is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and that the source directly supports the information as presented in the article - I clearly say that the reference is from a forum, but believe this forum is large, established and independent enough to pass and the source is appropriate to the claims made, particularly as the reference itself is from the senior moderator of the forum. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I will leave a judgement on the reliability of that source to the closing admin. For me it fails, but more experienced editors here may disagree with me, something I will be content with. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE CHANGED I am the original author and have only just noticed that the article has been restored. I have added many more references and adjusted the whole article to be more objective. All the comments above are therefore outdated. Please could you review the article and make constructive comments, I am open to all suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that in no way can this article be accused of not being notable. A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article. The website is relatively small (if you want to compare it to Microsoft of Google) and therefore this reference is the strongest available. Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required. There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place, it does not harm other articles by existing, and is now fully objective in its writing. I am happy to improve it even further, but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment? Thanks very much. Simon2239 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go through those points one at a time, referring back to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
    1. "A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article".
      Refuted by WP:GNG — "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (My emphasis on the plural s of sources.)
    2. Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required.
      WP:N includes "Multiple sources are generally preferred."
    3. There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place
      Straw man. See WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
    4. it does not harm other articles by existing
      WP:NOHARM.
    5. is now fully objective in its writing
      That's necessary but not sufficient.
    6. but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment
      If editors feel that the article should be deleted, they are entitled to that viewpoint.
    I hope you understand where these arguments are coming from. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez, you love your cliquey rules, with all those obscure letters and terms I feel your subjective points are all the more strong. So much for wikipedia being free information, you lot just like ruling your clique with a bottomless pit of WP:lettering to justify yourselves. Simon2239 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot possibly see how that comment strengthens your argument. Stifle provided you with a great deal of help in the comment. It simply appears that it is impossible to meet Wikipedia's needs with the article for which you show genuine enhtusiasm but can provide no real substance. Please conduct yourself with civility, something I feel is borderline here, and recognise that no-one is taking any of this personally, except, perhaps, you. Let's face it, Freebiejeeebies is currently just not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is just another subjective notion. What gives you the right to determine what is in a public free access encylopedia? Half of these guidelines were no doubt written by people like you to permit you to justify deleting articles by less experienced users. The more time I spend on here, the more of these ridiculous 'WP:' statements come out of the woodwork. Sorry, maybe you should all just realise that the point of wikipedia is free knowledge - you have no right to control what knowledge is appropriate like a bunch of dictators. You're all just a big clique and I believe it is to the detriment of wikipedia. The Sole criteria for inclusion should be objectivity and fact, my article meets both. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.193.180 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • ps. Image now added. If it is going to cause trouble then it can be removed as the article itself is the main concern. Simon2239 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy deleted, CSD#G11 - Advertisement masquerading as an article; notability still not evident (it seems to be saying "X Company is notable, we do the same as X, therefore we're notable, which isn't true). Even after the "changes" mentioned above, this is still has to go. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a "constructive" comment. It says no such thing. Furthermore, I've never quite understood this greatly flawed argument of an 'advertisement masquerading as an article'. The only way people will find this article is by searching for 'freebiejeebies', which they could do on google or any other search engine and get much less objective information without a balanced viewpoint - unlike this article. No, your argument is fatally weak. Simon2239 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advertisement (offering a variety of gifts to users... They have a large number of partner companies... Partner companies include several UK household names... coverage in the media is beginning to grow as more people receive gifts.) and it claims inherited notability (In this way it is similar to companies such as Gratis Internet (aka. Freepay) which is is one of the largest 'freebie' websites and was established in 2001.) whilst at no point giving a hint as to its own notability. I know you're really wanting to keep this advertisement up (is it your website?) but what part of this argument is weak? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also take issue with the sources you are using in the advertisement. Only two of them actually mention Freebiejeebies (T3 in passing, from what sounds like a press release; and some forum for people to advertise their membership of this affiliate scheme); the rest mention other schemes but not this one. On that basis, I've changed my !vote above. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that someone searching for "freebiejeebies" will end up at the company's website in the absence of this article. No problems there, then. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. All of that argument is weak. The T3 reference is not 'in passing' and provides plenty of notability, more than enough for this article to exist. Simon2239 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and I will need to agree to disagree on this. My opinion (delete as spam) stands. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a delete as still reads like an advert promoting the site, despite the All the comments above are therefore outdated instruction given by the single editor still wanting to retain the article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If everyones main argument is going to be that it 'reads like an advert' then I would be happy to change the first sentence to 'claim to offer' if this will put this argument to rest. Anything else that does not read to some editors satisfaction can also be changed, in fact - go ahead and change it! Yes, I want this article to stay - so change the tone to satisfy yourself, I've done my best to do this. I still believe the notability argument is a no-goer so the only argument left is the apparently 'reading like an advert' that is continually asserted - change it, tone is very simple to alter, why delete an article on a subjective assessment of the tone when this is easily adjusted. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have again re-written the first paragraph and believe it to now be completely free from any hint of 'reading like an advertisement'. Simon2239 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Oscarthecat - Has created a further new version. Simon2239 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not notable - only third-party mention is a (press release) mention in passing in T3 magazine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - it is both not a press release and is not 'in passing' - incorrect. Simon2239 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't deny it being the only mention? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I also disagree with you on that. Simon2239 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you're still not providing the other reliable, third party sources for your website. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. Additional edits to article are not improving its quality. This article has absolutely no value in an encylopedia and is simply a ploy for advertising from a completely unknown company. 66.208.14.122 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown to you - but over 100,000 hits on google. Perhaps an encyclopedia article would help educate you? Simon2239 (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see 100k+ hits on google and a lot of this hits I do see have nothing to do with this company. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. This isn't my company - I have no interest in advertising it for personal gain. Simon2239 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think advertising concerns are still the matter. The fact is the company is simply not notable enough for inclusion here. See WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AS STRNONG A DELETE AS POSSIBLE. This is becoming a waste of everyone's time. It's clear to every editor but Simon2239 that the article is not acceptable. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Per request, I've cleaned up the article to make it at least accurate, however it should still be deleted. Nearly all the "references" in the article have nothing to do with Freebiejeebies and only generally talk about referral marketing. The only two "references" are a press release and an anonymous forum supporting the site. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think these edits (or perhaps later edits by you) got reverted by Simon. I wonder how long we continue this discussion with everyone wanting it deleted but just Simon wanting to keep it! --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He reverted your edits as well. The changes have been replaced with an explanation on the talk page and he's been warned - 3RR. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.What you want should not come into it - screams of bias - your previous decision to speedy delete has been overturned and been shown to be completely the wrong decision as admin. This IP address user only edited the article to attempt to weaken it. Simon2239 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
    • Simon2239, I'm sorry if you feel accuracy weakens your article, but I disagree. Please take specific concerns to the discussion page and do not simple revert edits. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your actions demonstrate you hypocrisy, why not go back to editing you Gratis Internet article and keep your bias to yourself. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When the references supplied don't even mention the name of the subject, then it becomes pretty clear that there are no reliable sources to establish notability. But even more important, it fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to me to be a definite delete, fails WP:WEB and verifiability Paste (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems like it's getting out of hand and could use some admin intervention. The one user defending the article (Simon2239), seems to feel he owns this article, repeatedly has reverted contstructive edits with no explanation and has become belligerent. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are being reverted because you are attempting to weaken the article because of your bias towards your article of Gratis Internet. You have not discussed any of your edits. Simon2239 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My only bias is one for accuracy. Each of my edits has an edit summary and further I have started a discussion with the explanation of my edits on the article's talk page. You have refused to engange in any meaningful discussion. Your actions as warned have been reported to administrators. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easily spotted as an advertisement and should be deleted. It seems only one editor feels this is notable, and is edit warring to the point of lockdown. The sooner this can be done, the better. Dayewalker (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I echo the comment by Whpq about the provided references that don't even mention the company. They just talk about giveaway companies in general. There is nothing about Freebiejeebies in the Wired News article nor in the first BBC reference. If the editor defending this article continues to engage in personal attacks and edit warring he risks admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for Closure. The article is protected so is unlikely to be improved even if it can be. It looks to me as if a consensus has formed and it ought to be a straightforward matter now to lay this discussion to rest. I haven't seen so much boldface font for ages! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's eye[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Devil's eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no evidence for notability of these drinks, no evidence for their existence or a connection with Jonathan Ronai who claims to have taken the photographs. dougweller (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable drink, or Merge here if at least one source can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. No sources outside of Wikipedia include any reference to this drink. The WP references all appear as though they were added by one editor (or a small group). There is one Zoominfo (apparently self-sourced) reference to Johnathan Ronai as a manager of a chain coffee shop in Tel Aviv, Isreal here: [[4]]. None of the WP references to this drink (or its variations) have outside references. Geoff (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. obviously can be recreated when there is substantial coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York United States Senate Election, 2012[edit]

New York United States Senate Election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

crystalballing. There is absolutely NO information out yet, and everything is just speculation at this point. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2012
United States Senate elections, 2012
United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2012
Life of Riley (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment perhaps a case could be made for United States presidential election, 2012, but the others seem deleteable. JJL (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with JJL; the presidential article is viable because there is already well-sourced discussion regarding Palin and Romney as potential candidates for 2012, even this early. The others, not so much, though I'd hear out arguments for the full Senate article maybe in a year or so. 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystalballery and what it looks like POV-pushing as it squarely focuses on Hillary Clinton. MuZemike (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub. I edited the article to remove the predictions and speculations. There's not much left, but this provides a base for expansion in the future. --Orlady (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until after the 2010 Senate elections. Precedent seems to be that only the next scheduled election in any jurisdiction should have an article. In other words, United States presidential election, 2012 should stay since it is the next scheduled election for that position. See point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL. McWomble (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Delete, but I'd say also that I don't think that an article should be allowed for "the next scheduled election". For the 33 or 34 Senate seats that were up in 2006, including this one, the 2012 election would be the next scheduled election. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete too early. No, really. It's just too darned early.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 years is not too far ahead for politics. News avccounts already talk about them. There is essentially absolute certainty that the event will occur, and IU imagine that everyone who might want to run in it is already starting to think on it, & the articles will follow. DGG (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to United States Senate election in New York, 2012 for consistency. The 2010 election may be the next election for Schumer's Senate seat, but 2012 is the next election for Clinton's seat. At the very least merge and redirect to United States Senate elections, 2012#Hillary Clinton of New York DHowell (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiore Siano[edit]

Fiore Siano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable mobster DimaG (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The actual reference has him down as a relation of a mob boss. Done nothing notable himself. -Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator got to it before I did; I couldn't find much in the way of non-trivial mentions in reliable, third-party sources that would allow a full and neutral biography to be written about this individual. Cheers, CP 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Love[edit]

Only Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What on Earth is this? Does it even need to be discussed? At least the talk page made me laugh (Can we keep that?!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not something that should remain here. It would be speediable, except that speedying as incoherent requires it to be a short article. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the novel by Erich Segal; no author, publisher or any indication it has been published. It'd take more than love to save this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, fails on so many levels. Speedy Delete per WP:IAR. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the heck?? I 100 percent agree with the previous comments. This is ridiculous - It could be speedily deleted if the nonsense was shorter.--Pecopteris (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Webley[edit]

Sean Webley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reason all the other 50+ articles were deleted. -- nips (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werkbau[edit]

Werkbau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. DGG made a good comment on an earlier deletion of ones of these articles, which I shall now repeat: Merge into a list, one line each. None of the reason given oppose that. Named characters in a major fiction are appropriate for that sort of treatment. The present articles are a disgrace, with detail obviously appropriate only for a fan wiki, but that shouldnt affect our decision to conserve some part of the content. Mathmo Talk 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reason all the other 50+ articles were deleted. -- nips (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a reason against merging, just against keeping as a separate article. Merged content has to be of relevance t o the articlem ot idependently notable--if it were, it would get a full article. So what';s the reason for deletion rather than merging? DGG (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is for articles that lack notability on its own (WP:GNG requests for sufficient sources for comprehensive coverage of a subject to make it notable). When an article is to be merged, it is the content that abide Wikipedia policy that would be merged, not any knick-knack. This article simply consists of three portions. A general descriptive that anyone can write and has no need for any history retention of authorship. A background plot that is excessive, indiscriminate, and written in a totally in-universe that serves no encyclopaedic function, even when the subject is put into a simple list. Lastly, a technical specification section that is not within this project's scope. The last two fail under WP:NOT. Information in any of these three portions are not even covered by reliable third-party sources, and the first can be recreated or written in another form by anyone (no special authorship or rights can apply). All in all, the article text has nothing worthy to be preserved in form of history or for merging into a list. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Falken[edit]

Wild Falken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. DGG made a good comment on an earlier deletion of ones of these articles, which I shall now repeat: Merge into a list, one line each. None of the reason given oppose that. Named characters in a major fiction are appropriate for that sort of treatment. The present articles are a disgrace, with detail obviously appropriate only for a fan wiki, but that shouldnt affect our decision to conserve some part of the content. Mathmo Talk 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reason all the other 50+ articles were deleted. -- nips (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a reason against merging, just against keeping as a separate article. Merged content has to be of relevance t o the articlem ot idependently notable--if it were, it would get a full article. So what';s the reason for deletion rather than merging? DGG (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is for articles that lack notability on its own (WP:GNG requests for sufficient sources for comprehensive coverage of a subject to make it notable). When an article is to be merged, it is the content that abide Wikipedia policy that would be merged, not any knick-knack. This article simply consists of three portions. A general descriptive that anyone can write and has no need for any history retention of authorship. A background plot that is excessive, indiscriminate, and written in a totally in-universe that serves no encyclopaedic function, even when the subject is put into a simple list. Lastly, a technical specification section that is not within this project's scope. The last two fail under WP:NOT. Information in any of these three portions are not even covered by reliable third-party sources, and the first can be recreated or written in another form by anyone (no special authorship or rights can apply). All in all, the article text has nothing worthy to be preserved in form of history or for merging into a list. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRX Altered Banpreios[edit]

SRX Altered Banpreios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. DGG made a good comment on an earlier deletion of ones of these articles, which I shall now repeat: Merge into a list, one line each. None of the reason given oppose that. Named characters in a major fiction are appropriate for that sort of treatment. The present articles are a disgrace, with detail obviously appropriate only for a fan wiki, but that shouldnt affect our decision to conserve some part of the content. Mathmo Talk 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a reason against merging, just against keeping as a separate article. Merged content has to be of relevance t o the articlem ot idependently notable--if it were, it would get a full article. So what';s the reason for deletion rather than merging? DGG (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is for articles that lack notability on its own (WP:GNG requests for sufficient sources for comprehensive coverage of a subject to make it notable). When an article is to be merged, it is the content that abide Wikipedia policy that would be merged, not any knick-knack. This article simply consists of three portions. A general descriptive that anyone can write and has no need for any history retention of authorship. A background plot that is excessive, indiscriminate, and written in a totally in-universe that serves no encyclopaedic function, even when the subject is put into a simple list. Lastly, a technical specification section that is not within this project's scope. The last two fail under WP:NOT. Information in any of these three portions are not even covered by reliable third-party sources, and the first can be recreated or written in another form by anyone (no special authorship or rights can apply). All in all, the article text has nothing worthy to be preserved in form of history or for merging into a list. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrudgelmir (Mecha)[edit]

Thrudgelmir (Mecha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a reason against merging, just against keeping as a separate article. Merged content has to be of relevance t o the articlem ot idependently notable--if it were, it would get a full article. So what';s the reason for deletion rather than merging? DGG (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is for articles that lack notability on its own (WP:GNG requests for sufficient sources for comprehensive coverage of a subject to make it notable). When an article is to be merged, it is the content that abide Wikipedia policy that would be merged, not any knick-knack. This article simply consists of three portions. A general descriptive that anyone can write and has no need for any history retention of authorship. A background plot that is excessive, indiscriminate, and written in a totally in-universe that serves no encyclopaedic function, even when the subject is put into a simple list. Lastly, a technical specification section that is not within this project's scope. The last two fail under WP:NOT. Information in any of these three portions are not even covered by reliable third-party sources, and the first can be recreated or written in another form by anyone (no special authorship or rights can apply). All in all, the article text has nothing worthy to be preserved in form of history or for merging into a list. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racist love[edit]

Racist love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Term is only used by the authors of one insignificant study. Cannot be expanded without WP:OR. Boshinoi (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The links provided by Dennis show that this concept is widely discussed in academic works. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Martin[edit]

Matt Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability has been asserted, but not established. Home page link is dead and there are no verifiable third party sources establishing why this kid should be included in the 'pedia. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Child racing star who has done well racing in leagues primarily for other children. We don't create articles on local high school football stars, either. RayAYang (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment we would if there was enough reliable coverage and notability of the high school football player, such as doing something like kicking a world-record field goal... and that's possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the only racing for children that he did was the bandoleros. The rest were adult level, although some allow teenaged drivers. The ASA series is a national tour and often nationally-televised. It's a major feeder series for NASCAR. The ASA link in the article had unfortunately been poorly coded as a red link so it looked like a non-notable series. I made a minor rewording edit to make it a blue link. Royalbroil 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I was using our article on FASCAR Pro Truck and Sportsman Series which states that the average age of a driver in this league is 16-18. In general, I also don't believe that people who compete in feeder leagues are sufficiently notable for their own articles. RayAYang (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is it in the air tonight? More than enough coverage from creditable - verifiable and third party sources - independent of his father, as shown here [5] to establish Notability. ShoesssS Talk 13:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to Keep I can find some sources [6] [7] to name a few. I can find more than enough to satisfy that part of the guideline. But the fact remains that he has not made it into the highest ranks of auto racing yet. He was very close to being notable as a development driver for a major NASCAR team, and developmental drivers almost certainly become notable. You could argue that just being a developmental driver means the driver is notable. No prejudice against creating an article if he does become more notable. Royalbroil 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to full keep after reflecting for several hours. ASA is a fully professional nationally recognized racing series and drivers in it should be notable enough to have an article if there are enough reliable sources (which there are). Royalbroil 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Bidlack[edit]

Hal Bidlack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed, but I still think this article should be deleted - a very minor political figure who lost his race in Colorado. Though his accomplishments are many, none of them are notable and he remains a very obscure individual. Article also reads like an ad, which is a leftover really from the election. Descartes1979 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which are sufficent to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Icewedge (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-served in the Clinton Administration as Director of Global Environmental Policy establishes notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bidlack served in the administrations of Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. He's notable, all right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws4309 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Bws4309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep on the basis that a major party candidate for national office should be considered notable. As the article shows,such people invariably have other accomplishments. Whether the other accomplishments would themselves be enough is something I';m not at all sure about. Service to ad admin is notable only depending on the position; being on the 'staff" of the National Security Council, for example, can mean quite a range of things.If kept, eneds some editing to remove spam. Being interviewed by skepticalicity is not notability by itself. Even being interviewed twice. DGG (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of spiritual development[edit]

Stages of spiritual development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems like a rather non-notable book. Specifically fails WP:BK via:

The book has been the subject [2] of multiple, non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[4] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

Further, I've used 3 different searches and can't find a review and/or other source of verifiability/notability. DigitalNinjaWTF 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not a book, a chapter published in a book, and no evidence of notability for this particular concept. An attempt to recycle a published paper into a wikipedia article.DGG (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosetry[edit]

Prosetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this portmanteau between prose and poetry a neologism? Cursory Google score of 5000 (compared to 25M and 135M for "prose" and "poetry" respectively) -- obviously the Googleplex is never a means to establish notability, but if this is already an established term in today's literary or academic circles (or at least their respective blogospheres, the Google score shrinks to 3000 if I filter out "blog" from the search results), personally I'd expect Google to dig up a little more information than that. In the meantime I'm questioning the verifiability of this term. --Stratadrake (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was batted out as copyvio. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Ornest[edit]

Maury Ornest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Minor league baseball does not meet WP:ATHLETE. If he's considered to have reached the "highest level of amateur sport" because he played for UC Santa Barbara, then every person who's ever played Division I baseball qualifies, and I don't see that that's been an acceptable criterion in the past. There's nothing to indicate that he's notable for being an artist. Being the son of someone famous does not make you famous. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was the youngest professional draft pick ever, he had a killer batting average and his career ended due to a really nasty accident during a ball game. He is now an emerging artist whose works are in the collections of luminaries.Josiewarvelle (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was drafted when he was 20. There have been Major League players who were younger than that. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was first drafted at 17. He was the youngest DRAFT PICK. Josiewarvelle (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link which is used as evidence of that claim doesn't say any such thing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the page shouldn't be deleted! Maury is well known and WAS the youngest draft pick as of 1977.Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that he is well-known. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, this individual does, in fact, meet WP:ATHLETE, as Minor League Baseball is fully professional. Resolute 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is, of course, your opinion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is stating that "Minor League Baseball is fully professional" in any way an "opinion"? Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notwithstanding the fact that Minor League Baseball is fully professional, I am still not certain that Maury Ornest is necessaily notable. Under WP:BASEBALL notability typically requires playing in a major league game, or at least a full season at AAA. And Ornest doesn't seem to have played above A ball. Rlendog (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, it isn't. Minor League Baseball is fully professional, that is a fact. WP:ATHLETE states that athletes who have played in a fully professional league are presumed to be notable. Thus, this individual meets WP:ATHLETE as it is currently written. Now, you will note that I didn't place a keep !vote using this as its basis. Whether or not the guideline, as stated, actually has consensus support is an entirely different matter. Resolute 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not a general consensus that MiLB is fully professional at all levels. The highest level Ornest made according to The Baseball Cube is A ball. Don't know the salaries at that time (but I understand they were lower, even accounting for inflation), but in 2005 full season A ball was $1050 a month (for the five months he was playing) for a first year player like Ornest. Flipping burgers full time in Stockton would have earned $1200 - $1400 a month in that same year. So yes, he was paid, but "fully professional" is a stretch when the total annual pay is less than $6000 in today's dollars.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if consensus was that the Earth was flat, would that make it so? The players are paid professionals. Not necessarily a ton of money, but they are signed to contracts that pay them a wage to play baseball. That is professional. I'm not saying this makes this person notable, just that "fails WP:ATHLETE" is incorrect reasoning. Resolute 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that he meets your definition of professional, but not everyone has the same definition. Heck, I was recently paid a small amount for some photos I took, but by no means am I a professional photographer. My comment is to simply alert the closing admin that there is disagreement on the subject.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, kids. Minor League players have no rent to pay, travel with the team, stay in hotels and have per diem in addition to their salaries. Many players pop back and forth between the Majors and Minors, owned by the franchise. Give it a rest.75.164.22.227 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, players in MiLB fit the dictionary definition of professional, as their primary job is to be a baseball player, and they are paid to perform that job. Your selling a few photos is an irrelevant comparison, as you do not make photography your primary profession. Once again, consensus that the earth is flat would not make it flat. Resolute 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I don't understand the agenda around wanting to delete this page so badly.Webberkenny (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agenda. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to him being the youngest draft pick. I had always understood it to be true, but wasn't able to find any reference to the ages of the youngest draft picks. As a professional athlete, he qualifies.Juanlyjeff (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not the youngest draft pick, how is he notable? I think we just need to find documentation to substantiate it - he's been recognized as that since '77.71.220.181.15 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reference to "citation needed." We just need to find the documentation - it's gotta be out there.71.220.181.15 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Longstanding consensus is that minor leaguers aren't professional, at least of the sort required to meet WP:ATHLETE. As he's not done anything (as far as I can see) that would make him notable otherwise, this needs deletion. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I contacted a prominent baseball statistician. He'll get back to me and verify or not Ornest's status as the youngest draft pick. And your consensus is baloney. Minor League players are paid professionals who are 'owned' by the franchise.75.164.1.112 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyright violation of this page, from which sentence after sentence of this article was taken. Although Class A baseball is professional, it is only the 4th highest level of professional baseball in the United States and does not convey a great deal of notability. That said, if the subject can be established as a notable artist, a new article about him can be created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, I have found at least one player who appears to have been drafted at a younger age: Fernando Cruz, born 3/28/1990 and drafted by Kansas City in the 6th round in 2007. There may well be younger draftees. It's hard to research this because this kind of statistic is not kept prominently. By contrast, Joe Nuxhall was only 15 when he made his major league baseball debut; that was before the MLB draft existed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Believe It's Yogurt![edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Can't Believe It's Yogurt! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN company, potentially fails WP:CORP. Google doesn't turn up anything other than franchise opportunities and a link with weight watchers points. Nothing related on Google news either. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full disclosure: I wrote this article). There are two refs, neither of which is company's own website (I actually couldn't find one!). At worst, one sounds like it could be based heavily on company's self-description. The other ref is a detailed profile in an independent-sounding industry journal with an author other than "the company itself" (or at least not overtly PRWire-esque). There are several credible claims of notability, all supported by cites (could source same claim from both given. It's been in the (trade) news at least, see TCBY (concurred, a case-ref would be important!). DMacks (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flip-flopping to keep, a search under Brice Foods (the parent company) shows they were involved with a fraud case [10]. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) and salt by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Fleece Hall of Fame[edit]

Wisconsin Fleece Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article exists as a POV way to bash the failed sports figures in the U.S. state Wisconsin. This is the fourth time that the original research article has been posted to Wikipedia. Google shows the term exists only on Wikipedia. There are lots of links to different Wikipedia articles from these attempts. All these other recreations have led to speedy deletes. This time we need to salt it so it can't be recreated. Royalbroil 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt term itself isn't notable and the article has NPOV issues, as the sole purpose is to kick dead horses. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your thoughts on salting it knowing that it keeps getting recreated? I ask everyone to comment on whether or not it should get salted. Royalbroil 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Salting should only used as a last resort when an article has already been shown to have a tendency to be recreated multiple times, lest we violate WP:AGF. The logs show this has already been deleted 3 times in 6 weeks, so salting seems appropriate this 4th time. I changed my vote above by simply adding "and salt". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [11] Article has been deleted 3 times already, including two times within the current month. I would recommend salting it as well. I see no notability here. Fraud talk to me 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt — I can tell you, being from Wisconsin, I haven't even heard of this, nor could I find anything all that would be considered significant coverage. Creation-protect the article, as this has already been deleted three times within the past month. MuZemike (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt A comedic term invented by the third rated sports radio station in Milwaukee (25th out of 30th overall) is not notable by any means. Not only that, the non-WSSP sources don't even use the fleece term in the articles at all. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article strucks myself as to being mean-spirited towards living persons thus violating Wikipedia's concerns about writing living people. I agree with RoyalBroil about the article.Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Considering that Shawn Respert might get an exception based on an "Although Unlikely Exception for Cancer", WP:BLP fits like a glove in this case. I wish this could go speedy as an attack page myself, but we have to go through the five day process. Nate • (chatter) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Although I'm sure that the author is a regular caller on WSSP's "The Big Show", nobody wants to read his personal opinion about who belongs on the station's list of athletes. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt per A7, G4 and WP:SNOW If this has really been deleted three times already then we're not communicating our community expectations to the author. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't apply, as it wasn't previously deleted via AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap you're right, I haven't G4 tagged anything in awhile. Looks like it was speedied for A7 anyway. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables[edit]

The Expendables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no way I can see this band meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements for a band if the "notable" record label is a redlink. The band certainly doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE general notability guidelines, either, and lacks any reliable sources. Because of the claim of notability of the record label, I think this article passes the statement of importance test. Proposed deletion declined on the 5th day with no explanation or alteration to the article. —  X  S  G  16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator recommends Delete for the above reasons.
  • Delete as per nomination. If notable, need information about the albums released and the tours the band has taken. No information about this visible from a quick search. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A redlink doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. It just means that Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on the topic. Here are several references about the record company: Google News archive search -- Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Even if Stoopid records is a "more important indie label", (note that the requirement here is different than notable), it still appears that The Expendables have only released one album with them, thus failing criterion 5's two album requirement. And, since I can't find another notable band on Stoopid Records other than Slightly Stoopid, it probably doesn't qualify anyway. gnfnrf (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The band does meet the general notability guideline and thus it meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I've cleaned up the article and added seven references just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree that it's possible that this band may become notable, however the available references show that the band has a few fans in one small locale (Santa Cruz isn't large). If I saw links to articles in a wider variety of newspapers or even a mention of the band in Santa Cruz's largest newspaper, the Santa Cruz sentinel, I'd be convinced. The best I can find is this, which may put me in the weak keep territory. Let me ponder... —  X  S  G  22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I've pondered. I found that the DVD was self-published and virtually un-distributed. In looking on Amazon for any record of the DVD (which I couldn't find, but let me tell you... searching for "XXX Rated" was probably the Expendables' last laugh on me), I found that Amazon does sell their CDs, published by Mri Associated and Right Time Records. I'm still on the delete side of things, but now I'm looking for more information about these labels... —  X  S  G  09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Progress. Right Time Records seems non-notable and non-important, with only one listed artist, Krave. Mri Associated is aka Megaforce Records, a label with several Wikipedia-notable bands, including Ministry's latest release. Now, if only the Megaforce Records site acknowledged The Expendables' existence... I'm still on delete, but if someone can show me a Megaforce press release for The Expendables, I'd go for keep. —  X  S  G  10:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply – You wrote: the available references show that the band has a few fans in one small locale. I think I understand your concerns, but keep in mind that by a strict reading of WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC criterion #1, this article's subject does pass. Local sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as there is significant coverage and the coverage is independent of the article's subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 19:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They appear to cleanly satisfy general notabiliy with multiple reliable sources, which makes them pass wp:music criteria 1. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice cleanup. It now meets the general notability standards with enough reliable sources. Mentions in different newspapers in multiple locales. Royalbroil 20:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Creatures (film)[edit]

Nightmare Creatures (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Author admits unknown whether it'll be cancelled. Recreated following speedy deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HairyPerry 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GB3YL[edit]

GB3YL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio....thing, written horribly, hard to even tell exactly what it is DavidWS (contribs) 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; fairly clear, it's a radio repeater for amateur radio. "Amateur" is the key, however; I can't find any independent sources that would give it notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Repeaters for amateur radio are non-notable. Even repeaters for full commercial radio stations are usually listed under the call sign for their parent, they aren't usually given their own article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J.delanoygabsadds 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakugan guide[edit]

Bakugan guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. In universe... something for a game/universe called Bakugan Battle Brawlers. It is that badly written I can't tell. Pure original research. roleplayer 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete...tempted to say speedy as pure nonsense cause it makes no sense at all. From the last line, guessing it is supposed to be some kind of game guide or something...but its...uh...*scratching head* Also could be speedy under lacking context since, again, no idea what its supposed to be besides someone's personal writings.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. I think this is not a viable redirect as Wikipedia is not a game guide.--Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It says itself, that it's a game guide. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per game guide. I've also removed a similar game guide like section from the main article[12] along with various other cleanups. --Farix (Talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After looking at the article more closely, it's a poorly done cut and pace of and earlier version of Bakugan Battle Brawlers, which I've recently cleaned up. It looks like the OP is trying to claim credit for it even though he didn't actually write it. As such, it can be deleted as a WP:CFORK as well.--Farix (Talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not only that, but there are no links, references, categories, incoming links from either the main or talk namespaces, and the first sentence ('Bakugan Battle Brawlers Unofficial Guide" By Joel') says it all. I'd say speedy this article, but I don't think any of the criteria apply to it. —Dinoguy1000 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope -- nothing speedy applies. Pretty much anything covered by WP:NOT can't be speedied. However, with sufficient piling on, you can get a snowpile. Speaking of which, delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh, I hope it snows so I can make a snow angel! (yeah, couldn't resist, sorry (or not)) —Dinoguy1000 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger kidnapping[edit]

Tiger kidnapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so listing at AfD. This is simply a dictionary definition with dubious notability. Mikeblas (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to the two sources cited on the talk page in 2006, read these:
    • "Tiger kidnapping — It's a jungle out there". Post Magazine. 2006-11-09.
    • Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers (2005-06-21). "UNIZO over beveiligingsvoorstellen minister Dewael voor juwelier". Politics.be (in Dutch).
    • David Lister and Sean O'Neill (2005-02-05). "IRA plc turns from terror into biggest crime gang in Europe". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd.
  • Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think you're confusing verifiability with notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. While certainly a stub, it's not a dicdef by any streach of the imagination. Much potential for expansion. WilyD 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to cull five sources in about five seconds by searching Google, likely far less time than it took to set up this AfD. I provided the links at the article's talk page so it could be improved. Clearly notable.--otherlleft (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, it's a dictdef currently. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a stub. We don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion. We expand them ourselves, or leave them to be expanded by other people, collaboratively. We only delete stubs if they have zero potential for expansion, and zero potential to be broadened into larger topics (by renaming and refactoring them) or merged into broader topics. Since you have not addressed even the three sources cited above, let alone what other sources might exist, you have not addressed the issue of whether this expansion is possible, and have given the closing administrator no valid rationale, thoroughly grounded in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, to hang xyr hat on. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to kidnapping. Its pretty clear this is a term primarily used in the UK, and if we were to expand this we'd have endless edit wars on whether to mention kidnappings from other countries that don't use the term. On the other hand, it would work very well as a paragraph within the "kidnapping" article, which lacks a discussion on methods and countermeasures. And bonus points for using Control Risks as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. in the absence of sources shall we just start again? Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend wallet reach[edit]

Pretend wallet reach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable neologism; fails WP:N, although if anyone can provide appropriate referencing I'd be happy to leave it be. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to etiquette article. Or merge to/create a dining etiquette article. I don't think this topic passes muster on its own, but the content is interesting and potentially encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is dating etiquette. This article is just biased rubbish, though. There's actually a whole history of the etiquette of dating with respect to money and exchange of favours, from its working-class origins in treating and charity girls of the beginning of the 20th century, through the incorporation into middle-class dating in the 1920s, replacing the earlier courtship practice of calling, to the mores of the present day and side topics such as taxi dancers. I recommend ISBN 9780691124087 and ISBN 9780807830260 as good sources on these subjects.

      There are a lot of views on who should pay on a date (see ISBN 9780793126613 page 5, the whole of chapter 4 of ISBN 9781412929189, and chapter 14 of ISBN 9781592571536, for examples), and not only is this article unsourced, it is grossly biased towards just one of those views, with an inherently non-neutral title. (Not all views concur that a woman offering to pay is pretending, for example.) From what I've seen, this article appears to be based not upon serious scholarship, but upon jokes made by comedians. Only one source comes even close to what this article says, and that is a self published book of humour about dating Jewish men.

      So basically everything about this article, its content and title, would have to be junked for a proper, neutral, verifiable, informative, non-joke, and thorough article to be written. I for one wouldn't shed a tear if we decided to toss this total dreck out whilst we waited for a proper, sourced, and neutral stub at a decent title to be created. Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • So that translates as "rewrite or gtfo"? Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism with no reliable sources to indicate it's more than a term used by one or two columnists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, original research, possibly inspired by a bad dating experience. Don't go out with that person again. If kept, make sure to add the following warning: "The 'pretend wallet reach' should never be attempted in a situation where guns have been drawn." Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some subarticle of etiquette or dating and add maybe just one clause about reaching for a wallet or check. In future maybe some of the sources used in this AFD could be used to do a paragraph on it. PS. Wasn't there a Seinfeld routine about this? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McKeever[edit]

Kevin McKeever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. Previous debates have found that Prospective Parliamentary Candidates are not notable (see Elizabeth Shenton for example), and a few trivial mentions of the "recent appointments" type in PR magazines do not establish notability in the PR world. (Full disclosure: I met Mr McKeever several years ago, but this nomination is policy-based.) DWaterson (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wardell[edit]

Bill Wardell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded twice. From first prod: Promotion-toned bio for businessman, writer, radio personality, etc. Notability claims not supported by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not sure how to write in this space, but, I do have links that can be submitted to support or add to the profile of Bill Wardell. This is my first page to create, and would like to be able to add the supporting evidence/links. Also, I wish there were some way of being notified via email etc so that my noticing this deletion would have been sooner. Please show me or tell me how to correct the changes needed so that my words are not taken as spammy or a ploy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.63.70 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoopla[edit]

Zoopla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of many property sale price listing websites listing data from HM Land Registry. Insufficient independent in-depth sources, consequently, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets and exceeds the criteria of WP:N and WP:CORP by wide margins. No reason at all thus presented for deletion, nor am I able to divine one. WilyD 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. The sources not only exist, but are in the article. A couple of the sources could be removed as they really don't qualify as wp:rs (and look spammy) but there are least two that clearly demonstrate notability, and pass wp:corp. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think notability can be established. Zoopla.co.uk has an Alexa ranking of 30,258, which indicates a fair amount of traffic.  LinguistAtLarge  01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key issue for me, as proposer, are (from WP:CORP) -
    • the definition of significant coverage. I'd like the closing admin to define this.
    • the extent to which product placement is involved (WP:CORP Note 2)
    • whether the company is "worthy of being noted"

It struck me as odd that this company has a WP article, whilst others offering the same service, don't. It looks to me as if WP is being used for commercial publicity. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the other companies have sources that have written about them in reliable publications, which can be verified, then by all means, please write an article on them. That their competitors don't have articles is a textbook non-reason to delete any article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to add: You may want to reconsider your request for the closing admin. I am sure you are a very nice person and all, but it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass who is being rude and owed something when you ask like that. I have the utmost confident that you really don't think this, but I was concerned that others may construe your words in this manner. It is better to instead ask the admin politely after the AFD closes. Admins are surprisingly similar to humans and often react to stimuli in a similar manner. To answer your question, you should read WP:GNG as it states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two of the listed references (this one and this one) are any good to determine notability. The other are either not independent or not non-trivial; not always a problem with sourcing, but it is a problem with determing notability. - Mgm|(talk) 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously. It's a highly popular website in the UK, I've even heard people using the verb "to zoopla" their neighbours. Highly relevant site, often quoted in the media, and in any houseseeker's bookmarks. Lists houses sold in every street in the UK, over the past decade or so, and how much it sold for. A very relevant site. I think we should also consider creating a page for houseprices.co.uk while we're at it... Tris2000 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep known about even in the US. The conventional references are minimal, but this is not uncommon for websites--the usual criteria dont really hold--but the fault is that of our criteria, not the lack of essential notability. DGG (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author, I would obviously say this - but think it is justified by all the comments above. This is my first full article, I wrote it as I like the site and think it is unique and interesting particularly because of the 'wisdom of the crowds' angle - Zoopla is different from houseprices.co.uk and the other static pricing websites people have mentioned because of the ugc elements and because it calculates current valuation estimates. It appears to be large, fast-growing and noteworthy. In writing the article, I also came across other references in noteworthy publications like The Guardian. If there are improvements to be made to references etc, would be delighted for folks to contribute to making these and helping my humble and stumbling efforts to improve the entry. Moneybagsuk (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 episodes to list. You'll have to forgive me for being slightly lazy and not performing any merging myself. A possible starting point would be substituting the episode articles directly into the list and then trimming. lifebaka++ 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Island at War episodes[edit]

List of Island at War episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This non-informational LoE and the six episode articles

Series One, Episode One (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series One, Episode Two (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series One, Episode Three (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series One, Episode Four (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series One, Episode Five (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series One, Episode Six (Island at War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

were copy-paste-spunout from the six-episode miniseries Island at War in March 2008, with no sign of article improvement since (regarding WP:NOT#PLOT and establishing of WP:NOTABILITY). Per Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) (a highly notable six-episode miniseries that is FA now), no individual episode article are necessary per WP:UNDUE (especially since the episodes don't even seem to be named), and the existing plot summaries should be trimmed instead. I have therefore restored the old episode summaries in Island at War (i.e. no GFDL issues) and recommend these spinouts to be deleted. – sgeureka t•c 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all All the information is rightly now contained within the series article. RMHED (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the individual articles to the list and include the info on Island at War, article is quite long and could do with being split. --neon white talk 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long plotty articles should be trimmed, not split. The episode summaries in the main article are (nearly) identical to the AfDed ep articles here, so no merging necessary. – sgeureka t•c 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still common practcie to merge them to a single article. --neon white talk 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's not common practise to replace the original with identical copies and keep the copies around. (Have a look at Island at War#Episode Synopses to see what I mean.) – sgeureka t•c 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single List of Island at War episodes article. Precedent has been set that where individual episodes of a series are not considered independently notable (examples include Star Trek and Doctor Who) then a single List article with brief descriptors of each episode are allowed and encouraged. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a "List of..." article, but I don't see the need to have individual episode articles for this series. 23skidoo (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as there are only a small number of them, but merge the entire contents, though possibly rewrite for clarity on concision of expression. The continuity between the episodes can be best shown in a single list in any case. But they should not be the inadequate length of the typical one sentence synopses, these are major 90 minute episodes with multiple plot lines. The appropriate amount of discussion is enough to understand the action and continuity and the developing roles of the characters. I recognize this is a question about content, but so is bringing the whole matter here in the first place. DGG (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content is already in the series article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traxion (video game)[edit]

Traxion (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game did not actually exist in any physical form-was cancelled before any copies were ever actually released. Lemon martini (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are loads of cancelled games with articles. looks a bit like this... YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, actually, that's just the article's AFD. The actual article got redirected/merged. MuZemike (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did it? Oh, sorry. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot articles out there from gaming sites that were buzzing about this back after E3 2006. It seemed like it was a big deal when it was canceled. Anyway, to the point, I've expanded the article and added more refs. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — easily meets the general notability guideline. MuZemike (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was postpose outcome. No consensus simply to give Joe some time to work on it. If its not sourced in a month nudge me and I'll nuke it. Is that OK? Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edits since this closed and no sources added. This is now Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SonMay[edit]

SonMay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg CD distributer. Article sourced entirely from a no-longer-there page on an anime-seller's website (not WP:RS by a long shot). Fails WP:CORP and WP:V. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I'd argue Sonmay are far more notable then is being assumed here, but certainly the lack of reliable sourcing doesn't warrant saving it (for the record that site was not a seller iirc). I'm in two minds really, the article could probably be saved, but reliable sources are usually wary of discussing pirated media so it's not going to be a 5minute job. If someone can find a reliable source, the article could easily be improvedDandy Sephy (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going by the root of the site: anime.org.uk/, which is a commercial site. If the sub-domain wasn't then that's my mistake. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, then maybe this article is a candidate for being built in userspace? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google News archive search turned up only one article, and that was just a passing mention in a brief weekly anime column. Also dug up this, which seems to contradict the column—that SonMay is not a bootleg company, just that their license is good for Taiwan-only sales). In any case, I still don't see notability.—Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, though axe the list of releases as completely unencyclopedic and blatant advertising. SonMay is one of the most notorious anime soundtrack bootleggers out there, and they have been written about in many ENglish-language anime and manga magazines since the early 1990s (I would have to hunt through a bunch to find them as it's been a long time since then and I don't remember exactly where they are mentioned). They are a bootlegger in that Taiwan doesn't (though this may have changed recently) recognize the Berne Convention, and SonMay doesn't license anything. In fact, their earliest bootlegs looked horrible and were not reliable. You could compare the packaging side by side with the original and easily see the difference. They have improved their skills since then. They are definitely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whack the release list, add a notability tag, and give Nihonjoe (and anyone else who helps him) a month or so to dig out those hard-copy references. If found, remove the notability tag; if not, we can revisit the issue. If references are, indeed, largely pre-web, then five days won't be enough time to dig them up, which means it's time to assume good faith about his claims. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm with Quasi here. Nihonjoe is a well-established member of Wikipedia with no personal interest in the article AFAIK and therefore no reason to lie about the sources. I'm not voting because I have no comment to make on the article, just wanted to lend my support to Joe. —Dinoguy1000 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POSTPONE to give Joe time to search for reliable sources. Given the notoriety that SonMay has among anime conventions and Sailor Moon fans, it is more then reasonable to assume that there is coverage by reliable sources within the anime community. If after a month and there are no reliable sources, the article can be brought to AFD again. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Merge into bootleg recording: Out of the first hundred Google hits, I only found one reliable source—an article by ANIMEfringe, a magazine (ISSN:1705-3692) that analyzes the "differences" between their products and the original CDs.[13] One problem is that the subject seems only notable for being a bootlegger, and an article about it might be lacking in reliable sources to make it comprehensive (set up, history, location, operations, etc). One of the requirements in the WP:GNG is sufficient sources for a comprehensive article. Searches based on permutations of its Chinese name "笙美貿易有限公司" also reveal no articles about the company by reliable sources. Nihonjoe, however, claims that he has a bunch of sources (among his vast collection or available to him, I presume) for this company. Userfying would allow him to work on it until a comprehensive article can be written. Otherwise, the company with its singular reliable source would serve as a notable example in bootleg recording.Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--while we're discussing or perhaps postponing, will one of you remove that long list? That's advertising, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides (Avril Lavigne album)[edit]

B-Sides (Avril Lavigne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Creating nom for IP. Reason was:

I nominated this article for deletion because this album does not exist - no official source (official homepages etc.) mentions it, and the only sources to be found are torrent-links and a page on lastfm. It's a fake. Please delete. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.180.37 (talk) 16:13, November 16, 2008

I abstain, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, unofficial album. --Darth NormaN (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives to proprietary softwares[edit]

Free alternatives to proprietary softwares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft and a directory Soliloquialtalk 15:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is somethhing that everyone's looking for. could the persons against it, give any reasonable justification? user:misteror —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. It offers something our category system doesn't. It shows which programs are compatible with what operating system. That means it has added value. Should be renamed though. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete to Neutral - Rather useful page, just not really for an encyclopedia. Hard to say, because all the software listed is notable, seems a little crufty though. DavidWS (contribs) 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move somewhere more appropriateThis isn't suitable as an article, but if there's some "Wikipedia:" space page or Wikipedia documentation we could put this it could be quite helpful to contributors. One of the Wikimedia foundation's goals is the creation and use of free content, and a fundamental part of creating free content is using software that is freely available and non-proprietary. I honestly don't know where this could go however, does anyone have any ideas? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and disperse to 'See Also' sections across the land. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like an advert to me The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soapboxery. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but listify and add sourcing. Certainly a notable topic, this is not necessarily the best way to present it. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly useful page. Listifying would not be enough. Tris2000 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — isn't this already in a list form, i.e. already listified? MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much, perhaps I should have said "Rename this to explicitly be a List of... aticle" Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The scope may be a bit vague, but it is a useful aid to navigation and I think it is reasonable to keep it per WP:LIST. Most of the programs in the list are presumably notable (they have articles), and the list does a nice job of linking them together in a tabular form. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J.delanoygabsadds 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered News[edit]

Unregistered News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google and Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile-review[edit]

Mobile-review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google and Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Fani Kayode[edit]

Remi Fani Kayode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created by subject. No references that show notability other than being the daughter of a Femi Fani Kayode (who appears to pass notability, even if his article has major issues with it), which, according to WP:BIO, does not qualify for an article. Article claims she speaks at church functions over the world which could be a claim for notability if verified, but all I can find in Google (other than Wikipedia and some wiki mirrors) are articles mentioning her which are about her father. Tagged for {{notability}} since 10th November, and although an unencyclopaedic section was removed, nothing has been done to establish notability. Suggest merging with Femi Fani Kayode if anyone can find anything worth salvaging, redirecting if not. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've done some serious editing on the article about her father (which got me an accusation of being a racist, how nice), but his daughter is completely non notable. A redirect would be confusing, I think. Delete.    SIS  23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one was speedily deleted a week or two ago. Non-notable relative of a notable person, there is no basis for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Romantic artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of New Romantic artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a list that lacks sources or consensus and is largely WP:OR. In fact, it's more casual opinion than OR. Users adding to the list tend not to understand what the "New Romantic" movement actually was and the list merely becomes a compilation of early 1980s bands, most of whom were nothing at all to do with the New Romantic movement. A similar article was already deleted some time ago for the same reasons, and I would recommend Delete for this one too. Kookoo Star (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This would appear to be a content dispute. There being a New Romantic musical genre, a list of its adherents is a proper subject (and not redundant to a category, either). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New Romantic, like all music genres, means different things to different people, and there's going to be debates about who belongs in the list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "New Romantic" was not a musical genre, it was a fashion movement that was adopted by certain British pop acts of the early 1980s - but their music is not necessarily similar in style, so it can't be considered a musical genre. To consider it a genre means that the list is inherently flawed from the start. To say that it means different things to different people is merely advocating its misuse and will only perpetuate incorrect definitions. The Wiki article about the New Romantic movement is more than enough, we don't need a list that is 90% wrong as well. GoldCoaster (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying it was a fashion movement instead of a music genre, that doesn't sound like a reason to delete. There's no reason why we can't cover fashion movements within the music industry, i.e. glam rock, hair metal, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that once it is established that New Romanticism was a fashion movement and not a music genre, then almost all of the artists on the list will have to be taken off it. Visage (or rather Steve Strange), Boy George (not Culture Club), Marilyn, Duran and perhaps Spandau Ballet are the only ones that will remain (and even their involvement with the movement was fleeting because, to quote Nick Rhodes, it was all over within 18 months). The rest of the list are just synthpop or New Wave bands that have been shoved there because people seem to assume that New Romantics were any early 80's British pop bands who used a keyboard. Artists like Japan and The Human League have actually gone on record as saying they were nothing to do with the New Romantic movement, despite many people assuming they were. So a list of only four or five artists is not going to be worth an article by itself and will probably fail WP notability guidelines because there is already a proper article on New Romantics where these few artists could be mentioned (and in fact already are). The list really needs to be ditched.GoldCoaster (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge/Smerge to New Romantic (which is a short enough article to fit it in). There's nothing wrong with the concept of this article that some decent sourcing wouldn't cure. AndyJones (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur that "New Romantic" was not a musical genre, the genre is synthpop. New Romantic was a label for a fashion/social movement originating and predominant in UK 1980-1983. The problem lies in that the media applied the label to certain music acts that dressed in the fashion of the period regardless of their musical style or whether they were actually associated to the movement. This especially applies to the US in a more pronounced way and the media there will use that label to any New Wave, Synthpop Act 1982-1989 often completely erroneously.This list illustrates the problems in a nut shell, it has been created with completely incorrect information. There is an argument that there aren’t any New Romantic Bands in the purest sense, that those who actually were eg Duran Duran only embraced the movement for commercial reasons. Visage is one of the only bands on that list that actually belong there. If the basic subject is so unstable/open to interpretation, there is no point in having a list that will be mostly incorrect and constantly subject to content disputes. andi064 T . C 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like 1982-1983. Synthpop bands of the late 80s were usually just called "techno" or "technopop" until the word techno became associated with the rave crowd. New Romantic usually implies an earlier type of synthpop that had a certain visual style associated with it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you account for Adam & The Ants, who weren't synthpop at all. Neither were Culture Club for that matter (they were "white reggae" when they first arrived). New Romantic is not a musical genre.Kookoo Star (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.This so-called article/list is a complete disaster and shouldn't even exist. There is already a New Romantic article and that should be more than sufficient. As already stated, New Romantic was not a style of music, it was a fashion movement. The fashion was certainly adopted by certain musicians in the early 1980s, and this is why many people confuse it with being a musical genre. A list of the musicians who adopted the style would not warrant a separate article (it would be like having a list of all singers who had afro hairstyles...it just isn't relevant enough and does not necessarily suggest they made the same type of music), but they can easily be mentioned on the main New Romantic article page itself. People often get confused by the term "New Romantic", but whenever you hear something like "the new romantic band Visage...." it is referring to their style of dress, not their style of music. Some of the more famous New Romantics weren't even pop stars (Phillip Salon, Leigh Bowery, etc), and there weren't really enough pop star New Romantics to make a decent list out of which is why this article should be deleted. To keep it also invites edit-warring because, as we have seen, so many people misunderstand what "New Romantic" actually was.MassassiUK (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templatize Make the article a template of romance artists and remove it after wards.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a perfectly good topic for a list, but a lot of the entries currently on it are wrong and it needs cleaning up. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "New Romantic" was not a musical genre. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a genre - I remember it all too well. This provides some evidence. The list should be restricted to bands that have a reliable source describing them as New Romantic. If that happens, I don't see a problem with it.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a music genre. You might well remember the fashions that certain people who happened to be musicians wore, but that doesn't make it a music genre. There was an interview with The Human League on the UK Channel 4's Top 10 Electro Bands programme in 2001 where they absolutely, totally denied being anything to do with the New Romantic movement. Japan have gone on record as saying the same thing. If I cant find an online link to it, I'm going to upload it onto You Tube just so everyone here can see. It blows a huge hole in the All Music Guide article you linked to (which is not necessarily written by an authority on the subject).79.66.57.7 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Human league were never a New Romantic band, and their denying that they were makes no difference.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this taken from The Virgin Encylopedia of Eighties Music. Really if reliable sources say that New Romantic was a genre (or even a 'movement') and that bands were 'New Romantic', that should be good enough to have this list here.--Michig (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the validity of the link you gave because its just to a fan site purporting to give a transcript from the Virgin Encycolpedia and not the genuine article, however if you read the first paragraph it on that page it really does emphasise just how misunderstood the term "New Romantic" was and how wishy-washy it's definition to most people seems to be (blame the early 80s media for this). If anything, it certainly devalues it as a musical genre, which is what you are claiming it was. I have no problem with a New Romantic article, but I dont think an additional list that will be mostly wrong is doing Wikipedia any favours. I've also just found this that people might find interesting. Its not necessarily a valid link either but its certainly a bit enlightening. 79.66.57.7 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why people are getting so hung up on whether or not New Romantic is a genre. The list simply states that it is a list of New Romantic bands and solo artists.--Michig (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because once it is correctly established that it was a fashion movement and not a musical genre, the nature of that list will change dramatically and almost all of the artists on it will have to be taken off. What's left would be no more than five artists and that in itself is not worthy of an article/list by itself as they can already mentioned in the main New Romantic article. That is the whole point of this discussion, and please try to remember that nobody is proposing we ditch the main New Romantic article itself (although that itself could do with a serious clean-up).GoldCoaster (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but there are more like 12 on the list at the moment that I believe belong there and can be sourced. I would agree that that number could be accommodated in the New Romantic article, but there may be more to add, e.g. that dodgy band that Ricky Gervais used to be in (Seona Dancing). I wouldn't object to this list being merged to New Romantic.--Michig (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The Human League it is quite correct that they were never part of the New Romantic scene and have said so frequently. Philip Oakey’s style was borrowed from the Glam Rock of Brian Eno and predates the NRs by some 4 years. The THL girls Susan Ann Sulley and Joanne Catherall in 1980/1 were Futurists/ Numanoids (after Gary Numan) and get quite offended if they are called NR. It is solely the ill informed media that label them NR, quite erroneously. If you cannot define a ‘thing’ then you cannot have an encyclopedic list of that ‘thing’. New Romantic bands did exist but were NR because of their social association, not musical style or clothes. They were very few and had mostly died out by 1983 as did the movement, except in the eyes of the media. New Romantics are like the Mafia, anyone can say they are, but in the same way only Sicilians can be true Mafioso. Only a very small number of people were actually New Romantics because of their association in a very insular social scene in London 1980 -1983.andi064 T . C 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I'm not sure what the big hatred of lists is lately, but I can't think of any valid reason for deletion. It was a notable genre, and if the list can be filled with notable artists (cited that they were in the genre, of course), then there's no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hatred of lists as such, just a hatred of deeply inaccurate ones.79.66.57.7 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NR not primarily a music genre, and open to far more media misinterpretation - and therefore public ignorance - now than it was at the time. Contemporarily known and acknowledged NR groups were very small in number and are adequately covered on the main NR page already. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. since it's not verifiable. Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faul Farath[edit]

Faul Farath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is substantially a copy of a Wikia article, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Saul_Karath. However, it is unverifiable that any character named "Faul Farath" (or "Anything Farath" for that matter) exists anywhere in the Star Wars universe, so this article should be deleted for a failure to meet the requirements of WP:V. Darkspots (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. It has already been speedily deleted once. It isn't notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete That the article is a copy is no problem because the source is GFDL. It just should be attributed in the discussion page or something. The problem is that it is not mentioned anywhere except of the source. So it doesn't meet notability. Plus the name is wrong and is probably a joke showing that anyone can edit wikipedia.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for lack of context. --EEMIV (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nominator. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cooke (Glamour Model)[edit]

Sam Cooke (Glamour Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this very short stub article is verifiably a published model who has appeared in numerous mass-market magazines, and in "top 100" lists of models. Various published interviews exist, eg. [14]. Is this sufficient to meet the WP:BIO criteria? The Anome (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the middle two cites given above only mention the article's subject in passing, and the first is from a specialty website; only the last seems to me to count as a mainstream reliable source, and it's the same interview I've already cited above. This web page (warning: nudity) is certainly from a mainstream source -- it's published by News Corp. -- but it's more of a listing than an article. Is winning The Sun's Page 3 Idol competition sufficient to confer notability? -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK: on re-reading the above, I think the combination of the Sun blurb and Maxim interview just scrapes through as meeting the WP:BIO standard of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, so, in spite of the negligible content of the article, this falls just on the "keep" side of the borderline, so I'm going to close this AfD as "withdrawn by nominator". -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already Deleted. Already deleted (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 14:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorldMate[edit]

WorldMate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement. Was rather surprised that CSD G11 was declined. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for author's inappropriate use of ™ and ® (means that the article was plain advertising). Alexius08 (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I don't want to undermine the other admin's authority by speedying it myself, but if we get a consensus here, it should be done. The trademark symbols are a dead giveaway, plus the praise heaped on the product, without any criticism to go with it. The text is tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was just speedied. I guess this means this AfD is closed. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to the deletion log, this article has now been speedied twice (CSD G11). Since it has been nothing more than blatant advertising twice now, would it be appropriate to close this AfD with the result being "delete" so that if the article shows up again, it can be quickly deleted and then protected? Just a thought. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Oakley[edit]

Paul Oakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was improperly speedy tagged. Bringing it here instead because despite the 7 albums it still looks iffy. Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable third-party sources cited. No claims of satisfaction of any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO (indeed, since no such claim is made, not sure why this fails speedy). Bongomatic 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Wifes Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Second Wifes Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article, possibly still under construction, from an author who appears to be populating WP with unverified content about future film roles for tv actors. Even spelled correctly I can find no evidence that this film is mentioned anywhere other than here, let alone in any evidence in a reliable source that it is in production. Hoax. Ros0709 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Jedi Civil War[edit]

Second Jedi Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional event that doesn't seem notable really. (not to mention it was copied from wookiepedia very poorly.) Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 08:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not a Star Wars expert, but I don't remember this plot feature being in any of the movies. Doesn't seem to meet WP:FICT (although, it should be noted that WP:FICT isn't a Wikipedia guideline yet). Unless this is a major plot point of one of the 6 major Star Wars movies, it is non-notable in the context of a general encyclopedia. (If it were a plot element in a minor Star Wars work, like a book or comic, that still wouldn't be notable. It could just be summarized in a few sentences in the work's own article.) --Closeapple (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Written in the Star Wars universe and not notable by real world standards. Even if it was notable it would need a complete rewrite. The author has been adding a lot of articles along these lines. Most have been dealt with by speedy deletion. This is exactly why things like Wookiepedia exist. They provide good homes for this sort of fan writing. That is where this belongs and that is where it should stay. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In-universe with no real world notability. McWomble (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Written in-universe, and it's not part of the movies. Material for wookie--not wiki--pedia DavidWS (contribs) 12:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's called the Jedi Civil war or the Second Sith War and not the Second Jedi Civil War. Secondly the content was stupidly copied. Third there are no sources. I think the user is experimenting with wikipedia, because he is a rookie. He has done thin before in Faul Farath. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then falls caesar[edit]

Then falls caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Does not meet any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. McWomble (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meets Criteria: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baggydj (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. And the reliable sources backing up that claim are.....? McWomble (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Highest noncorrupted myspace page views and song plays of any band in local area. Therefore, Then Falls Caesar has become the most prominent representative of a notable style of local scene in city - Hillsborough, New Jersey.

http://myspace.com/thenfallscaesarnj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baggydj (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Myspace's play counter is not a self-published source. Nor is its view counter. As such, these verifiable elements of myspace do not specifically fall under self-published source criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This band has not toured at least statewide, which I'm pretty sure is actually the requirements for wp:music. Also, no reliable sources, and it doesn't seem that anyone is going to find any. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band fails WP:MUSIC; it's only source appears to be the band's own Myspace, which is, let's face it, the least reliable source you can possibly use. No releases (barring the self-released demo), no significant coverage in independent, third party sources. You can tell people are getting desperate when they're referring to Myspace hit counters for notability. See WP:GARAGEBAND. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC on every point. sparkl!sm hey! 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Archdiocese of Melbourne. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Apostle South[edit]

St. Paul Apostle South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. McWomble (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what would be the benefit of a merge//redirect? Gnangarra 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more general archdiocese article could have a small amount of information about each school under its control — not that anyone's going to bother doing that. --Closeapple (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CSD#A7 or a prod would have sufficed, primary schools very rarely meet notability alone, those that exist are because of some other event. Gnangarra 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that a school would ever meet the notability requirements, schools are expressly excluded from WP:CSD and WP:PROD, and must go through the full AFD process. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting I havent seen that, can you link the policy says that "schools are expressly excluded"? Gnangarra 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead. from here, #7 StarM 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wrong forum. This is a redirect not an article, so it belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I've started a discussion about this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 16#Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock → Tropical rock (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock[edit]

Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was created for temporary storage in an effort to swap article names Ac44ck (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnolds[edit]

Arnolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable restaurant per WP:CORP and WP:Notability (restaurants). Incidental mentions on the web, nothing substantial in GNews or GScholar. --Kickstart70TC 07:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are 1) that a music band happened to be there, and 2) a directory listing of an address of a location. Neither prove notability. Please check WP:CORP and WP:REST for what can confer notability. --Kickstart70TC 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I think there are still problems with proper sourcing, I think you misread the article about the band. EMI has a distribution deal with Arnolds to exclusively distribute the band's single.  LinguistAtLarge  19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be telling in this case that the band in question also does not have a page here. --Kickstart70TC 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - Meets notability guidelines...asserts that notability in the intro paragraph DavidWS (contribs) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion of notability does not prove notability. Please check WP:CORP and WP:REST for what can confer notability. --Kickstart70TC 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I meant that as two seperate things. One: it asserts, Two: it passes. DavidWS (contribs) 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene[edit]

Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable clinical study. There are thousands of clinical studies, some are worthy of an encyclopedic article, this isn't one of them. —G716 <T·C> 23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This page has little chance of expanding without causing fragmentation. It would be better to use the material created with the study to expand the articles on the relevant drugs. - Mgm|(talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the articles on the appropriate drugs RogueNinjatalk 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging into two articles introduces duplication; the best solution for organizational purposes is to keep it as a separate article and link with a short summary from the articles on the individual drugs. I'm assuming that the study is notable enough for its own article because it has been described in the news as "one of the largest breast cancer prevention studies ever". --Itub (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert's Family Restaurant[edit]

Albert's Family Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable restaurant chain (per WP:CORP and WP:Notability (restaurants) proposed guideline). Please note that this page is about a chain mostly specific to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and other chains and individual restaurants share this name. This may muddy the waters when hunting for reliable sources for references. --Kickstart70TC 07:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not believe it qualifies as G11, it is not advertising, just not notable. There are a few mentions in GoogleNews but I don't see anything promising to make a WP:V, WP:NPOV article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vista Transformation Pack. redirecting based on statement that data already in article Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrueTransparency[edit]

TrueTransparency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article claims no notability for its subject--what appears to be a nice product--nor (based on my inspection of the first several pages of hits generated by a Google search) would there appear to be any obvious support for such a claim. Stub-class articles need to assert notability. Bongomatic 06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can redirect and be done. (It's still a valid search term) - Mgm|(talk) 16:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Nomination by banned user. Darkspots (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway bride case[edit]

Runaway bride case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is really the 3d nomination for this, as the first two were under a different name. however, now that this incident is three years past us, I think consensus will coalesce into deletion as this topic is clearly insignificant and not fitting for a serious encyclopedia. SEB Chapman (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notability does not expire, as you can see from many other Afds. --Kickstart70TC 07:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we can have an article on Egyptian heiroglyphics, the rape of Lucrece, or sitcoms from the 1950s, then we demonstrate that it's not the current popularity of a topic that leads something to be notable. Once the media frenzy dies down, the notability or non-notability crystallizes; it doesn't die down along with the frenzy. I remember this really well. It was covered ad nauseam in the media, and is a great example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not usually keen on articles about media circus events, but the end of the article clearly shows this has had an impact (and is therefore notable). It sparked the creation of an action figure, a hot sauce and a musical. Together with the fact it was reported in highly reliable publications makes this a keep in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep- The situation was notable. I'd say more, but the others above me have already covered everything I'd want to. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This was very notable three years ago, and notability does not expire. I understand the nominator's view that this is not, in retrospect, historically significant, but I disagree. The real-life "runaway bride" will continue to be mentioned as a cautionary tale during wedding preparations, long after the name of the person has been forgotten. But more importantly, the media coverage of the story in 2005 continues to be a cautionary tale for journalists [15] about the difference between "junk journalism" (or "slow news day") and hard news. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Mgm|(talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cymmer Ball[edit]

Cymmer Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recommending deletion. This article was a contested prod. The subject is at best a non-notable local fringe sport, at worst a game made up in school one day. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 05:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A search across Google returns no results. Likely made up. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NFT and has no sources available, not even from the creator. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Cunard. I also found no sources. Schuym1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: made up.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida zip codes[edit]

Florida zip codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-encyclopedic trivia. Brian Kendig (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain similar content:

Texas zip code map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ohio zip codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New York zip codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
California zip codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alabama zip codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southern California ZIP Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Brian Kendig (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (O)^(O) Delete. I agree with Nick-D, and this isn't a particularly useful way to sort zipcodes anyways.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the text but delete the tables. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Rapidly forming consensus seems to agree the table should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I concur. I think the whole article, including the text, should be deleted. The text breaks down as a one-paragraph description of Zip codes in general (we have an article for that), followed by a rather useless unencyclopedic breakdown of zipcode trivia and local statistics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Leftfoot69 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - This seems more like trivia or listcruft then anything else. Wikipedia is not a directory of anything... DavidWS (contribs) 15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listing zip codes with no indication what area they cover is not helpful. Pages that do cover that are a directory and should be elsewhere on the web, not wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are basically poorer-quality editions of pages deleted at this deletion discussion a year and a half ago: they're technically not the same, as the pages deleted then were actually better (they listed community names with their codes), but if the better pages could be deleted, surely the worse can. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Although postal codes are important, these are wrong on several levels. The content is next to useless (i.e., these are the numbers used in Florida: 32003 32004 32007 32008 32009 32011 32013 32024....); and even with more content, there is no reason to sort zip codes by state. There are ample sources besides Wikipedia where useful information about zip codes can be found, and a Wikipedia article can link to such sources. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least the content of Southern California ZIP Codes in some form—this one is entirely different from the others, in that it arranges the ZIP codes by county and lists populations, and this article has also been around much longer. The information could be split and merged into the articles on the counties or cities if it is deemed that this is inappropriate as a single list. As for the others, it seems that the text is verifiable and not directory information, and so ought to be kept per Richard Cavell and possibly merged somewhere. Deleting verifiable content without considering other solutions of incorporating the content in an encyclopedic manner is counterproductive and drives away potentially good contributers. DHowell (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The population numbers in Southern California ZIP Codes have no references. Plus, they are likely to change on a daily basis, and they are useless trivia - does anyone really need to know the population of each individual zip code in Ontario, for example? - Brian Kendig (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Sawyer[edit]

Hugh Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this person truly notable? Nothing in the article suggests so. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added sources, including one print newspaper, to the article. He's been covered at length by three separate print newspapers, plus online independent, reliable subject-matter venues. At least one print newspaper and one of the aforementioned online venues have done followups on him. That seems to meet WP:BIO to me. I think the notability just needs to be better communicated in the article. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Passes WP:V, marginally passes WP:N. DigitalNinjaWTF 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's notable, though this may be blind luck on his part. Plenty of similarly-reclusive individuals with an agenda never manage to catch the media's attention. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, and don't believe he passes WP:N, despite a couple of mentions in daily newspapers. This is Wikipedia:Recentism and it's not nice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many sources as noted above, so it meets notability.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • undefined — Can someone clarify the lead? I'm still not sure what the article is about. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- He is an oddity, but the amount of newspaper coverage suggests that hue is notable. However the article is only a stub at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Mang Mung[edit]

Ming Mang Mung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined proposed deletion. It's pretty clear that "Ming Mang Mung" is a game made up in school (or somewhere like that) one day. There are no sources provided, no relevant Google hits, and no claim to notability. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - An online created sport does not warrant an article. Res2216firestar 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only contributions are going to come from the founders of the game, as the article mentions. There are obviously going to be no references. So I don't think it will ever meet up with verifiability or notability guidelines. Chamal talk 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Chamal talk 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the author can really turn this around. It's a thing made up one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowy Delete. For all we know, this is a hoax. Not to mention impossible to establish WP:V or WP:N for that matter. DigitalNinjaWTF 06:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objection to WP:SNOWballing it. This seems to be very clearly something that was made up in school one day. The google test, which is no longer considered reliable because it can so easily be manipulated to over-estimate notability shows all of seven results - and none of them refer to the subject of this article, except, of course, the result which is this article. There goes WP:V and WP:N. The prod was contested by the article creator, and I dare say no one established editor of this encyclopedia will object to deletion of this article. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. DavidWS (contribs) 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all of the above. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NEUTRAL, and WP:MADEUP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:MADEUP is pretty much verified, by the way, by the statement in the article that the creator is "just waiting for contributions from the other founders of this game." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if possible. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deflate, Dilute, Delete Sounds sort of like fun, but it's not an article. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but curious how an editor could be accused of a conflict of interest if this thing is as made-up as it appears. Doesn't there have to be an interest that someone could actually be conflicted about?--otherlleft (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, I assume you're referring to the conflict of interest tag which was placed on this article by an anonymous editor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skywire[edit]

Skywire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom, contested prod. No evidence of independent notability. The only sources are the distributors and blogs. McWomble (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Actually, this seems more in the realm of a promotional page instead of an article due to lack of notability. DigitalNinjaWTF 06:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's promotional, although it's definitely non-notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nitrome. Nitrome is definitely a notable games creator, and I think the game could be notable. Unfortunately, the article doesn't show it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noir Pictures[edit]

Noir Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local production company located in Hawaii. Article states that DVDs are normally available only through direct contact with the company, but Noir Pictures is in the process of making the films available online. The company also has a myspace page. I tried to find sources for this company other than personal blogs, myspace and resumes but could not find any. Fails WP:CORP Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crooked I . Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Boss Volume 2[edit]

Young Boss Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape with very little media coverage. The two reviews are from non-notable websites. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I removed the PROD because it does have two reviews, and the artists are notable. It is sourced by two reviews that I agree may or may not pass wp:rs, so to me it depends on the perceived quality of the two sources in this case, http://www.thuglifearmy.com and http://www.hoodstars.net/home.shtml . Because it isn't instantly obvious that they are not reliable as sources (they aren't blogs or ad farms), I figured it was better to have a discussion before deleting, and correctly guessed you would AFD it if you felt strong enough about it. In a nutshell, I would rather see a little discussion first in a borderline case. I did see a crazy amount of torrent action on this, which is meaningless for this discussion, but tells me there may be better sources I just couldn't find quickly. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources were blogs it wouldn't be instantly clear if it was reliable either. A lot of reliable sites have a blog format. The only way to establish their reliability is to look at the author (and some sort of link to determine they really are who they say they are). - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete/(redirect) I don't see why this "mixed tape" has to have its own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we at no consensus based on a pure lack of interest? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of those boarderline cases. It passes WP:V, it passes WP:N(generally), however it falls short in WP:MUSIC. Delete until such a time it's more notable...sorry. DigitalNinjaWTF 06:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Crooked I who is listed as the main performer. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thubten Gyatso. MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Mirror[edit]

The Perfect Mirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Has not received fame, notoriety, or recognition required for a Wikipedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intention awareness[edit]

Intention awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I stumbled across what seems to be a walled garden based on Newton Howard. Google doesn't seem to indicate that this term is notable, and the only two references cited were written by the term's originator. If sources show the term is notable, I'll happily withdraw my nom. Otherwise, Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of multiple third-party sources that would attest to the notability of this as an academic concept. A Google scholar search for Howard's papers on this subject didn't find any with more than one citation, a very small number for a topic of academic research of any interest at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of a WP:WALL; the theory seems like a WP:FRINGE with no chance at notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Axe Murder Boyz. SoWhy 21:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutt & Stitched[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cutt & Stitched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is short and unreferenced. I could not find any third-party sources backing up the album's existence. Does not appear to be notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

Tha Underground Stylystiks Compilation Album Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Galaxy (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Underdogz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect anything useful to the artist page. The article lack content besides a tracklisting which is the basic requirement for writing articles on CDs. Underdogz has a little more info, weak keep on that one (otherwise, merge too). - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cafe[edit]

Red Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper; released one non-hit indie label mixtape and no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no references show notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a minimum before nominating an article on a musical artist/band for deletion, searches should be carried out on Google, Google News, and Allmusic. Allmusic has a substantial biography and other coverage was easily found. The article passes WP:MUSIC, most importantly on significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. +1 ^ Hello Control seems to think everything without sourced material should be deleted on the spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.160.55 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I don't know what to think someone give me a reason why this should be delted or kept because first of all it is a sloppy article and the artist is not that notable but he does have a single that is played consistently on MTV called Paper Touchin (Remix) so for those of you who want to keep his article my god at least make an effort on mentioning his single if you want to keep it so bad.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If he's notable according to WP:MUSIC it should be kept, irrespective of whether or not the article is 'sloppy'.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • -I don't find him that notable and he seems almost unknown with albums that an underground rap fan wouldn't even know about.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Haven't read any clear grounds for deletion. According to the article, the nomination and the support of deletion on grounds of failing WP:Music are in contrast to the article. Regardless of what the article says, it does not fail WP:Music outright. Louis Waweru  Talk  03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to inclement weather - Peripitus (Talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hicks[edit]

Terry Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I doubt that appearing on television a lot on behalf of a cause adds up to notability. If Australia or even the ACT had a "Father of the Year award" award and he had won it might be different. Grahame (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Intensely notable public figure; more than one thousand Factiva hits from Australian newspapers alone, subject of multiple documentaries. Hell, he was publicly headhunted by the Democrats to head their Senate ticket in South Australia for the 2007 election (he turned it down). I'm bemused as to what difference a "Father of the Year" award would actually have made to his notability. Rebecca (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he had run for the Democrats and lost, as they did, he would not be notable as a politician. The article seems to be making a claim to notability on the basis of a nonsense nomination and you are making an argument for notability on the basis of a nonsense political candidacy.--Grahame (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying that he's notable as an immensely prominent public figure; one element of which is that a major political party tried to headhunt him as a lead candidate. For goodness sake, the man has more than a thousand newspaper articles referencing him. This should be a no-brainer. Rebecca (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a man who was lead story in the Australian media for years. The article should be NPOVed, though. (It uses the words 'get justice', implying that David was treated unjustly). Australia and the ACT do have Father of the Year awards. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article requires substantial work on it but the subject has been referenced many, many times over a prolonged period in reliable, secondary sources. Murtoa (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to his son's article. While it's not pure BLP1E, he's only notable for the work he's done on behalf of his son, one subject. BLPP1S? StarM 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (I started this article) Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; household name. Hesperian 04:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terry Hicks has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands of news stories. Many of these stories have been focused entirely on him, and not his son, so he easily meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep and cleanup/expand. Over 20,000 Ghits, over 2,400 Gnews hits (several specifically about him[16][17][18]) and entries in several books.[19][20][21] McWomble (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Randolph[edit]

Christopher Randolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable actor, written like an "advertisment" glorifying his minor roles. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, looks like spam. Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Close AfD He was a broadway understudy and did a few bit parts on TV. yee haw.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How large is his role in Metal Gear Solid? - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His role is a fairly significant one in quite a few of the Metal Gear Solid games, Hal Emmerich is probably one of the more important secondary characters. That said, it doesn't look like he's done much else that's really notable, so there's not much worth saying in an article about the actor. ~ mazca t|c 12:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Whiteoak[edit]

Order of Whiteoak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any evidence that it meets the notability criteria in WP:ORG - others have also tried, see the talk page. I did find one mention but that seems to have resulted from a web search by the author as it only refers to the organisations website. "order+of+whiteoak"#PPA349,M1 dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable organisation. (I'm also surprised as to the very Germanic slant of this purportedly Celtic organisation; the founder is Austrian, and the only source is in German, for a start.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything except self-references and blog comments on Google. No evidence of notability WVhybrid (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Regrets (Dope album)[edit]

No Regrets (Dope album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches do not reveal any notable links to this album. Nor are any notable references provided in the article. WVhybrid (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Phillips[edit]

PJ Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bass player. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a textbook example of biting newbies. This is the editor's first article. From a quick google, there may be enough non-trivial stuff to establish notability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, UK music mag Sounds erroneously reported (in 1989) his death following a stage accident with Christian Death (source). There's also this reference to him in This is London. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would his misreported demise be notable enough to meet WP:N or WP:BLP? I see that he sessions with several pro musicians, which is great, but while I want to say delete, that's the only thing I have a question on. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I don't have an opinion on whether he's notable, one way or another. The original editor has also added a bunch of links on his talk page, which I repost here for completeness:
http://www.events366.com/Events-C/d080926/Music-Concert-Band-Gig-dd080926.aspx
http://www.birdland.at/cms/cms.php?pageName=3&artistId=311&referer=%2Fcms%2Fcms.php%3FpageName%3D36
http://www.planetbass.fsnet.co.uk/pjphillips.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3122694.stm
http://www.glennhughesitalia.com/discografia/gruppi_partecipazioni/billy_liesegang.asp
http://www.timeout.com/london/music/event/121646/jon-regan-and-guests.html
http://www.opheliamanagement.com/upload/ficheros/jon_review_vienna.pdf
http://www.jazzitalia.net/viscomunicatoemb.asp?EN=0&ID=10814
--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a background musician, so any namedropping is a clear case of why notability is not inherited. The sources I checked agree on this. Since he made no work of his own, he fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, the links above don't pass muster. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Solonos[edit]

George Solonos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't really know if this guy is notable or not, but am leaning towards not. He gets more google hits for being a guitarist than any of the other claims to fame alluded to at the top of the article, but that's still only 33. He gets no google news hits at all. There is a link here that claims he played guitar on TV with Boy George, but when you read the article he was only part of the band in the background, and certainly didn't share credits with the artist. The only references provided in the article are all from myspace. roleplayer 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I'm Breathless. MBisanz talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm Following You[edit]

Now I'm Following You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only. Article is unreferenced and contains original research Paul75 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chattanooga, Tennessee#Primary and secondary education . Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainerd Baptist School[edit]

Brainerd Baptist School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable: Elementary school (3-year-olds preschool through grade 5) with no indication of notability and no 3rd-party sources. Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainerd Baptist Church is related. Orlady (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That punny comment alone made the effort of creating this AfD worthwhile! Orlady (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA spinoff[edit]

NASA spinoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising - it is basically content from NASA Spin-off a NASA PR tool. Also question notability as NASA Spin-off itself is the only source and articles on similar devices (LEDs, etc) make no mention of either NASA involvement and specific items Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems to have started as a stub for the publication (hense the name) but has been extended by adding magazine content. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While NASA is notable, and many things that NASA does is very notable, it does not follow that everything NASA does is notable. Many of the items discussed in the magazine are themselves notable as well. But all of the references are internal to NASA, and a multi-page search on Google reveals no notable mentions of the magazine. WVhybrid (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It could be of interest to some people. If it is kept, it needs to be reworded so as not to sound like an advertisement. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kept as an article about the (non-notable?) magazine or kept as a list of products spun-off from NASA research? The first seemed to be the point of the page initially (and namewise) and I think it would be hard to stop that happening again. The second, under a different name like List of products spun-off from NASA research and completely reworked so that it linked to existing articles, had references from a source other than NASA Spinoff and had some criteria for being on the list (many of the items are listed because they have NASA funding, which doesn't really seem to have the meat that the concept of the list implies. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not just NASA funding that means something makes the list, but also whether it is actually in use by the general public. Since all the technologies are easily available, finding sources outside NASA is relatively easy making this a prime candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. (I do agree this should be renamed. Is this article perhaps a spinoff from the NASA article itself?) - Mgm|(talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seemed to miss my point. Spin-offs off NASA research are more than just funding arrangements. Lots of businesses, financial bodies, charities and foundations fund research, but no one wants them to have a page, rather NASA spin-offs should be about an answer to the question "what did we get from NASA putting people on the moon?" rather then "besides direct investment in the space program where does the money go." As to the point of these products being used by the regular public, I'd like to see articles for the spin-off products or at the very least them having sections on other pages (their specific use of LEDs isn't meantioned at all on the LEDs page, for example.) I doubt it is a spin-off of the NASA article, I think it's a corruption of a stub about the magazine "NASA Spinoff". Seems the genesis is hereabouts [22] Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup, I remember hearing about this topic even visiting Cape Canaveral. At the very least, merge with NASA. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs improvement, particularly in finding and citing neutral independent reliable sources, but it's an important and notable topic which Wikipedia should cover and cover well. A merge into NASA seems impractical to me, because that article is rather large. — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kennedy (porn star)[edit]

Patricia Kennedy (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Fulsom[edit]

Cindy Fulsom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there are so many porn stars. I remember seeing a comment on an industry board saying that the average porn star has the life expectancy of a tsetse fly. As a result, there's a lot of churn in the biz and a lot of faces. Tabercil (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Anthony disappearance[edit]

This entire article is hearsay.


Caylee Anthony disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This isn't a biography about this person, this is more like a news account of a disappeared child. Therefore in my view, it is more of a news article than anything else and thus doesn't fit into the scope of the project. TrekFanatic (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikinews - where news goes. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Could be made into a half decent article, but as the event is still recent with no firm outcome is better suited to Wikinews. The claim the event captured the international media is laughable.Paul75 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should leave the artical when the trial is finished. this will be a great article. and let me tell you something paul people get nancy grace all over the world im not saying i agree with her but she is on cnn any one with a dish knows about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.166.47 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CNN is not the international media, CNN is an American news service that remains an American news broadcaster no matter where it is seen. Paul75 (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Plenty of sources. Notable and for heavens sake if you delete this one you may as well delete the others. If your problem is that it is too much of a news article you could have taken the problem to the talk page and asked people to fix it and again this is notable and deserves it's place on the Project. This is just like the other various articles about people who have disappeared. You don't just delete because you feel it is not worthy. You delete because it is not worthy. Sources ranging from small town newspapers to international outlets say this person is notable and many people working on this article me included would have answered to your suggestion of changing the article. I agree myself that this is rather newish and that can be fixed. This is a community after all.Rgoodermote  02:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm assuming that this is a good faith nomination, rather than making a point; the statement that "this isn't a biography about this person, this is more like a news account of a disappeared child" suggests that the nominator is new to Wikipedia. I can only say that Wikipedia's format is to write about the crime, rather than the victim, and the titles of the articles follow accordingly. As callous as it may sound, a three year old child does not have much of a biography because she never had the chance to live a full life. One of the things that separates notable from yesterday's news is how long a subject receives coverage after the immediate timeframe. There's no ignoring the fact that this disappearance has been focused on by the media, or that people consult Wikipedia when wanting to know more about the background. No, Wikipedia's article isn't in first place when people are looking for information [23], but it's obvious that people do turn to Wikipedia in getting information. Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I "fixed" this incomplete AfD earlier without commenting on it. This is a notable crime that should have an article. However, this article is written in a breathless "current events" style (like a TV news report), and needs rewriting to become more like an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect - I think the article should be called "Calyee Anthony", her disappearance does not need it's own article for heaven's sake. Res2216firestar 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The names of most (but not all) articles about crimes with otherwise nonnotable victims describe them as articles about the crime, not as articles about the oerson. For example, see the articles in Category:Kidnapped American children. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's reasoning is faulty. It's the disappearance that is notable, not the kid herself. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — The article is sourced, and it does not fail wp:BLP1E because it is about the disappearance, not the actual person. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- her disappearance was notable, and since thats swhat the article is about, there's no BLP1E issue. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It's a notable crime, was reported by many different sources. Needs to be re-written though. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is an obvious "keep", for heaven's sake. I won't repeat the above arguments in support of keeping and in opposition to deleting. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy keep Is an obivous keeper. Lets end this discussion here and now.--Judo112 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Pretty soon this case is going to blow up big time. It has been featured on mainstream shows such as Dr. Phil (making it notable at least in a national scope) and once all is said and done, this will end up being as big as several of the other articles involving crimes which have made their way onto Wikipedia. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepI see no trouble with this article. It's accurate and should be kept.


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

The result was deleted as a repost (CSD G4) and per unanimous consensus here. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why riding hood might cry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Why riding hood might cry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was just deleted as A1. Decided not to G4 as this is much longer, but still fails notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still shows no sign of notability, and still appears to be a COI - check author's name and Username of article creator. Delete unless notability can be shown. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced plot summarizing promo. No evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - While this doesn't fall into any speedy categories, the precident by the previous AfD has been already set. I see no reason to do differently. DARTH PANDAduel 01:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt. Recreation of previously deleted material. Shows no improvement over previously deleted article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's speediable. This is vanity (note the article's author is the same as the author of the book, who is the same as the lead character of the book), and not notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JuJube. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. Alexius08 (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Moot Redirected. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talento de Barrio Mundial[edit]

Talento de Barrio Mundial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Unsourced future album, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sheridan College. Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis magazine[edit]

Travis magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN student publication, falls in between WP:N, WP:CORP & WP:BOOK, but seems not to meet standard notability requirements. Khukri 09:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Brand new magazine" needs time to blossom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Sheridan College. This magazine is non-notable, but the information in this article is verifiable and is better placed in the college's article. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the College page. Verifiable, but not suitable for its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter O'Connor (psychologist). Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the Mid-Life Crisis[edit]

Understanding the Mid-Life Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. The book needs to have notoriety, fame, non-trivial reviews in order to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It shouldn't say that because it's unsourced. Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergewith Peter O'Connor (psychologist). While I'm appaled there's no indication of anyone looking up sources, I don't think the article could be expanded much. I therefore opt for a merge with the author, so both articles can benefit. - Mgm|(talk) 16:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—I agree with merging it, as suggested by MacGyver. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfinished Twentieth Century[edit]

The Unfinished Twentieth Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book not receiving any non-trivial reviews or notoriety. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be rewritten. But it's notable. Might be suitable for merge/ redirect with author. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Windscale fire. after merge Mgm|(talk) 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Windscale Fire[edit]

The Windscale Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FILM. Not a notable film/television show. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Windscale fire. I just accomplished the "merge" part of this by adding a paragraph about this documentary to that article. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Seems reasonable. Notability not established outside of event coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Nebraska[edit]

Nuclear Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Does not seem to be the subject of notable awards, reviews, sales, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added two reviews. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Book by major publishing house McGraw Hill, with foreword by US Senator Ben Nelson [24]. Several reviews: [25] [26]. Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those two reviews are not reliable sources. California Bookwatch is not a generally recognized source of reliable reviews of academic material, and the othe resource is a organizational web page, not a published source at all. Having an introduction by a senator does not make a book notable. DGG (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
confirmed by what? DGG (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Lopes (designer)[edit]

Nuno Lopes (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay-like bio of a graphic designer. The credited "Sublimis" software does not appear to have recieved widespread coverage, nor has its author. Delete as not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K.A. Ajit-Simh[edit]

K.A. Ajit-Simh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pharmaceutical executive. Editor of one book that is now oop. —G716 <T·C> 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus which way to merge Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berwyn Heights drug raid[edit]

Berwyn Heights drug raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic minor event (a drug raid of the police), worthy just of a local news report. per WP:NOT bogdan (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per nom. Trivial drug raid. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wouldn't it make more sense to merge that article with this one? The raid is notable in part because the dogs were killed. But the "mayor" is only notable because of the raid. And the other article is mighty short. You guys are almost right, but you have it backwards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cheye Calvo. Also make sure all the information from this section of Berwyn Heights, Maryland is included in the merged article. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Cheye Calvo article is two sentences long and has one reference. Is someone claiming he's notable outside of this notable incident? Why are we merging this notable event into an article about a non-notable person? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly merge Cheye Calvo to this article. This case is extraordinary in that the mayor is suspect and that the police shot at and killed fleeing housepets.Synchronism (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rossstar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DJ Rossstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch and gnews not turning up reliable, independent sources that show notability. (Note: not really close enough to original version for a G4 speedy.) Prod contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO, so there's no reason to have an article on this person. The article as written by the article creator appears to be of a clearly promotional nature. Lastly, this article was created by the same user less than a day after I refused to do it per Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/DJ_Rossstar, explaining that it had the same problems as the last time it was deleted and needed improvement. (Though, I'm not sure why a registered user used that process in the first place, except they may not have known any better.) The created version was effectively the same as the version I had told the user would not fair well. While in and of itself not a reason for deletion, the fact the user created the page anyway, adding a bolded part at the top about the time the show was on, does seem to provide evidence that this page was created with promotional intent. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 06:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject as yet another webcaster with no third-party sources to prove notabilty or even complete verifiability does not cross the notability threshold. I did put the article in a couple of proper categories and did some cleanup, including removing the bolded line about his broadcast schedule per WP:NOTDIR. - Dravecky (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Collier[edit]

Reno Collier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable. No source found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PandemoniuM (TV Show)[edit]

PandemoniuM (TV Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was tagged as a speedy for being non-notable, but I don't see how a TV program meets the group/bio criteria for that speedy. I'm unable to assert notability myself, because my Portugese and Spanish is rubbish, so I would like community input. Procedural nom Mgm|(talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Starboard[edit]

Hitachi Starboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement, no sources, no notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fairly notable, and as usual, Eastmain saves an article DavidWS (contribs) 01:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Advertisement for a whiteboard product? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is information about a product that has been written about, which squeezes passed wp:n. While not a reason to keep, computer product articles (if sourced) is encyclopedic and useful, particularly years from now, so a short article like this does make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Not spammy, short and sweet, referenced (thanks to Eastmain). DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources added by Eastmain. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia (Play by Mail game)[edit]

Saturnalia (Play by Mail game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor PBM game, no notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia Play by Mail was one of the largest PBM's of the time (around 1985). I'll try to include references in the article juardo.

Saturnalia was one of the largest games in the history of hand moderated PBM and has run continuously for quarter of a century. Delete if we're not having pages on individual PBMs - do not delete merely because of ignorance regarding this one.

mark32_2000 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 File system. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero (file system)[edit]

Prospero (file system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction[edit]

Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable clinical study —G716 <T·C> 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically an external link with little other information. There's probably lots of similar studies around the world, so this one is nothing special. - Mgm|(talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established per the usual rules. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the article title is definitely hugely notable and worthy of research. The TIMI study that is referenced is just one particular study on this topic. The article thrombolysis is more general than the present article title. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not actually one clinical study but a programme of ongoing research. I've lost count of the number of papers produced by this effort, but it has made a major impact on the way heart attacks are treated worldwide. JFW | T@lk 06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use those papers as sources for the related articles then? This article lacks content. It only says "X is Y" with no other information. I don't see how this substub can be expanded without causing major overlap or turning promotional. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should get an article if we can prove its influence from external coverage. Looking at google news, it seems that they developed the criteria used in other studies, it that right? This title is very confusing, it should be moved to TIMI study or something like that. Juzhong (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a series of studies, not just one, and they have received enough coverage in secondary sources (which can be found in Google News and Google Books search results) to meet the notability guidelines. —Snigbrook 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI think it should be keep. Could use some info on what each of the TIMI's found. There are at least 46 different studies. Could provide some interesting history about cardiac care.--Doc James (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JKEY[edit]

JKEY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a blatant puff piece with no references to tell what is real, what is false and what is inflated. Google does not have much on him. Unlikely to be notable. Contested PROD. DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemet publication[edit]

Kemet publication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability made; as Kemet is a popular word google is unhelpful; had been proded with no updates made by original author or others, except for prod removal Blowdart | talk 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability made, nor is one apparent from the website mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Judge Mental[edit]

Dj Judge Mental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable producer's vanispamcruftisement—fails WP:MUSIC. Article created by SPA, only other contributors are by two SPA IPs. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 J.delanoygabsadds 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K32GL[edit]

K32GL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom, as the prod tag was removed. This short unsourced article is about a proposed television station in American Samoa. Based on comments from other editors, the station was never built, and there is no record of the callsign in the FCC database.[30] Elonka 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. --Elonka 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is an FCC record if you search for the call sign here, and that record shows that TBN applied for a construction permit on August 30, 2000, was accepted on November 4, 2003, and it expired three years later on November 4, 2006. So this is verifiable information but I don't know if it is enough for an article or to be even be merged anywhere. DHowell (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proposed stations that don't get build are unlikely to offer enough material to write an article. - Mgm|(talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can imagine a circumstance where a proposed television station whose construction permit expired unbuilt might still be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but that circumstance would most likely require a controversy which garnered mainstream press coverage (such as, say, the station owner getting arrested for using the station to launder drug money or to funnel illegal donations to a terrorist organization.) But this station doesn't meet that standard — just being able to source it to the same FCC database as a television station that actually did make it to air isn't enough. And even if this were kept for some reason, a broadcast translator should never be anything more than a redirect to its programming source unless, once again, the transmitter is individually notable for reasons much like my examples above. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very article describes why it is not notable... it was never built, turned on, started, or existed. WVhybrid (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, also WP:CRYSTAL. Res2216firestar 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom as unbuilt, non-existent, proposed transmitter --skew-t (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Friendly Gaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Family Friendly Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A version of this article was previously deleted in 2006. Since it has been a while we should have a new AfD on this article. It makes an assertion of notability by claiming to be the first Christian video game magazine so it isn't speedy deletable. However, almost all google hits are about the general concept of "family friendly gaming" not the magazine and I am unable to find any independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lots of claims but no evidence, suggest deletion or substantial rewrite with appropriate sources. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. JNW (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, not going to really look too much in to it other than to comment that there are now a lot more than the 54 google hits from last time and they have now this year been to E3. So small steps to be seen going in the right direction perhaps. Mathmo Talk 01:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately many of those are just people mentioning the word magazine in the context of "Family Friendly Gaming" the context. Less than half of those appear to be about the magazine. And none of them are reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many claim this site is not reliable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.170.85 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we're not. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and you shouldn't treat it that way. But in order to be included in Wikipedia something needs to be backed up by reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the United States Patent and Trademark Office reliable enough for you? I just added that to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.170.85 (talk • contribs)
It is a reliable source for the fact that the term is trademarked but that really isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. It might help to read WP:N and WP:RS which should give some idea what level of reliable sourcing would be good. Ideally we'd like someone independent of the magazine writing an article about the magazine or something like that. So if for example, a newspaper or another magazine wrote about the magazine that would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.au.lspace.org/books/apf/the-last-hero.html
  2. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference nontrivial was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference independent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_16&oldid=1081072591"