Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. kurykh 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHYTHM Poetry Magazine[edit]

RHYTHM Poetry Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:GNG. A recently started poetry magazine that is published twice a year. No extensive media coverage, no claim of significance. A google search for "Rhythm poetry magazine" turns up only 16 hits. Nouse4aname (talk) 22:49, 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 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda reklambyrå[edit]

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:CORP. 2 man agency started 4:th quarter 2008, no Google hit or Google news hits that confirm any notability. --Stefan talk 22:24, 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 speedy delete. as copyright violation Mgm|(talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACCEPTION[edit]

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

WP:NOT a dictionary; also a possible copyvio. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Also, the definition is complete gibberish! Falls under the WP:CSD#G1 rule for speedy.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyright violation, so tagged. Also it's blatantly unsuitable for inclusion. (There ought to be a speedy criterion for it's-just-some-kid-mucking-around) - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:07, 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 speedy delete, A7; notability not even asserted. Author Psychestudio (talk · contribs) blocked as a promotion-only account. Blueboy96 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche studios[edit]

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

Apparently an extension of their company website. Notability hadn't been established in the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 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! 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FightBack[edit]

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

This publication does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N. I undertook Google searches of "Fightback" and "Canada", but came across no independent coverage of the subject, other than at the Trotskyists' own sites at marxist.ca and marxist.com. Previous attempts by other editors to tag this article for improvement have been deleted. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The question is not the relative level of obscurity of the article subject. The issue is whether this article subject is sufficiently notable and verifiable to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policies at WP:N and WP:V. The actions of the anons really have nothing to do with the deletion proposal -- the reference in the nomination was intended simply to indicate that the article was tagged and no reliable, third-party sources resulted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the other articles you have mentioned might also qualify for deletion on the same basis. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added more references, including a Mexican newspaper Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to locate the references. They are very helpful for the purposes of this discussion, and your efforts are appreciated.

I have reviewed the third-party sources provided in the article, however, and I am not convinced that they meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, and in particular of WP:SOURCES. My reasoning is as follows:

* Two of the sources are merely directories of publications (Independent Media, Broadleft), and inclusion in a directory is typically not considered to be coverage in independent sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N (for the same reason a local business would not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines merely because it is listed in the yellow pages and other business directories).

* Three of the sources (Hands of Venezuala, the Celia Hart piece, and the Spanish-language article) do not appear to even mention Fightback (although I do not speak Spanish, so I could have missed a specific reference in that article). Although the Fightback publication might have been involved in the events mentioned in those third-party sources, for a source to satisfy WP:V it needs to explictly refer to the article subject.

* Finally, two of the references do mention Fightback - the International Communist League piece very briefly in passing, and the Bolshevik.org piece in more detail. Both references are critical of Fightback, so arguably constitute sources independent of the article subject (which is good). I am just not sure that these two sources constitute the "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that is required by WP:N, esp. since the first source contains only the briefest of mentions of Fightback in a presentation that addresses other topics (the recent elections) rather than the subject at hand. I would prefer to see some non-opinion piece sources from the non-Communist media to satisfy myself that the article subject is notable outside a select group of people.

For those reasons, I do not feel that the new sources are sufficient for me to support the retention of this article. Having said that, I hope other editors chime in with their thoughts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hammer and Sickle made the article worth being in wikipedia as he added sources etc . I think there is no reason for it to be deleted now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.233.189 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This IP account has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia except for this AfD comment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the sources cited fail verification, as they do not actually mention the involvement of Fightback in the events the article claims Fightback helped organize. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIndeed the article that I wrote was pretty shitty as it was my first article and I am a bit biased I am sorry.But now if you see the article with the additions by Hammer Sickle it looks great and it is worth keeping on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, and I am glad you were able to participate in the discussion, but unfortunately "looks great" and "worth keeping" are not the relevant criteria (see WP:ATA). It would be really helpful if you provided some input into the WP:N issue, and what can be done to demonstrate the notability of the subject in accordance with WP:N and WP:V. Feel free to ask me any question on my talk page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey just to reply to Skeezix, I think Fightback is one of the most notable Marxist organizations in Canada. Especially in Quebec after the Celia Hart and other events which I cited in my original article. We are not merely talking about a newspaper but about a section of the International Marxist Tendency with tens of activists. I will cite some verifiable sources and add some stuff which are going to be verifiable. I might have some problems but I ll figure it out(I m not that computer literate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another reply to Skeenzix and sorry about not using the reply thing properly. The Celia Hart page on handsoffvenezuela.com does mention fightback: " in collaboration with the International Marxist Tendency". Fightback is referred to as the IMT because it is the IMT section in Canada. I don't expect you to be an expert on Trotsyist organizations but all the sources provided have references to fightback either as "FightBack" either as the International Marxist Tendency. An organization that makes a meeting of 200 people is notable and the fact that this comes from a third party source makes it verifiable.

Also this http://www.marxist.com/conference-trotskys-ideas-venezuela-cuba.htm

http://www.marxist.com/miners-memorial-day.htm

I dont know if these are third party sources though as they come from www.marxist.com which is the website of the international , although it is not the website of fightback.

Also this is the whole section of articles related to fightback on www.marxist.com some of them might be good to see the verifiability and notability of fightback or the canadian section of the IMT http://www.marxist.com/canada.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing applies for the Mexican newspaper article. It does not mention Fightback (the newspaper), but it does mention the "Tendencia Marxista Internacional" -- the International Marxist Tendency. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize for the formatting of your reply -- your contributions are welcome. I have, however, indented your comments so that they are a bit easier to follow. Unfortunately, my views haven't changed. A couple of brief third party pieces on meetings of the Canadian chapter of IMT does not speak to the notability of the subject of this article, which is a newspaper. In my opinion, these sources justify adding a couple of sentences to the main International Marxist Tendency article about activities in Canada, but are insufficient to meet WP:N and have a separate article on the Canadian newspaper or chapter. To me, the fact that the sources and their relevance need to be explained reinforces the view that they are insufficient. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kk sufficient *Keep age. Not ideal coverage, but as much as can be expected for topics in this area. We have always been breoad minded in accepting articles on political parties, and we should do similarly for their newspapers. DGG (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]



  • So after establishing the verifiability and notability of the article can we please remove the delete thingy from the article? 74.15.223.104 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommend copying the article in case it's deleted. If it is deleted you can perhaps integrate some of the information in a related article, for example in the article on the International Marxist Tendency (assuming such an article exists, I haven't checked). I'm not sure this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for ntoability. I tend to favor including newspapers, but this one is rather young and doesn't seem to be well established with a substantial readership (ie. not notable). Others disagree, so we'll see what happens. I've offered some suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, but keep in mind it may still be deleted even if these improvements are made, they don't really address the notability problem which can only be resolved by including evidence of substantial coverage by reliable media. The tag regarding deletion is removed after this debate is closed and a determination made on its outcome. Again, the big problem as far as whether to delete the article or not is that this newspaper (and its related organization which isn't well explained in the article) doesn't appear to have been covered in any reliable media sources as a substantial subject. That's the standard (generally) as I understand it for including articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-as per above Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:02, 23 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. Consensus is that the organization is not notable, and that a press release does not constitute enough coverage to pass WP:ORG. StarM 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals[edit]

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:ORG. Article about a small county organization that has not been written about except in an article in the small local newspaper. Article mostly consists of the company's beliefs and history and contains little assertion of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article creator has been indefinitely blocked as being a spam only account. Themfromspace (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily put the article down (G11) — no SPCA should ever dish out SPAM. MuZemike (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — For the record, I am an animal lover and wholeheartedly object to animal cruelty. However, I also wholeheartedly object to spam. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a reference from the Dallas Morning News, which is a considerable distance away from Schenectady County. If a newspaper in Texas mentions an animal welfare organization in New York State, that suggests that the organization is doing something interesting. I also added a reference from The Daily Gazette, a newspaper in Schenectady, which seems to meet on its own the test of substantial coverage in a reliable source. Local doesn't mean unimportant. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [Edit conflict -- I have not seen Eastmain's second source]. I don't see evidence of notability. The fact that a press release from this organization (advising dog owners not to use cocoa mulch as bedding) got picked up by a Texas paper does not constitute independent 3rd-party coverage of the organization. It indicates to me that the Schenectady County SPCA is performing a laudable public service, but laudability is not WP:Notability. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 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, defaulting to keep. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Feature Presentation[edit]

Our Feature Presentation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Blue links appear to be unrelated (a predeceased actor of a different nationality and an American football player). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability asserted, no references provided, no context given. A google search shows no reliable sources of any kind, just an imbd profile and another similar website. It has had no reviews or publicity, and so should be deleted as both not-notable and unverifiable.--Patton123 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that its here, it belongs to Wiki. The article can and should be expanded and properly sourced per google news and google search. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability asserted, nor any references found that COULD help assert notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very impressed that you were able to discern this in 3 minutes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I spent about 5 minutes, and although I'll admit that a mention in Variety in 2006 would be notable, I'm wondering why there's nothing else afterward. It hasn't been released in 2008, although we still have a little bit left in the year of "Oh, wait!". Even the official website stops at '06 when it comes to news. What happened? I think WikiDan is right that the references don't help much. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I just spent a few hours research, expanding, and sourcing the article. The author presented this to Wiki, and I prefer it to be this. If this article had been presented (as expanded) in late 2006, notability would not be in question. While I agree that there seems to be no recent news, notability is not temporary, and I still think it should be kept. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't say I prefer your updates, as they represent a copyright violation (and have been so marked). I find it curious that the synopsis of the film is IDENTICAL at all four movie sites cited (IMDb.com, hollywood.com, tcm.com and screenrush.co.uk). It's almost as if someone went and created entries at all of these sites just to show some notability for the film. Unfortunately, listings on these sites do NOT confer notability as they are open to unverifiable user edits. Since no independent review can be found for the film, it fails notability. The linked news stories (from a local paper) tell of a movie in production, but not of a finished product. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WHile I agree that the same synopsis is at different sites, the dates from those sites indicate that the sysnopsis has been placed as early as 2006 and as late as 2008... and all duplicate the information at the film's official website. Gee, I can only imagine that the production company distributed that information... as is their duty and responsibility. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have created a temporary article page HERE and addressed the copyvio concerns. I would ask that an Admin replace the old synopsis with the new and remove the tag. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry The temp page was moved toHERE by User:Skomorokh. I ask any admin to replace the old synopsis with the new and remove the copyvio tag. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further I have written to and received a reply back from one of the film's producers. I explained that old sources do not reflect the film's current status and she promised to send me links to reliable sources (once I explained what they were and why Wiki needs them) that can be used to source status and notability. I ask editors reviewing this AfD to give me a bit of grace time. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per updated version.--DrWho42 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate to be negative here and I respect your efforts on this article and subject's behalf, but on what exactly would a keep argument of notability be based? Let me clarify by saying, assuming you can get this additional information from good source... what will it say? What is the notability? Is every independent comedy notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your "negativity" and appreciate your consideration for my eforts. But as I do not have a crystal ball, I cannot answer your questions with any accuracy. With my explaning to the producer what is required, I might hope to be given links to reviews that show it as well received or picked up by major distribution. But again, I do not know and can only hope. Notability might be in the reviews mentioning a member of its cast (crystal) or might be in awards (crystal). Or they may be totally useless (crystal). As for your last question, an independent comedy is notable if it meets the criteria of WP:NF. I suppose I have until the end of this AfD to improve the article and meet concerns... but if they do not follow through with suitable source links before the end of the AfD, I might at least hope that the deletion is "without prejudice" so the article may be recreated when sourcing become available. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Borderline notability as of yet. Sadly writing about films is rather dreary, IMHO, but the sources do seems to suggest the film and aspects of production have edged over the GNG. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of substantial third party published reviews, or of course awards, there's no reason to assume notability--and there is no reason to assume that an independent film will have such reviews. When such reviews appear in good sources, then an article can be justified. My personal opinion is that local press notices about the local production of a film are irrelevant to notability, just as local interviews with a local author are irrelevant to the notability of a book--they are not truly independent third party, but courtesy publicity for local figures. Perhaps we will need a more general discussion of guidelines. Using Wikipedia for publicity is in my opinion a downwards step for this as for any other the encyclopedia--and I think the references provided show no more than that. DGG (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and I explained exactly that to production. If reliable sources cannot establish notability, the article is destined to go. Above, If it stays it will continue to be imnproved, and if deleted I would appreciate the concession to recreate and only if 2008 notability can be established that meets WP:NF. No more, no less. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in related news, An Admin has assisted in addressing copyvio problems and has granted permission] for me to replace the synopsis with a different version he himself helped tweak into line with policy.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear to me that MQS has continued to research this article to find sources, and I understand that more are on the way. There's been quite a bit of progress over the course of a few days, and sourcing an article is what we look for on Wikipedia. Besides my wish not to interrupt while improvements are in progress, what was already there (mentions in Variety, for instance) was good, and it's clear that the production was filmed, even if not yet released. Finally, the director/producer (Loulan) has a measure of notability already by virtue of being one of the four VJ's on the mtvU cable network. Mandsford (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment MQS's "sources" are all film compendia, similar to IMDb.com, that allow user submissions. As such, none of them provide any more verifiability than IMDb itself, which is not generally allowed as a reliable source. The "reviews" referenced in the article are not reviews at all, but rather are feature articles about the PRODUCTION of the film, not about the released product. As far as anyone can tell, this movie started production, but never actually got released or shown anywhere. Also, the article, as it stands today, has no mention of Variety. Perhaps this citation was deleted? Finally, notability of the producer does not automatically confer notability to the project, especially if it can't be verified that the project was ever completed.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respects, WikiDan61, I would have just as soon used IMDB as a source to verify the cast/crew/production information... as its content, though submitable by anyone, is not published unless the submission contains proofs that can be then vetted by IMDB editorial staff and so verified before they publish. No proofs with a submission = no publication of information. Verifiable and vettable proofs with submissions = publication after confirmation. However, I am not using any of those other "refs" for anything other than verification of the film's existance, as you have already acknowledged. IMDB does not confer notability. I will not claim it does. Thank you for the Variety reminder... but all it does is echo the existance already established by AMG and IMDB... which are both simply glorified but verified lists of credits information. If the article is deleted because you find the several write-ups about the film in reliable (though yes, local) souces to not be enough to meet WP:GNG, all I ask is the caveat to be able to bring it back when additional and more recent sources confirm that the film had been released. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I'm hoping the article survives, but deletions based on notability don't mean a permanent ban, because things change. Why, I remember back in 1959, I wrote a Wikipedia article about Lee Harvey Oswald and it got deleted ("non-notable defector to the Soviet Union" was the reason). Then, 45 years ago today as a matter of fact, I re-created the article, and it's been there ever since. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All MQS has done is, possibly, proved that the film exists. The press writeups about the film all occurred BEFORE the film's release. There is no verifiable press of the film AFTER its release. What this means is that the EVENT of shooting the film may have had LOCAL notability (not sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion), but it does nothing to bolster the notability of the film itself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 23 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 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakthi Scott[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography. 20 year old subject is wholly nonnotable and fails WP:BIO. He landed an interview on a small special-interest website for a film he created over a few days. Article is strewn with unsourced claims. Google doesn't help at all when it comes to finding sources for verification of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) -[reply]

  • Delete Looks like an autobiography; he's not really notable at all, those two links are the only things on the whole internet I can find about him. This google search revealed nothing relating to him at all, so none of his movies have been big. I say delete as non-notable and practically unverifiable — all we know is that he made one or two films, and the rest of the article could have been made up.--Patton123 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • It can't be sourced, I've done multiple searches and found nothing.--Patton123 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. His only notability is being short-listed (if 500 can be considered a "short" list) in a relatively obscure competition run by some non-obscure names. If he wins, he MAY become notable, but he hasn't yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOtability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable --Deepak D'Souza 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nom has done his homework. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 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. per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porn rock[edit]

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

No reliable sources supporting the existence of this movement. Zouavman Le Zouave 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a neologism, and while I turned up some hits on the term, the fact that it is used does not make it notable. It is presented as a neologism in the article, which does not itself claim "porn rock" is any distinct genre or sub-genre. Since it is not a notable music genre or sub-genre, and it does not have notability as a neologism, the article should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism, not an actual genre or even sub-genre. I have never heard the term used in reference to any of the more notable artists listed. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research about bands with sex-related names. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like something someone made up one day. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What a ridiculous article, even if it were real the fact it is so obscure and small means it would not satisfy the criteria for inclusion. – Jerryteps 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Erocktica, as the band's former name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Redirect wouldn't be appropriate as the article is not about a single band, but about many bands loosely gathered into a newly defined genre. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the article would be gone if we turn it into a redirect. I'm saying that the best use for the namespace 'Porn Rock' is to redirect it to the band that used to be known as that. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad suggestion, but I think that Delete is long overdue. This article dates from nearly three years ago, when people didn't worry about such things as "sources" and "citations". Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the unreferenced article then create a Redirect to Erocktica as suggested by Richard. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research, missing reliable sources too, and I can't find any. — neuro(talk) 06:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best this is a buzzword which never caught on by the sounds of it. Therefore unverifiable. - filelakeshoe 02:16, 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 speedy delete. Mgm|(talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeple[edit]

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

Dictdef with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch not showing notability; dictionary.com doesn't list the word. Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and because no claim of notability is made, and no notability can be found. Found sites that say Wheeple is a whine looking for sympathy (urbandictionary.com) and that wheeple are "shiny happy people" (wordmint.blogspot.com) neither of which are reliable sources, or match the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:47, 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 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Smith (American musician)[edit]

Geoff Smith (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kurykh 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cart mover[edit]

Cart mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Motorized cart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Powered cart mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trailer mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Four COI product promotions disguised as encyclopedia entries. They fail WP:PRODUCT. Author was indef blocked for spamming. Prods removed by anon IP who restored spam links to the manufacturer's website. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably Googling trailer mover discloses a variety of different appliances used to maneuver various types of trailers, ranging from hand-pushed carts for boat trailers and the like up to specialized versions of the tractor end of an eighteen-wheeler. Cart mover produces more divergent results: while most hits are for appliances for dealing with shopping carts, other kinds of vehicles are also included. Motorized cart and powered cart mover are at best redirects. The problem all around is that almost all the hits are on people selling these things. It's not at all clear that people buying them think of these things as the classes that they are being named here. At any rate the articles need ruthless de-spamming. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:SPAM WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all (G11) — nothing but a walled garden that grows spam. MuZemike (talk) 01:08, 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.

Grace Banks[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ones and 0s[edit]

Ones and 0s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod nn album by nn artist also unsourcedOo7565 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment the person who removed prod said this in his or her edit summary Of course it's a notable album. Well the artist may not be notable and the album may not be notable, but the album is pretty popular within the podcasting communityOo7565 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - My reason for opposing the deletion is because it was created (along with 2 other articles) to make the article Geoff Smith (American musician), look more professional. This is what it looked like before. I know that none of Geoff Smith's albums are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. But Geoff Smith is well known in the podcasting community and has gained considerable fame there. And that's reason enough to keep it and improve it. --Taylor Karras (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he's so well known then he needs to be just as well sourced. --Teancum (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - no true notability, nor does the artist's article have any. --Teancum (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - First, no article should exist to "make another article look more professional." Second, if you know none of his articles are notable enough to include in Wikipedia, why did you remove the prod? Notable or not is the only question, if you yourself do not believe they are notable, you should have supported, not contested the prod. Third, being "well known in the podcasting community" is NOT reason enough to keep the article, unless one can provide evidence for their claim. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One, because the ugly list containing the albums really make the article look ugly. Two, I don't know the exact reason, though the article Geoff Smith (American musician) should be nominated for deletion as well. Three, I don't know but here and maybe a few other source. I'm not exactly sure. --Taylor Karras (talk) 19:05, 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 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language)[edit]

V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obscure toy programming language Damiens.rf 18:25, 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neurobics[edit]

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

Declined prod; neologism with no references. Borders on being unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced and unreferenced original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per article being fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sadly. Googling this gives a gajillion hits, and while it is a neologism (from 2006?) it seems to be getting some traction. The information in the article appears to be mostly accurate, if lacking citations. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep, There are dozens of reputable sources available verifying the notability of the Neurobics theory, which has been around since at least 1999. I've added some refs to the article.  LinguistAtLarge  00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accuracy backed by refs. --Beligaronia (talk) 03:22, 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 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis' eighth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oasis' eighth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by IP with "Hi, I have erased the deletion notice after substantially contributing to the article, and thus I believe there is now enough information to constitute an article. Thank you." Clear cut WP:HAMMER nonetheless as the sources still say very little. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HAMMER it. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly pointless crud.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the CRYSTALHAMMER strikes. 23skidoo (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have yet to see any album worthy of an article at a point when its title is still to be finalised (I'm a bit disappointed to see that being called TenPoundHammer's rule, BTW, since I was referring to it as "Grutness's rule of album notability" at least two years before that page was written :/ Should've written an essay, I guess...) Grutness...wha? 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smash it with Grutness' rule of album notability. MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. Keep it as TPH's rule - I was just having a bit of a pout. He does enough work here that he deserves a rule anyway. Besides, I've already got WP:50k to my credit, and I can't have all the fun with these things! :) Grutness...wha? 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smash with The hammer. Band just released their seventh album in October and haven't even released a second single from it yet. I think we should wait awhile before creating an article for an eighth. The only reference is a blurb from Noel Gallagher saying that two songs that weren't included on Dig Out Your Soul will be included on the next one. The end. Hardly enough to base a whole article on. The "enough information to constitute an article" is actually padding blather like "It has been rumoured that musical instruments will be used in the recordings, particularly the electric guitar and the drums. There has also been rumours that singing will feature on the album". Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stop! Hammer time! — neuro(talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , STOP.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:43, 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 Cozy Powell. SoWhy 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedlam (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band on its own. Unreferenced, little prospect for expansion of the article. Preferred action is redirect to notable band member Cozy Powell per WP:MUSICBIO#6, but it was reverted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and is the smallest of stubs. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 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 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Pinto[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The article is written by the subject, so conflict of interest is evident as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment article may have originally been written by subject but has been neutrally edited so that all material is objective, sourced/cited and indicates notability through affiliations and accomplishments indicated in sources and external links Pb216387 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is he notable? Has he even released any major CDs?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims in article meet WP:MUSIC. No hits in search seem to indicate he meets WP:N. Clearly fails notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from a couple of brief but possibly okish references in the article, the best independent coverage I found from Google results were a brief review and 2 sentences in a live review. Nothing at allmusic. Doesn't even appear to be locally particularly notable.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit that this article was published by myself (ie: the subject) but it was actually written by another individual who had attempted to publish the original article but was deleted due to similar issues regarding notability. When I had discovered that a former band of mine was on Wikipedia and had linked me as an associated act, I felt that I could re-post the article satisfying Point#6 under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" under WP:MUSIC criteria. The cited Winnipeg Sun article also supports the fact that I worked with another artist that Wikipedia deemed as notable. Since then it looks like people have chipped my article down to nothing in an attempt to make it qualify. Wouldn't the review found by Michig fall under Point#1 of the same WP:MUSIC criteria? If this still does not satisfy the criteria then, please delete the article ASAP and thank you for your time and persistent effort. PintoMusic (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this really meets WP:MUSIC as the sources given don't quite meet the reliability requirements. Someone should take a good look at the Finite Sky article, too... sparkl!sm hey! 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps I had underestimated the rules regarding notability, COI, how they're regulated, and when they're enforced. Please delete my article ASAP - I'm sorry if I hadn't clarified that earlier. Thanks again. PintoMusic (talk) 16:37, 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. MBisanz talk 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frets On Fire[edit]

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

Delete: Article cites very few notable sources reads like an advertisement. Teancum (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (changed to) Keep - per recent updates by 76.178.154.232, although the article still needs a lot of work. --Teancum (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising a free product is indeed a blasphemy. Burn the Finns at stake. NVO (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this weather we're having? Good luck getting anything to ignite. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also propose we delete this article based on very few sources and is also an advertisememt would except if they spruce it up a little. HairyPerry 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) — sorry; the game may be barely notable enough for inclusion, but the highly-spammish tone screams deletion. No prejudice towards recreation provided article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic (i.e. not advertising) tone. MuZemike (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The non-trivial coverage from Pelit magazine plus placing first at the Assembly competition rises well above the notability standard in my mind. (!) coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This game is no less trivial than Guitar Hero, Guitar Freaks, Rock Band, Rock Revolution, etc.. Why should it be deleted, because it's free? Because it's open source? That's ridiculous! Then we should remove all references to Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP.... If people think it is trivial enough to make and update this story, why delete it? Deleting articles is one of the dumbest ideas of Wikipedia. User:Chad78User talk:Chad78 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.238.251 (talk) [reply]
    • The deletion nomination has nothing to do with whether it's free. It's the reasons I listed above. --Teancum (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think this should be deleted; the Pelit reference seems good enough to me to establish some notability. That said, there aren't enough other sources for it... possibly a merge. Hence a comment, and not a !vote. -.- --Izno (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use work, yes. Deleted? It's notable in that it's one of the earlier guitar hero clone games for the PC. And then there's the fact that it's for the PC, before any 'official' guitar hero style game came to it. There's active discussion going on and possible reductionist editing ... but that doesn't mean it should be removed. 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.154.232 (talk)

  • Keep I see a few handfuls of foreign language but reliable sources that can help the existing sources in the game, and mentions in english are more than just in passing, so notability is established. Cleanup needed though. --MASEM 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game has been the subject of articles in multiple reliable sources. It therefore should be kept per WP:N. The article isn't in a particularly great state, but that's not a reason to delete it. Una LagunaTalk 07:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Under WP:DEL, an article should not be deleted if it can be improved. The current lack of sources can be fixed, as proven by those above. DARTH PANDAduel 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article was updated by an IP user with additional references, and a few of them are notable. However, I don't know that a download.com rating could be considered notable, as any file can be listed and user ratings given. No staff from the site have given an Editor's Rating. The same with the Gamespot (which had the wrong URL) reference. The article itself however is improving, which is a start. It still needs a lot of rewriting as parts of it feel like a commercial for the game. Major copy edits are also needed. However I'm willing to swing my vote to keep should the article continue to improve. As-is now it feels like the recent edit weas a rush to keep it from deletion, rather than thought out updates to the page. Many of the references and links provide downloads to copyrighted material as well. These need to be changed or removed. --Teancum (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor point that has nothing directly related to the matter at hand: You continue to refer to the sources as notable, when they only need to establish that they are reliable. Notability is used as a cutoff point for the inclusion of topics in Wikipedia, while reliability is used as the cutoff point for the inclusion of certain sources in Wikipedia. For instance, you cite download.com. It obviously fails reliability, as you state that it can be changed by anyone (much like the case of Wikipedia), but it is also a notable site, I'd daresay. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that leads me to a semi-unrelated question: If said site is notable, yet not high on the reliability scale - yet you have established both reliable and notable sites before to satisfy the article's demands, is it permissible to keep it (the reference)? Normally I'd say no, but as this is open source user opinions feel slightly less... well, useless for lack of a better word. -Teancum (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you possibly refactor and/or bring it to my talk page (an example would be nice)? I'm not quite sure what it is you're asking, as it looks a little convoluted to me. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reliable sources exist to verify facts, and whilst the article does indeed need work, it does not need deletion — neuro(talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nothing wrong with the core of this article, just needs rewriting. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assembly compo winner, actual sources exist, distributed in major Linux dists, so notability isn't really an issue in my opinion. The rest are content issues. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 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. John254 06:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Absence[edit]

The Absence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
From Your Grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riders of the Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I can tell this band fails WP:MUSIC completely and Google doesn't throw up anything notable either. Delete.    SIS  16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Apparently it satisfies criteria 5 of WP:BAND as they have released 2 albums with a notable label. The band is notable as a result, and the only proper course of action would be to keep the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but I'd say that's borderline. Guideline 5 states "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". I don't think their indie label is that notable at all. (Not trying to wiki-lawyer here, just explaining my reasoning.)    SIS  16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I normally am quite strict when it comes to music; be it bands, albums or what have you. I tend to err on the side of deleting questionable notability. In this case, however, I think the criteria are met since the label has been around for a while and has a large number of current and former artists (many of whom are notable i.e. have Wiki articles). I will leave it up to others to comment to reach a consensus, but I have to leave my vote as Keep. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being distributed by a major does not make a label a major. Metal Blade is not a major according to wikipedias guidelines. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Allmusic is always a reasonable place to start when in doubt about the notability of a band, and this bio is a strong indication of notability, as are the album releases. There's an allmusic review of one of them here, and further coverage here, here, and here.--Michig (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources mentioned above plus 2 albums on a notable label is good enough for me. sparkl!sm hey! 12:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment criteria 5 of WP:BAND is not about "notable labels". It is about an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Metal Blade certainly seems to fit that description (been around over 25 years, loads of releases by notable bands), and this band released 2 albums on the label, and therefore pass that criterion of WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 17:55, 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 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Ščekić[edit]

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

Ščekić, born 1986, have No reliable source to prove he is a professional footballer. I found souce he is a Montenegrin U17 international but not to prove he is professional[1]. And there is Aleksandar Šćekić born 1983, is a professional player Matthew_hk tc 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my typing error. Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has only made it as far as the Serbian 3rd division, which is not fully professional. Bettia (rawr!) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE per Bettia. — neuro(talk) 06:33, 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. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowley Club[edit]

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

Non-notable social centre. Harry Cowley who the centre is named after might be notable but that would be covered in an article about him. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

big deal - my local pub gets a mention in the where to eat section for my region in the times - doesn't make it notable, I consider that mention trivial --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you consider a multi-paragraph article devoted exclusively to the topic "trivial"? "Trivial" would be a passing mention. This article gives the reader a concise overview of the topic. the skomorokh 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
  • Delete Notability is not established by local-interest paper stories or the centre's own website. Those are the only non-trivial mentions I can find (other than myspace and such of course). Theseeker4 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from The Times, The Argus and Vegetarian Guide to Brighton profiles, the two academic papers on social centres, and the Maximum Rock'n'Roll article, the book Urban Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spaces and Corporate Power (Critical Geographies) contains a two-page study on the centre (p.228-229) in case anyone doubts that WP:GNG has been met. the skomorokh 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would seem that notability has been established. I ask that editors consider searching for sources before rushing to AfD. Skomorokh has managed to find and integrate several reputable sources in a span of a single hour, and I was able to confirm the source for the Cowley Bus in less than five minutes by simply checking the Internet Archive search engine. --Cast (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone should take a look at the original AFD, which appears to have been messed up ("The result was RESULT"). Could someone fix that. No opinion on the article itself at present. 23skidoo (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was clearly "keep" and the result was notified correctly on the talk page. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a well written article, but I have grave doubts as to the notability of the subject. However I am not local to the area, and thus do not feel qualified to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Skomorokh & Cast. Zazaban (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: there are various reliable references from national and local sources, as mentioned in the article and on its talk page. The multiple functions of the place, and particularly the ease of access by the public to these things (with its location on a shopping street being crucial to this), make it a notable institution. Further, people questioning its notability might do well to read the article about Brighton itself, and consider the political situation of the whole town. The Cowley Club and its membership play a role in explaining that story to the Wikipedia readership. (But a merge is totally inappropriate since the Brighton article is already long.) – Kieran T (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this needed to come to AfD, but at least now thanks to Skomorokh the article has more references. Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sourcing added to address notability concerns. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 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. I discounted the comments by Jrcla2 and TonyTheTiger for not providing a reason and Theseeker for not addressing the other sources. After reading the other comments in detail it seems to boil down to a discussion about whether the sources are reliable and whether he actually coached a highest amateur league. Neither of these points received consensus. I recommend especially the last point to be worked out if the article is ever renominated. Mgm|(talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul LaVinn[edit]

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

Contested prod. College football coach who fails WP:NOTE. All we have is statistical info from some 9 Google hits[2], all of them used in the article. He is mentioned in four Gnews hits[3], but these are truly passing mentions, not giving us any information about the person. Has not coached at the highest level of the sport by far, has not played professionally, has no other claims to notability. The college football essay referenced on the talk page has been ignored many times in the past few months and does not represent the consensus of most Wikipedia editors, as it is way out of line compared to WP:NOTE,WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Fram (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. The referenced essay does not negate the guidelines of WP:N and this person clearly does not pass WP:N. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Also, "5 wins, 22 losses, and 2 ties" ranking 13th at Eureka in total wins and 13th at Eureka in winning percentage. These are not good records. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't have to be notable for success. He could be notable for his failures. — BQZip01 — talk 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously verifiable information, the only question comes down to notability. While there has been some opposition to the essay at WP:CFBN, the opposition only states "that's not policy" and fails to address the aguments within the essay which strongly support keeping. I say that the notability comes from involvement as a head coach in three sports at two colleges over seven years in three major sports. Being critical of the success/failure record of the coach has no bearing on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments in the essay come down to "damn the lack of sources, these things are notable anyway". Well, no. There are no sources about this person, only statistical sources about his tenure as a coach. No articles in reliable independent sources about the coach are available. Fram (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response that's a creative assesment at best. I encourage all readers to follow this shortcut to read the section on college football coaches, including the seven reasons to keep college football coaches as well as common arguments encountered. Read for yourself what the essay says.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would urge all editors to have a look at that section. We should keep these articles because 1) they are useful, 2) the coaches are wellpaid, 3) the college sport receives significant media coverage, 4) statistics are available, 5) they may have coached at multiple colleges, 6) the articles get edited, and 7) otherwise we have a redlink (or many) in our navbox... Only argument 3 is to the point (if the coverage is about the coach at least), and is well covered by WP:NOTE. No such coverage is currently available for this coach. The other arguments are contrary to our standard guidelines (e.g. notability is not inherited) our not relevant at all. Fram (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes please go read and pay close attention to #2 and #7. Ask yourself: "Did the editor really accurately portray the spirit of the arguments made here?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several related projects have been sent notificaiton of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I came here from a notice at WikiProject Universities. I don't usually weigh in on this sort of thing, but I'd probably advocate keeping this article. WP:ATHLETE calls notable those athletes who have competed at the highest level of amateur sport, and LaVinn was a coach at an NAIA/NCAA Division III school. It's a bit of an extrapolation, but I'd say that qualifies LaVinn as notable, too: he coached college sports, not Pop Warner football. Esrever (klaT) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The highest level of amateur sport thing only applies when the sport has no professional level. E.g., good amateur tennis players, cyclist, soccer players, ... are not included, because there is a professional level for the sport. Furthermore, is "Division III" truly "the highest level"? Fram (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "highest level of amatuer sport thing" always applies to amateur sports, regardles of the existence of a professional league or not. This is covered in this essay, but you don't even need to go there--just read WP:ATHLETE and realize that it does not say "amateur sports are excluded if there is a profesisonal league" or anything like that. Please stop attempting to make the guideline say something it obviously does not. Also, the "highest level of amatuer American football" is "college football" -- not semi-pro, not sandlot, not high school. Separate divisions in NCAA and even NAIA play each other. And finally, in 1945-1952, college football was the primary expression of the sport--the NFL was not that big of a deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out as well that the NCAA divisions aren't based on skills, but on funding and school size. Division III schools, for example, don't offer athletic scholarships, but that's no indicator (necessarily) of athletic abilities. D-II and D-III programs aren't the minor leagues to D-I's major league. Esrever (klaT) 20:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should also be pointed out that at the time of his coaching, there was only one division in the NCAA, as evidenced here (and by what I can find, they were in the NCAA at the time). If Div I NCAA is the highest division, then this certainly qualifies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I became aware of this AfD through an indication in my watchlist, which includes every entry I edit, and also via a notification on my talk page from this article's creator. Although my only contribution was to move the main title header from L. Paul LaVinn (football coach) to Paul LaVinn, I am an inclusionist and feel that on the very first glance, simply on the basis of the twelve reference footnotes, this article has earned its place in Wikipedia. But there is more—coaching at two major educational institutions and, as one can see from the Template:Eureka Red Devils football coach navbox, being among sixteen other head coaches, none of whom has been nominated for deletion. Usually, other stuff exists, is not a good argument for retention, but it appears to be applicable in this case since this entry is the only one singled out for deletion.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have only nominated this one because I came across this one through "random pages", and because every person has different notability. Some coaches may have played professionally, some haven't. They can't be judged all together, but should be judged individually. To keep this one because no other ones are currently nominated is a bad reason. As for the twleve references, they are from only five websites, none of them reliable independent sources in the traditional sense (they are either statistics sites or school sites). Fram (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no reason not to consider statistical-based sites as reliable and independent, and the school sites can be good supplemental material. Also, remember the time period in quesiton and please don't confuse 2008 with 1945.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statistics-based sites are not necessarily unreliable, but are not about the coach. And I don't confuse 2008 with 1945, I have no idea where you get that idea. I have written a number of articles for older subjects (ranging from 15th century to 20th century), and there were plenty sources available online. While there are more sources for recent subjects, most clearly notable older subjects (certainly, like here, when from an English language country) have a sufficient number of online sources to give clear evidence of their notability, and to build a basic biography. What we have here is not a biography but a list of sporting statistics that has his name attached as the coach. Fram (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Like it or not, at the college level football teams are grouped and jugded under the coach, and the coach is jugded, hired, and fired based on the results of the team. Besides, these basic statistics have made a firm foundation to allow for collaboration among other editors to improve the article and Wikipedia overall.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need the article because otherwise we can't improve the article? Isn't that rather circular logic? Wouldn't it be more of an improvement for Wikipedia if we had an article on the team (or even a section in the school article)? We have no information on the Eureka College college football team, but we have the statistics for a coach of whom nothing else is known. An article on the team, with a table of statistics year by year (with mention of the coach of course), would be potentially useful, interesting, an improvement to Wikipedia and a firm foundation etc. Coaches with additional notability could still be linked from that article and have their own article. See e.g. Auburn Tigers football for an example. But a default option to create articles for all coaches, even if we know nothing about them but their statistics, since no one (i.e. reliable independent sources) has ever bothered to pay any attention to that person, just because that is the way the project has set up their system, is completely backwards. The system must fit the articles, the articles shouldn't be created to fit the system. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response gee, this is getting a bit old... It's not circular reasoning to have a coach article and not a team article, it's simply an incomplete encyclopedia that we are still working on. You and anyone else are welcome to join the college football project and create team articles, if that is where your enthusiasm lies. But the lack of a team article does not mean that this article should be deleted. And it isn't that no one has never bothered to pay attention to "all coaches" -- or this one in particular -- it's just that the information is not readily available online at present. He is a verified individual in a noteworthy position. As more and more data is found through the process of research, it will be added just like with the millions of other articles on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". The coach of such a team is indeed such a competitor and is the de jure head of the team. It doesn't need to be a long article, but I fail to see how this degrades the encyclopedia in any way. This guy isn't your best friend. He isn't Joe Schmo from Podunk, AnywhereUSA. He is a somebody. As for the given sources, there isn't much on him, but there is much on his record. As such, those facts are appropriate and easily verifiable if there are any errors. Why are the given websites unreliable in any way? Your say-so of "they are unreliable" does not make them so. Furthermore, the OP's comments fail to grasp the basic concept of "Google" and Wikipedia. Google is a poor measure for notability, especially about older topics. — BQZip01 — talk 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say they are unreliable? They are not indepth sources about the subject, they are statistical sources about the teams and the seasons. Most of them are not independent (a school website about the school team is not independent, onviously). The first source is not available to me, the others are not about the coach. Fram (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "No articles in reliable independent sources about the coach are available." Your words, not mine. My quotation was meant as a paraphrase. This criteria you are attaching to the article runs contrary to WP:V. Sources may indeed by from a dependent source (such as the school) as long as they are reliable (this is from an educational institution and they have little reason to lie about the basics of the guy's life), but they need to be taken with a grain of salt if an extraordinary claim is made; nothing here fits that description. Furthermore, the fact that one source isn't available to you currently is not the problem of Wikipedia; sources simply need to be available, not online or easily available. That isn't what WP or research is about. Thirdly, the record of the coach and the actions affected under his leadership are what is backed up in these sources (namely, the outcome of the seasons in which he coached). A cited article need not have every single sentence backed up with an article that is exclusively about the subject; this is not WP policy or guideline. Lastly, I fail to see any proof that there are no other sources available. That you found none during a google search is not evidence. I'm willing to bet that if you go to the school and check through their archives they will have a plethora of books, photos, pamphlets, etc. for you to sift through. — BQZip01 — talk 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You read this the wrong way, by emphasizing one element of a longer argument: I did not say that there a no reliable sources, but that there are no reliable independent sources about him, only reliable but not independent sources on the one hand, and reliable statistics sources about the team which just mention him, but which are not about him. You can't discuss half of this argument, it is all or nothing. Fram (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be so accusatory. I emphasized what I see as the critical flaw OF your argument. If you have reliable sources (which you contend is the case), but they aren't independent, then there isn't a problem. If you have reliable stats from independent sources, then again, there's no problem. Research is all about citing each and every fact. The fact that some of the information provided is about the record of the individual and it is cited to an independent statistics collection, is not something to be condemned, but condoned and applauded. — BQZip01 — talk 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I emphasized what I see as the flaw in your reading of my argument. You link to WP:V to support your statement that reliable sources don't need to be independent. However, WP:V clearly states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Third party = independent. The employer of a head coach is not a thrid party source. I don't mean that such sources may not be used, but that they don't contribute to the notability and shgould be used in addition to reliable, independent sources. This means that the basic difference of opinion rests with the statistical sites, whether one consider these sufficient as "significant coverage" (as defined in WP:N, which again stresses the need for independent sources). I don't think these are the sufficient coverage needed for a biography, these are useful and acceptable background information: you disagree. Fine, these issues aren't black and white. Fram (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read all of [[|WP:V#Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|WP:V]]: Self-published...sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...so long as:
  1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
  2. it is not unduly self-serving;
  3. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
  7. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.
Also note the section on primary sources (also allowed), not just the loose, one-sentence summary at the top. — BQZip01 — talk 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep College Football head coaches are notable win or lose in terms of WP:N, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Division III is not the highest level of college football. We could change our policies, and broaden our coverage to include anyone who ever played or coached on an intercollegiate team of any sort in any sport whatsoever. The objection would be, that at some colleges, this may be something like 1/3 the student body, & if we would logically extend it to things like the debate team or the chess team, it might come to 1/2. So this is halfway there to saying that even going to college is notable, (though this might make some sense in the 13th century). then WP will become Facebook. If that's what most people want to make of this, I suppose they have that ability. DGG (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why not the debate team? But seriously, "other stuff doesn't exist" is no more valid than "other stuff does exist" -- while there is merit in the discussion in general, how specifically does it apply to this article on this coach? And even more, Division III would describe the teams in 2008, not 1946-1952, the period in question. The comparison to facebook is a big stretch, though... we're not talking about everyone here... were talking about this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'd like to see some personal life information to make this more of a wide-ranged biography. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He coached at the highest level of amateur sports because at the time the NCAA did not have any classification levels. The debate on Division III coaches’ does not apply to this article. 09er (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give any indication what this means for the size of the highest amateur level at the time? Number of teams/coaches, number of players. Approximately, of course... Fram (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question I suppose that information is "look-up-able" but how would any argument about size/etc not violate WP:NOTBIGENOUGH as an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Paul. How is that relevant to the discussion at all? — BQZip01 — talk 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is relevant in that "highest amateur level" for many people means things like "played in the Olympics in an amateur sport" (e.g. some 60 or so figure skaters every four years), not "played in a league of a few hundred teams with each twenty players", which would mean that for one sport in one country in one year, there would be a few thousand "highest amateur level" players and a few hundred "highest amateur levelk" coaches. It's about the application of a guideline to a particular case, and I thinkit is very relevant. Fram (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then make your argument over at the guideline page. The "highest" is always the "highest" no matter how many contenders there are. — BQZip01 — talk 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the highest level of competition of American football in the 1940s actually was college football, not professional. The NFL was not considered "a real job" at the time and the bulk of the focus was on college ball. in 1945, the NFL had only been around for 25 years but college ball had been played since 1869, or just over three times longer. AND, there never to my knowledge ever been an American football game in the Olympics. AND when Pop Warner started at Georgia, the school only had something like 250 students enrolled. CONCLUSION the size numbers you seek may be worthwhile of discussion in general but according to wikipedia standard practice, I don't see how they would apply here. However, you are welcome to look them up and present for discussion as you see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The NCAA probably has several hundred member schools. Each school at the time had about 40 to 60 or so members on the Varsity team. Personally I think he was head coach at small time college football program. But that is just my opinion and I try to think of it in terms of facts not my feelings. For this article I just deferred to the governing body of the sport (NCAA). Let face it, WP:ATHLETE is very loose and vague on what is notable. This probably needs to be addressed, but it is what it is. 09er (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically, there are at least ten thousand players and a few hundred coaches a year who played at the "highest amateur level" in one sport in one country, making the "highest level" rather worthless (as it was, well, the only level of a competition without levels). I think that using this argument means that you take the most prfitable interpretation of the current letter of the guideline, while throwing out the spirit of the guideline completely.
    You really made a logical leap here--just because there would be ten thousand players and several hundred coaches does not belittle the "worth" of the level. But even if it did, what would that have to do with this article? How do these "general sweeping statements" apply to this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, it does. If someone has played at the highest level of something with a "pyramidal" structure, where the highest level truly represents the few very best players, then it is at least an indication of notability (although the highest level of something not notable is probably still not notable, but that doesn't apply here). But if the highest level is basically the only level (if you made the team at your college, you were immediately at the highest level), and that level is rather crowded, then something like "highest level" becomes an empty statement and not an indication of notability (though of course not a counter-indication either). I'm afraid that people would suggest keeping this article becaues he was acoach at the highest amateur level, without realising what in this case the "highest level" actually indicated. Fram (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting comments, but you still haven't related these general discussions about WP:ATHLETE to the article on Paul LaVinn that is in question. If you want to argue that the "highest level" is based on quality of play, I guess you could make that argument... is that what you are saying here? If so, I would respond that notability can arise from good, bad, or indifferent quality of play AND that there appears to be a consensus that the "highest level" is much broader than just whoever happens to be the national champion that year... I gues I'm saying that "Other stuff shouldn't exist" is a really weak argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not argued about "quality of play", and don't see how you would conclude that from my previous post. I have also not argued that only the national champion is the highest level, and I have not argued that other stuff shouldn't exist. I have argued that the level Paul LaVinn caoched is not the highest level of the amateur college level competition, but the lowest level, with the post season games as the highest level at the time (from 1946 college football season: "Generally, the top teams played on New Year's Day in the four major postseason bowl games: the Rose Bowl (near Los Angeles at Pasadena), the Sugar Bowl (New Orleans), the Orange Bowl (Miami), and the Cotton Bowl (Dallas)."). Fram (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted your argument about only the teams who play in the post-season bowls would be notable to mean that only those of the highest quality of play would be notable--essentially because, well, that's how you get into a bowl game. The issues there are 1) some schools opt out of post-season play for academic reasons (Ivy league schools for one) 2) what about seasons before there was post-season play? 3) why this arbitrary cut-off in the first place? Would only NFL teams who make the playoffs count too? I say no, and a lot of editors appear to agree with that. I'm not sure why you continue to argue this line of thinking. Barring any introduction of new arguments, I'm willing to let this AFD stand as-is so that the passing admins can make a final decision rather than get caugth up in WP:WABBITSEASON arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Applied to this article, I read the statistics as if LaVinn played at Carthage eight games as football coach, at least four of these in an purely Illinois competition (so not even a national level but a statewide). At Eureka, he also played eight games a year. I can not access the statistics, so I would be grateful if someone else could take a look and see if these where truly "national" competitions or regional (in one or two states only). Fram (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you could do that, but you'd still be left with nothing of substance as most colleges kept their competition and travel to other schools low during that time. A lot of schools even suspended their program during WWII, just prior to this individual's coaching tenure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Can Carthage college or Eureka college be shown to be have important top-level football (or baseball or basketball) teams at the time he was coaching there? That there was no classification at the time does not mean we give up and say there is no differentiation between them and the better-known teams. personally, i regard the fact that he coached three different sports in these schools is a firm indication that their athletic programs were not significant. I recognize these were times of greater true amateurism in college sports, but still this is a little below the level of significance. DGG (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coaching multiple sports and serving as the athletic director was fairly common at the time. Today it would be unheard of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 22 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. doesn't have enough non-trivial reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

107.1 KGSR Radio Austin - Broadcasts Vol.10[edit]

107.1 KGSR Radio Austin - Broadcasts Vol.10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Only sources are primary or say nothing about the album, and only other sources found were directly related to Rufus Wainright. Seems to fail notability guidelines for albums given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I want to say I take no offense to the deletion request, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. Of course, I want wiki articles to have enough important and relevant information to be included. I am not certain I understand what "non-notable album" means--this is a compilation album featuring a variety of musicains, some of which are very notable, in an attempt to raise money for the radio station. How is this different from other charity albums raising money for organizations? Also, I have made sure this album appears in many of the listed artists' Discographies. I am more than willing to update the article, but I am not sure what additional information is needed. The Rufus Wainwright reference was simply a back-up to support information found on the KGSR site. Certainly, I can understand this article needing a "stub" assignment, though I am still not understaning why the article would be deleted when clearly the album does in fact exist. What can I do to improve the article? Whataworld06 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI - Since the deletion request, I have added a reference showing this album is part of an ongoing compilation series (KGSR link), and found a Waterloo Records source citing this as the most-purchased album at their store in 2002. Currently, I am looking for a third-party review of the album. I see reviews for other KGSR Broadcasts compilation, even on allmusic.com, and I will post any reviews I find as soon as possible. Thanks! Whataworld06 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I found a thid-party review of the album, published on November 29, 2002 by The Austin Chronicle at austinchronicle.com. From what I understand, the edits made since the deletion request should allow the article to remain. If this is not the case, please let me know what additional information needs to be added so that I can help in any other way possible. Thanks again! Whataworld06 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that looks a little better now. There doesn't seem to be much more out there than what is already said, so I'll just leave this open to gather consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, thanks for the feedback! I find it humorous that an album sitting right here next to me is considered "non-notable" regardless of the popularity of the musicians it features and the success of the compilation (even if just locally). My primary goal in creating this article was simply to expand the discographies of the musicians featured on the album. I understood wikipedia to be a place to produce as much verifiable information as possible. Does this article really do any harm to the wikipedia community? Certainly the compilation contains notable musicians, and since this article is linked on their discographies, it makes sense to leave information about the album itself on the site. Again, I take no offense--I guess I just didn't understand the guidelines and strictness of wikipedia's standards when it comes to album articles. Whataworld06 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As notable and nowhere to merge to except possibly the radio station. But article is fairly encyclopedic and fairly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008
  • weak Delete compilations of radio broadcasts from a single station, will almost never be notable, and need the very strongest sources for the rare occasion when one of them actually will be. I gather however that these are live broadcasts, from an extremely well-known station, so I suppose it's possible. I'd like some citations to that effect, other than its a best-seller. DGG (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable album and per above Tavix (talk) 02:29, 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 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainpower Triangle[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for neologisms and stuff made up by one author. Having attended one of the institutions and lived in the area for 5 years, I cannot recall there being a formal or cultural link between these universities to the exclusion of other major universities metropolitan Boston like Boston University, Boston College, Brandeis University, or Northeastern University. Moreover, these universities have facilities all over metropolitan Boston (e.g., Tufts and Harvard Medical schools are nowhere near the alleged triangle). If there's any brainpower polygon in metro Boston, it's an irregular dodecahedron or something! Madcoverboy (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling suggests that is part of a sales pitch for Somerville, Massachusetts, but they haven't been especially successful in getting other people to repeat it. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article cites a source for the concept who may well have invented it for commercial promotional purposes; boosting these three institutions over all the rest is a form of exclusiveness and elitism not to be condoned or encouraged. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A 2006 memo from the Somerville Chamber of Commerce says they coined “Somerville is the middle of The Brainpower Triangle – MIT, Tufts, Harvard”. Take it as evidence for advertising or evidence against neologism. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability of term and related concepts not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the topic does not seem to have received coverage from reliable, independent sources which would allow a neutral article to be written about what seems to amount to a neologism and someone's point of view. Guest9999 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2007/05/07/story1-Bio-showtime.html?action=emailfriendform The Brainpower Triangle has been established as a term used by public officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.23 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is in the context of Somerville advertising itself: "the mayor of Somerville has been making plans since October to work the city's booth as part of his economic strategy to reel in biotech businesses. Mayor Joseph Curtatone plans to tout the redevelopment of a 146-acre site in Assembly Square, including future extensions of the Orange and Green subway lines, and what he calls Somerville's spot in the "brainpower triangle" between Harvard, Tufts University and MIT." Please see WP:RS. This article continues to lack "reliable, third-party, published sources" attributing this moniker anyone except Somerville officials. Even this source explicitly attributes the name to the mayor of Somerville and his development policy rather than a broader, well-recognized name like Massachusetts Route 128, Silicon Valley, The Triangle (North Carolina), etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete How dare they imply that I'm at a university which is a not good enough to be part of the triangle. Ok seriously I don't see any evidence for this term beyond Somerville. Seriously 9 general google hits of which more than half aren't even talking about this Brainpower Triangle? And no hits in google news. This appears to be an as of yet unsuccessful branding attempt by Somerville. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing slogan by local boosters. No RS evidence that it caught on beyond the chamber of commerce. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In light of Madcoverboy’s reference to Wikipedia’s neologism standard, we would like to withdraw the proposed Brainpower Triangle posting at this time. Thank you. • Jbrayer1 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In light of Madcoverboy’s reference to Wikipedia’s neologism standard, we would like to withdraw the proposed Brainpower Triangle posting at this time. Thank you. • MBRgolf (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete based on those last two comments, the original author wants it pulled, and that's "CSD G7", right? --Lockley (talk) 03:59, 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 Withdrawn It may not have charted in Norway, but it did chart in the US, and that's good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything You Do[edit]

Everything You Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Chart position seems bogus. Without that, nothing notable about this song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? This single is very notable that it was released on the peak of M2M's popularity. The stub template is there for a reason so that more people can help in expanding the article. I'm going to expand the article for the time being and let the admins decide whether this article is needed to be deleted. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, you should check out other artists with singles that didn't even chart in any major music chart list, they have their own singles page and it's not deleted. Eg. The Strokes. On the other hand, if you think that Everything You Do should be deleted, feel free to go on with the nomination. What am I to say. Signed, Kotakkasut (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. If you have a source for that "chart", now is the time to provide it. I brought this to Hammer's attention as it looked bogus to me as well, but he knows charts better than I. AFD is the place to fix the problem if it can be fixed, giving the nominator every chance to withdraw. If it can't be fixed and this isn't a real chart, well, then it would fail wp:music and should be deleted. It isn't a personal attack on you or the article, and it was brought here after TWO people had a concern about it. And yes, there are lots more singles that need to go to AFD. You could always help out and nominate them after you search to make sure they can't be sourced properly. The best thing is provide a source for that chart position, which I am guessing you can do single you made the claim that it was a number 1 hit. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guessed I sort of misunderstood what Ten Pound Hammer was saying just now, thanks for clarifying and sorry in advance. I inserted the chart performance with the reference in the article. "Everything You Do" charted at number 21 on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales Chart on the year 2001. I can remember that the song reached number 1 in some Asian and European countries, namely the duo's homeplace, Norway, but I'll find suitable references before putting it into the article. Kotakkasut (talk) 17:27, 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 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mileta Slović[edit]

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

Firstly, A NN young footballer not yet made his debut on fully professional league, (at least in Serbian First League}, and/or secondly without source to support the notability. Matthew_hk tc 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated

  1. Aleksandar Ćurčić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Ivan Božović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Stefan Milošević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthew_hk tc 15:39, 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 speedy A7 --B (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Landerstlav[edit]

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

CSD A7, but it might just pass the speedy deletion; that's why it's up for deletion 

Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per db-band. No evidence of significance. JNW (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy Capslock day! Chickenhair (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability, no ghits, nothing on allmusic CultureDrone (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax, 0 hits on google. The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per db-band. Notable how? Google search returns this article, no other hits, and even the google suggested alternate spelling of Erik Landerslav gives no hits. Despite the article's author's "very strong keep" no evidence of notability is provided. If any can be provided, the editor needs to do so. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:45, 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 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javier blanco[edit]

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

An article regarding a person whose only claim to fame seems to be starting an obscure birthday tradition in parts of Nicaragua (and so fails WP:BIO1E. Google searches throw up a blank so none of the claims can be verified. I strongly suspect a hoax here, but thought it more prudent to put it up for AfD instead to allow others to see if they have more success. Bettia (rawr!) 15:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. JNW (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom! The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Apart from the lack of sources or any confirmation from searches, there are problems with the article: (1) Cadiz is not in Extremadura, (2) He was born in 1844 and moved to Nicaragua in 1897, aged 53: "in the same year" his daughter turned 29 ? JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any sources to verify anything said in the article. Also I would have to be named Javier Castillo, not Javier blanco.  LinguistAtLarge  17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. — neuro(talk) 06:36, 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. Don't see anything passing WP:ENTERTAINER, many of the bluelinks appear to be part of a walled garden of NN / borderline movies Black Kite 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Nola[edit]

Michael De Nola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn actor with half a dozen film parts, either bit parts in major films, or parts in bit films, and a couple of TV appearances. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I originally tagged A7 bio, but that was declined (I still don't see much claim of notability, unless one assumes all actors with jobs are notable). gnfnrf (talk) 15:12, 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 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Bailey Rae Tour[edit]

Corinne Bailey Rae Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced tour article. Not even sure whether this was the tour's title - seems like something made up in order for it to be made into an article. Whether the set list remained the same throughout all shows is unknown and there are no venues listed or any other info found in legit tour articles. Any info that may be notable could easily be placed in Rae's main page. eo (talk) 14:57, 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 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31st Park[edit]

31st Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN proposed building, not one reliable source I could find in google other a couple of real-estate guides. Fails WP:V as far as I could tell Delete Secret account 14:49, 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 speedied as a copyvio --B (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Man's Charter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Common Man's Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTABILITY. This speech should be paraphrased and added to the OBOTE's article if it is at all notable for him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What charter, page appears to be empty of content?Paste (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I did the Xfd, I swear it was there. I think an admin deleted the page while I was nominating it for deletion, and in created the Afd, I bet I recreated the page. I think we crossed paths at the right phase of the moon and instant in time.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:58, 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 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Metro Airlines[edit]

Canadian Metro Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent airline. No notability DonaldDuck (talk) 14:45, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay 3 (Pob.)[edit]

Barangay 3 (Pob.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not Wikipedia notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability standards of Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. There just be dozens of barangays named "Barangay 3" located in a poblacion. Crappy consensus before has said barangays are notable. –Howard the Duck 02:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By reading the article itself, it does not imply an encyclopedic content. I am not familiar at the consensus of barangays being notable, if they ever be, tsk, wikipedia for sure is to be prepared expanding their memory in their server. :) Axxand (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is actually no consensus that barangays themselves are notable. There's only the consensus that barangays are like towns which make them notable. I disagree with that consensus, and looking at this particular article itself, there's not enough assertion of notability. I'm also quite sure that you won't find reliable sources talking about this barangay (and not merely mentioning it as a place where local news events take place)..--seav (talk) 03:37, 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 no consensus. SoWhy 20:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case knife[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICDEF -- Suntag ☼ 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Searches for "Case knife" online produce a bunch of hits for knives made by W.R. Case & Sons Cutlery Company but little else. If this term is one widely used, and some history or other fleshing out of the article can be provided to show it can be more than a dictionary definition, I will change my vote to Keep but as it stands, I agree with nomination that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and weakly support deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Theseeker4 says, this is essentially impossible to google. I've never heard of such a thing, especially since it has a perfectly good name already ("table knife"). Lacking any reference, I think there is good reason to believe that this is a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Based on links below I think this might be better handled as a disambig. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WordNet has two definitions for "case knife". One meaning table knife, and the other meaning sheath knife. Should case knife be a disambiguation page?  LinguistAtLarge  18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be referenced and clarified. Dictionary definition #1 indicates case knife is a sheathed knife, which seems to contradict the explanation in the article. But I think the subject would be good to have an encyclopedic entry on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as a dictionary definition. "Case knife" has since the early 19th century meant both table knife and sheath knife Webster's Dictionary, 1892. See Dictionary of American Regional English. In the late 19th century to the present it has also meant knives by the Case company. The company itself deserves an article W.R. Case Company, as a notable U.S. firm founded in 1889. The Case knife company is best known for folding knives, although they also make hunting knives and Bowie knives. Edison (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well then how about a dismbig. page or a mrege with the existing disambig page (so it includes definition as well as the information it already contains)?ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what with the various meanings, there's quite enough to say for a decent article. DGG (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be kept. I am a highschool student and I had to use this article just today to find out what case knife meant. Lower case "case knife" is used in some books, like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain. The meaning of this word is not commonly known. Therefore I think this article should be kept. 10:32, 19 November 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity Diet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Book by a non notable author from an unknown publisher (e-book?) has not received any attention in reliable independent sources. 22 Distinct Google hits. No Google News, Books or Scholar hits. No claim to notability is made in the article. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Weightrix (neologism introduced in the above book)

  • Delete both - vanity articles with no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both As noted above, no claim of notability, nor evidence provided, nor evidence found in a search. Nothing about the article recommends inclusion, and as the neologism mentioned is created for the book, it too has absolutely no claim to notability. Wikipedia is not for promotion of your book. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOtability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 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 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khlyst (musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, stub, claim to notability is weak. MBisanz talk 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is worth noting that a couple of editors appear to be disrupting process by removing the AfD notice from this article, and repeatedly recreating the twice speedied (A7) article for this musician's wife (Stabaath (musician)). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree with nominator. The band itself is barely noticeable (their records are self-released and there are no sources available, as far as I can discern), and the individual musicians even less so. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 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. Since the nominator did not provide an explanation on why he deemed the subject not notable and the recent reveal of an NYT article that shows he was on the first squad of a notable team means there's no policy based reason to delete, also early comments saying the article is unreferenced are also no longer relevant. Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A. McKinstry[edit]

James A. McKinstry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this person really is not notable. there is nothing special that he has done. 68.192.45.84 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article's talk page ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Easily meets the guidelines for notability on sports figures, plus his othe accomplishments. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Unreferenced. Let me know if the situation changes and good sources are uncovered establishing his notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he played for the Jets, he would be notable. However, I don't see anyone named McKinstry listed on any of the football reference sites. I did find this article, which mentions him, but not much else. It's possible he was on the Jets' roster, but never logged any gametime minutes with them. Anyone have more information? Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update He was signed by the Jets in 1963: [4]. I'm not seeing anything else about his pro career, though. Zagalejo^^^ 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteThere is nothing special about him to have such an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of biographies of every minor individual in the nation. We might as well have every player who ever played on every professional team. Even if they never accomplished much. 208.120.47.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Agreed except for the delete part... we'd love to have an article on every player who ever played on every professional team. That would meet WP:ATHLETE gideline quite nicely!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, I find it odd that the two IPs (68.192.45.84 and 208.120.47.96) who keep trying to get 'controversies' included in the St. John's University wiki (which I edit) are here trying to get another article I edit removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't strange. What is strange is that James A. McKinstry works for St. John's University currently. The author of the article edits for St. John's University [5] , [6] and is based at St. John's University [7] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine I found a copy of the October 23, 1963 issue of Time Magazine showing and naming James McKinstry and the rest of the NY Jets. Because of copyrights I can't post it to WikiCommons. If there is a way that this pullout can be helpful in proving the legitimacy of this Wiki, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would someone be willing to clean up the article a bit and to clarify McKinstry's role on the Jets? If he made the team and was on the roster, I think that would be good to say. Or, if he played I'd like to know what his stats were. As it's written it leaves a lot to the imagination. Being in his college's hall of fame is a rather impressive achievment, and some statistics on his college career would also be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Honestly, he's a nobody in the grand scheme of things. 70.107.90.82 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying he's a nobody isn't helpful. He accomplished a lot. But I don't think the article or his career demostrate he competed at the highest level. If you want to make a case for his having competed at the highest level, then I suggest improving the article so it details this with cited content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 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 Speedy close as redirect. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

b-sides the enemy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    B-sides the enemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    this page is a duplicate of an already existing page FreeMorpheme (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Already boldly redirected- don't AfD for duplicate articles, redirect, then speedy the redirect if the actual title is an implausible search term.--Boffob (talk) 14:22, 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. kurykh 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daryl Burlett[edit]

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

    I found six articles from the Rutland Herald through Google News that mentioned the subject, one that seemed to have non-trivial coverage (which I have added to the article), but I am not convinced that we can write a decent-length stub that is thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I'm not sure that it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia or the subject for this article to remain. the skomorokh 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I think there's more to Burlett's career than simply a google news search. Burlett's a local hero, something I wish to expound on in future edits. Is there any chance we could fold this into one of the municipal articles, if you think this doesn't work?Michaelcuddyer (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly, I would be happy to withdraw this nomination if an appropriate municipal article to merge it to could be found. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only recognize what so-and-so-source says about Mr. Burlett, not his respect in the community. Regards, the skomorokh 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Local constables can't be notable without significant coverage etc. from multiple reliable sources, and the consensus is that local news coverage doesn't suffice. Keep him if there's significant coverage added, but unless more can be added, there's no way that this guy can pass our notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 15 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    De Novo Software[edit]

    De Novo Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nothing here to assert notability of this company —G716 <T·C> 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It's interesting software and an interesting subject, but notability isn't established. If this changes please let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No reliable sources of notability. Self promotion article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:18, 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 merge to Jack and Jill School. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JJS Karate Dojo[edit]

    JJS Karate Dojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable karate school with conflict of interest present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable school. A Google search returns only 6 results, all of which are from Wordpress, Flickr, or Wikipedia. There are no sources in a Google News Archive search either. The references listed in the article are all from websites affiliated with this school. The only exception is a link to a government website that doesn't even mention this school. For a karate school to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, it must have coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to merge/redirect per RHaworth and TerriersFan. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be a great help if you could please consider the changes i've made or help develop and improve this article this article. Thankz a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to improve this article. The Jack & Jill Karate Kids would have a great time if they could see their dojo in wikipedia. i'm hoping that somebody who has the expertised in this matter will rescue my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do Not Merge/redirect

    I have included Philippine Karatedo Federation to testify that JJS Karate Dojo is a notable karate school in the Philippines.

    Jack & Jill School is an institution in Bacolod City, Philippines. JJS Karate Dojo is martial arts center located in the school campus of Jack & Jill School. When joining the karatedo competition JJS Karatedo is the official team of the school.(Jjskarate (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

    Please read Wikipedia's official policy on notability. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For now I have included 2 reliable sources like Visayan Daily Star and Sun Star Bacolod Newspapers. I hope you could help me or give me some more tips so that this article will survive.(Jjskarate (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

    • Kindly Consider

    As of this moment I've edited and make some changes in JJS Karate Dojo articles (to the best of my ability)... The following changes are:

    • Omitted the school info box
    • Added more reliable sources
      • Daily Star Newspaper (3 articles sports news)
      • Sun Star Bacolod where our dojo is the featured photo in the front page
      • Add more karate links and website
      • and etc
    • Included our Karate Code of Honor
    • Included our Black Belts

    Hope my little knowledge regarding wikipedia will be able to save my article fron deletion. (Jjskarate (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge & redirect if the school is notable. To me both of them read like adverts and I'm dubious as to the notability of a pre-/elementary school, & the karate club of said school defiantly dose not pass.
    School seem notable form comments here, this would make good setion of that article. --Nate1481 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see WP:MANOTE for thoughts on the notablity of martial arts, artists & schools. --Nate1481 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge - merely locally notable. Not Wiki-notable. -Teancum (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and rd. JJL (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about sources I am more worried that the first source causes Firebox to barf and This web site at www.visayandailystar.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. and that some of the other sources may be broken (I didn't try over a long period). At best, this is a merge into Jack and Jill School to be a paragraph. The only reason Jack and Jill School passes notability is that we give a pass to High Schools, as it is not properly sourced itself and wouldn't make it as a stand alone article without more work. Interesting, but interesting isn't a criteria. Merge. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge A 30 year history and well reported results suggest the school shouldn't be deleted outright. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete clearly fails WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other Dojo Articles
    • Comment: Just wondering why some other dojo pass the standard...
    like for example: Ichikukai Dojo, Noma Dojo, Yoseikan and other category related to dojo. I may say some deserved to have a place in wikipedia for their dojo are awesome. JJS Karate Dojo is also a martial arts center that somehow if all admin will permit deserves a little space in the wikipedia. Looking forward for your support in saving this article from deletion. Thankz a lot guys!!! (Jjskarate (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    They may be because no one has looke at them for deletion yet, from a first glance they need a clean up & may need deletion. --Nate1481 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some collected magazine articles that already published in our region regarding our karate dojo but for sure it will somehow fails because its not in the internet or you can't locate the details/info because it's only local not as big as "Sports Illustrated" magazine. Our dojo was featured in BYLINES Magazine 2005 Edition, some of the famous news and feature stories was the 2005 South East Asian Games sports that was played in Bacolod City as 1 of the venues of the games like for instance Football, Weightlifting and Beach Volley Ball. I'm very much willing to send an email copies of the said magazine for those interested wiki admin. We may be a very small karate dojo compared to some dojo in Japan and USA but for sure we exist and hundred of karate kids in our school will be delighted to see their dojo in WIKIPEDIA. Looking forward for a little support concerning this matter. THANKZ A LOT GUYS!! (Jjskarate (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    A local magazine is better than nothing, it may not demonstrate notability but they are still sources and the more 3rd party sources the better, (but 2 or 3 are the mos that would be needed in most cases) --Nate1481 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge. Clearly not notable beyond the local area. A school organization should at least have achieved something that will make them stand out beyond their own community (and by 'community', that would also include the student's and employees parents, relatives and professional relations, and also the city/town where the school is situated). Some examples of Philippine school organizations whose notability is well-secured are Alpha Phi Omega, the Philippine Collegian, The Varsitarian and this year's UAAP finalists (that is, the Blue Eagles and the Green Archers). At least aim for something like a national newspaper, if not Sports Illustrated. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added sources

    I have added more sources today like the Junior Inquirer of Philippines Daily Inquirer distributed every Sunday, also an article in BYLINES Magazine written by a respected journalist NONOY ESPINA "Way of the Kids" during the 2005 SEA Games held in Bacolod City, Philppines. I included also a press release and official fliers by Milo Sports Clinic as one of the Karatedo training center in the Visayas and the latest newsletter of Negros Occidental Private School Sports, Cultural, Educational Association (NOPSSCEA) in which our team highlighted the sports opening ceremony.Jjskarate (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to inform everybody that our dojo/team is not a world class dojo for the reason that we are included in the grassroot level of sports program in the Philippines. Most of our karatekas are ages 6-12 years old (children division) that why its not easy for us to established records because the spectators and sports officials focus on the collegiate level such as UAAP, NCAA, SEA Games, ASIAN Games up to World Championship / Olympic. Few organization included children in the competitions. But if given a chance to compete our kids are doing their best to established a personal record.Jjskarate (talk) 07:07, 23 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, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This page is not listed under the archived section of WP:AFD so I think the admins missed it when they closed the other discussions. This discussion should have been closed or relisted three days ago, so I'm relisting it so that an admin will notice it. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: Please take into account the references recently added by the creator of this article and determine whether the deletion discussion should continue for 5 more days to reevaluate the notability of the school or whether it should be closed immediately as merge/redirect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. For me, "The Jack & Jill Karate Kids would have a great time if they could see their dojo in wikipedia" is not enough basis for notability. The dojo would be served far better by a Google Pages or other free website or even by its own site and could be then linked from Jack and Jill School. As for other dojo articles, some of them are clearly notable: Noma dojo "The original hall had long been one of the most celebrated kendo dōjō in Japan." MaxVT (talk) 15:44, 23 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 Miss Puerto Rico. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to merge. StarM 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Puerto Rico 2004[edit]

    Miss Puerto Rico 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notabilty uncertain. Say Headcheese!--hexaChord2 22:49, 15 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 G4 by TexasAndroid , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wizards of Waverly Place spells[edit]

    Wizards of Waverly Place spells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete- this has been nominated for deletion again and again and, rightfully, the consensus is always overwhelmingly to delete. This article has no sources, it consists of little more than plot summary, and it is an indiscriminate collection of trivial information that has no business in a respectable encyclopedia. Delete, salt, and salt every conceivable variant of the title so that this thing doesn't come back a fourth time. Reyk YO! 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G4: it's a recreation of previously deleted material that is substantially identical to the deleted version and does not address any of the issues for which the material was deleted. So tagged. Reyk YO! 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as recreation of material deleted via discussion (twice) as Reyk pointed out. Though the title is slightly different, it's the same subject as before.--Boffob (talk) 14:27, 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.
    Comment: where are the earlier debates? Speedy delete does not apply if there was not an AfD before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 18 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 speedy delete, per CSD G10, a purely negative, unsourced biography of a living person J.delanoygabsadds 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlos santiago[edit]

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

    Article was prodded as a hoax, but no information was provided as to why this would be the case. I'm bringing it here instead to make sure this is truly a non-controversial deletion as prods are supposed to be Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of RiffTrax[edit]

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

    This article is essentially a catalog of products sold by this company. Moving to AFD after prod was contested. Rtphokie (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that makes sense. So shouldn't this be a sub article? I don't think it stand on its own (as the List's notability hasn't been established), but a list of would be useful to include another way in relation to the parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — Website is notable. List serves a purpose. Some famous personalities outside of RiffTrax have created commentaries. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Strong Keep The website is notable and the list is extremely helpful. With a weak and off-base rationale of, "This article is essentially a catalog of products sold by this company," will you also strike List of Xbox Live Arcade games and List of Virtual Console games (North America)? The rationale is very much a stretch. The article makes no mention of price, nor does it have any phrases that even remotely imply the list as an advertisement. SashaNein (talk) 17:11, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crazy for God[edit]

    Crazy for God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Tag for notability removed. A use of a phrase in a source doesn't make it notable in its own. Anyone who believes finding X sources who can utter a particular phrase can make it notable has far more clarity than the rest of the wiki community who stopped relying on things like google hits a long time ago. The phrase itself hasn't seem to have received any significant coverage and half a dozen people writing it down doesn't garner it an article. WP:NOTE doesn't have anything specific for phrases, but I don't see any significant coverage of the term (e.g. analysis, discussion of history, usage, etc) that is being done by 3rd parties on this term. Crossmr (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. The article is basically a list of instances the phrase was used. It does nothing to explain why it deserves to have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems like original research or synthesis or something. Maybe the article creator can better explain why this is an article and improve the article to reveal its purpose? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:02, 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. Further discussion on where the material should live can be discussed on talk pages, there is no consensus to delete this article StarM 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crack intro[edit]

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

    Notability unestablished for far too long. last time I asked for it to be established the tag was removed with no changes to the article and the claim that "notability was assessed" with no evidence given. I'll direct !voters over to WP:NOTE. Basically you need articles from reliable sources about crack intros (I highly doubt any will be found which is why we're here). Also read WP:ILIKEIT, none of these arguments are remotely relevant to keeping the article. we're not a repository of all human knowledge nor the keepers of all the little cool things we remember from when we were kids, because frankly we weren't a significant portion of the population. Crossmr (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - I was heavily into the Amiga scene, and crack intros were a big deal. They were basically demos that fit into a small amount of disk space. Many crack intros were compiled onto disks independently of the cracked software. Crack intros were extensively documented in paper magazines and disczines of the time, as well as being their own documentation - they invariably featured scrolltexts that referenced the scene. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Uh-huh, and could you provide those references? This is why its on the chopping block. Unfortunately our personal memories don't meet WP:V. The possibility of sources existing somewhere doesn't satisfy the criteria here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuetral Crossmr has a point -- it needs references to satisfy WP:N. There's no reason it's an inherently bad topic, it just needs justification as such, which means meeting WP's standards of what that is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep but would rather see Merge if there was an article that covered video game piracy. Copyright infringement of software doesn't quite cover this area for video games, but I think there's a way that such an article can be created from various issues (and stay neutral and all that for a touchy subject in terms of legalities). --MASEM 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is without any reliable sources we can't stay neutral or establish notability. Those are why its been nominated and no one here has addressed that.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Given the historic nature of this esoteric subject, references may be somewhat difficult to come by. But it's an encyclopedic subject addressing one aspect of computer gaming history and as such deserves a place in the encyclopedia. I could see a merge being possible, but I don't think deletion is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The historic nature and whether or not its an encyclopedic subject can't be established without sources. Simply claiming it as such isn't one of the criterion in WP:NOTE. While you and I might remember them fondly, in 30 years what personal experience does the 15 year old reading it draw on? Or what about the 40 year old now who never pirated software in their youth? We have to treat all articles the same on wikipedia and giving them a pass on policy and guidelines because of nostalgia doesn't really service the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The cracktro is an important step in the evolution of demoscene and chiptune cultures. Searching for these terms in Google Books comes back with some relevance. I know that the April/May 2005 edition of Custom PC mentions cracktros in their demoscene feature. If you have to merge it with anything, I suggest demoscene. - hahnchen 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If its important then we can demonstrate that with sources. Until sources are provided there is no evidence that anyone else shares your feeling on how important and prominent it was. Mentioning crack intros is a far cry from significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've pointed out various places in which sources exist. I don't have the Custom PC article to hand, but it is just one example of a source which states the cracktro as progenitor to the demoscene, A Wired magazine article on demoscene mentions it too - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/democoders.html. Search Google books for "Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected", for a few pages on the cracking community. - hahnchen 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You only pointed out a single source a claim that it was in a magazine. This they first appeared in Northern Europe in the early '80s as add-on introductions is trivial coverage per WP:NOTE and does nothing to establish any notability. If this is the same caliber of mention that appears in the other magazine neither of these are remotely sufficient to establish any notability.[10] another single sentence drop in a much larger article. Again nothing remotely sufficient to demonstrate any kind of greater notability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those links are sufficient to establish that this was an important step for the direction of the demoscene. There's a few pages on the subject in the book mentioned above, and more in "Software Piracy Exposed".[11] - hahnchen 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • those 2 sentences aren't remotely sufficient to demonstrate "significant coverage by reliable third party sources". Significant coverage is usually taken to mean at least 1 full article devoted to or almost entirely to the subject in question. A single sentence is a far cry from that. As for whats in the book I can't comment on that because I don't have access to it, but given the nature of this subject I would expect that if this was truly a notable subject in its own right (and not just notable within the demoscene) there should be some reliable online sources that actually give it coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you purposely misunderstanding me? Did I at any point did I even begin to suggest that the Wired article was "significant coverage". No, I'm just pointing you to a source which states that the cracktro was progenitor to the demoscene. Similar to the sentiments below, I'd appreciate if you just let the arguments stand instead of coming up with, and attacking your own flawed sources. - hahnchen 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't provide any sources. I was simply commenting on the one you provided and the one someone else added to the article, both of which are trivial coverage. Them establishing it as an important progenitor is irrelevant because it doesn't establish that the topic is notable. It might establish that its worthy of being mentioned in the parent article but in no way is any kind of reason to give it its own article. Importance in a larger subject doesn't mean its notable in its own right.--Crossmr (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see why this has to stand separate from software cracking, which could do with some content which wasn't mind-numbingly trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - As a chiptune artist, I know of the notability of crack intros. Like Hahnchen said, this is an important step in the chiptune and demoscene cultures. — neuro(talk) 06:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Then please provide the sources to back that up. We do not and cannot take editors personal testimonials on the reliability of content and the notability of subjects. This is why I recommended WP:ILIKEIT as further reading before commenting in this AfD. Notability in a scene doesn't mean notability to the greater public which is the purpose of WP:NOTE. The best we've gotten to this point is a trivial sentence in a magazine. If this is kept it'll be immediately stubbed to what is verifiable and notable..which is nothing except for whats contained in that sentence.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not patronize me, I know of WP:ILIKEIT, and it has nothing to do with what I just said. As for your comment that "we [wikipedia] do not and cannot take editors personal testimonials on the reliability of content and the notability of subjects", please do not attempt to alienate editors by insinuating that they are not a part of Wikipedia, and that you somehow are. I did not say 'I like it', and nor did I say anything to that effect. I merely said that because of my situation, I know of the importance of cracktros. Jesus. — neuro(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      He has a point though -- we don't have any proof that your word is worth more than anyone else's about this subject. Sure, you may know this, but it's not, in and of itself, a reason to keep the page. Show WHY this is true -- find some mention in a couple of reliable sources, of which your testimony is not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      An AfD is a discussion, and whether I have sources or not, I am perfectly entitled to contribute. As it happens, I do not have sources, but I am indeed looking. Most of my objection to Crossmr's comment was about his condescending tone, anyway. I am still looking for sources, and will get back if I find some. — neuro(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't being condescending, but repeating the same argument without any evidence is going to get me to repeat my argument since this is a debate and not a vote. AfD is a debate, but policy is clear that any editor who wants to add or keep content on wikipedia is required to show sources if its challenged. Well its being challenged right now. I wasn't insinuating that you weren't part of wikipedia, I was saying that simply claiming "notablity" without a single source isn't good enough during an AfD debate, which is exactly what WP:ILIKEIT says. Even if 20 people show up and all state that we should keep the article, if no sources are found the closing admin is still free to delete the article. Because WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that a local consensus on an article, afd debate, etc can't override the larger assumed consensus on a policy. As Chris Cunningham said this may be better as a section in software cracking, if all that can be found are a couple of trivial sentences referencing crack intros.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem here is that the notability of this topic is pretty blatant, at least to myself, but I am getting seriously annoyed at myself not being able to find any sources. This is more because I am a Gnome and tend not to add anything more than blatantly obvious sources, not simply that there are none to be found. As for your claim that you weren't insinuating that I wasn't part of Wikipedia, look at your application of 'we'. — neuro(talk) 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately its not blatant to the general editing public that is why we're here. That is why policies like WP:V exist because what you hold to be true may not be held to be true to another editor. Their PoV is different. If you can't actually find sources you may wish instead to examine where your point of view is coming from and instead try to look at the subject objectively. If you, someone interested in the subject, can't find sources to establish the notability of this subject, what chance does Joe Editor have to do it? Crack intros might have been a big thing in the demoscene, but the demoscene itself wasn't a major life event for the greater population itself. Notability isn't inherited from the demoscene to its various aspects. Even if the article was kept it would have to be stubbed to the couple of sentences we can source, and at this point its unlikely anyone is going to do anymore big coverage on old parts of the demoscene unless some journalist gets nostalgic, so it would end up being merged with demoscene anyway in short order.--Crossmr (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I will stop commenting here to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Regards, — neuro(talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Plainly notable, Crossmr please don't hassle me in an attempt to get me change my vote, I don't "watch" these. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not hassling anyone. Afd is a debate not a vote. If you're claiming notability, please demonstrate it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Demoscene. It seems rather apparent that the only reason why the topic is notable is due to being a step in the development of the demoscene. Crack intros are already mentioned in the demoscene article, so it shouldn't be hard to take the little sourced information that there is in crack intro and move it into the demoscene. I'd consider changing my opinion if more sources were available. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Demoscene, or Software cracking, or wherever the interested editors decide is the best target. There's a lot of arm waving about notability, but if we can't find secondary sources, we simply don't have the information needed to construct a suitable article. If the sources are found later, the article can easily be split off and recreated. Pagrashtak 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Appears to be a large amount of WP:Original research. The little information that is verified can be summarized in Software cracking and/or Demoscene - in only one or two sentences it seems. Redirect if "crack intro" is a likely search term. Marasmusine (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or redirect into software cracking. Definitely a notable concept, but not much can be written that isn't WP:OR. This article is largely WP:OR, so it should be merged. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 22 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 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolhunting[edit]

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

    No sources, this has probably sat around long enough. This looks like nothing more than an attempt to define a neologism. Inline lilnks make it look like possibly a clever advert. Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I normally vote to delete neologisms, but from the links provided in the article, it seems that this is a notable, if new, term for an entire industry. This means the article meets the notability guidelines and should be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Seems notable unless an appropriate merge target can be identified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's not a neologism that was invented on Wikipedia. It's been around for at least ten years, occasionally you see some buzz about it in the New York Times. It looks like we have references, just this article needs to work them into an encyclopedic tone. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:44, 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 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lake Unity Monster[edit]

    Lake Unity Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article appears to be a WP:HOAX. No references are provided. An internet search of any combination of Unity, Lake, Pond, Maine, Monster, Legend, etc. finds zero information. — CactusWriter | needles 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:V. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clearly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. No sources; I've had a look for confirmation, too, and found none. It's an obvious hoax. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Created on October 20. I'm surprised that it didn't get nominated until now, but it looks like it was posted in time for Halloween. I can see it now: "Let's turn off the lights and read scary stories on Wikipedia!!" Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Hoax. Ponty Pirate (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with all possible speed, as per nom.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - Blatant hoax. — neuro(talk) 06:41, 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. I note that all comments by established users favoring deletion preceded significant improvements in the article, and that two of the established users initially favoring deletion changed their position to "keep" after reviewing the revised article. John254 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tudor Rickards[edit]

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

    Conflict of Interest, Original Research Ponty Pirate (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: Also forgot to mention that the article is completely un-referenced. Ponty Pirate (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Er, it does have a lengthy Notes section... – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per G11, so nominated. This reads like a curriculum vitae/resume ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to Weak Keep: Article is now a stub and reliable sources must surely exist have been added to support claims of notability. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC),  – ukexpat (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is was promotional and indeed the very model of an over-enthusiastic cv. — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (see my comment directly below)[reply]
    • Keep now that it's a well-referenced starter article. — Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As the admin who declined the speedy deletion, this is a borderline G11 and A7, a skeinishly built-up CV. Half the sources are by the subject, the text mostly promotes his career and his notions about marketing and creativity. No evidence this meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. So far as I can tell, none of the footnotes qualify as reliable sources: statements of fact are supported with reference to works written by Richards himself, while the other notes simply establish that some of his students/mentees/affiliates have published something — they're not about Richards. All I could find on Google was various self-promotional websites. Non-notable person. RJC TalkContribs 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not so fast Wikicourt, not so fast. This is one of those cases where we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions based on COI appearances. Tudor Rickards easily qualifies as notable under WP:PROF. Apparently he was one of the founders and editor-in-chief of an established academic journal, Creativity and Innovation Management, carried full-text on Business Source Complete (BSC), which qualifies him as notable under WP:PROF criterion 8. The journal even gives a Tudor Rickards Best Paper Award every year. A Worldcat search returned 66 hits; some of these books were with prestigious publishers, such as Wiley. The most widely held book, Stimulating Innovation (1985), was in 254 libraries worldwide. A BSC search returned 50 hits.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Criterion 8 of WP:PROF says that a professor is notable if s/he was the editor-in-chief of a major, well-established journal, the idea being that such a position is a sign of recognition by the scholarly community. Journals that a person founds on their own would not signal the same sort of recognition, especially if the journal was a minor one. Could somebody in the field attest to how well-established/respected Creativity and Innovation Management is? A connection to a minor journal would not satisfy #8. RJC TalkContribs 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The journal was founded in 1992 and has been published since then. It is now published by a major academic publisher, Blackwell Publishing. The editorial board is from all over the world; including some very prestigious institutions. This journal is certainly enough for WP:PROF criterion 8.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I'm sorry, but that sounds like most journals. As I understand #8, founding a journal that went on to be viable does not suggest notability; rather, recognition by the community by being asked to head a "major well-established journal" does. RJC TalkContribs 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Even if the guy is notable per WP policies, the article can still qualify for deletion on the grounds that it is promotional - that was my view, knowing nothing about the guy when I read the article, and the reason for my G11 tag. – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find it hard to believe anyone who reads this entire article would decide to keep it. But hey that's my opinion and thats why its up for discussion I suppose. Ponty Pirate (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I left a message on the article's discussion page, and also on the article editor's discussion page, suggesting rewriting and trimming the article. Henry Mintzberg seems like a good model for follow. Indeed, right now this article is a magnet for requests for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The editors who are attempting make a positive contribution to Wikipedia with this article have no doubt stumbled about a bit, and I think we can all agree to that. But it is because they are new. They openly express a desire to learn the right way to go about things here. Eric Yurken has done his homework and shown that Tudor Rickards is notable enough to merit an article. Kudos to ukexpat who, after recommending the article for summary execution, offered to assist the one of the editors, Alex Hough, on the proper way to write an article. Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I am now taking the advice offered and trimming down the entry and make it less promotional. Thank you, it has been an interesting introduction to Wikipedia. I am really pleased that there are people who care about entries and can see that being a Wikipedia guy offers some real learning experiences. --Alexhough (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — Alexhough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: The SPA signature template is a little unfair here - this is Alexhough's first article, and he/she is commenting here perfectly appropriately. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Spa}} tags are intended to be helpful to neutral and uninvolved editors and admins who review AfDs. Hough (who works/worked with Rickard: see e.g. here) has been clear since his first edit (diff) that his is a single-purpose account. — Athaenara ✉ 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletepromotional, vanity. looks like a CV. Can it not be speedied? 84.13.129.44 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — 84.13.129.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep. I think the article demonstrates merit, as noted above Rickards potentially qualifies as notable, but the article itself possibly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia style and etiquette, the comparison with the Mintzberg entry is illuminating, and the offer by ukexpat to help the editors seems like a positive way forward. Keep and amend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.251.213 (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — 89.242.251.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep sorry, notability is pretty easy to determine here, coi is not a reason for delete, it is a reason for cleanup.--Buridan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What about notability is easy to determine? RJC TalkContribs 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    general notability as per citation/publication in news media is what i checked.'does the media think he is notable?' seems to be yes to me.--Buridan (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article has now been changed to a stub and is acceptable to keep. I think you should all put the page on your watch lists to give assistance to the editors in future. I am the nominator Ponty Pirate but I am on a WIKIBREAK (you can check to verify this) so cannot log in. I just want to tie up this last loose end. See you all sometime in the future. 78.145.174.100 (talk) 07:54, 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 After discounting several comments with bad or no reasoning, I'm left with an equal number of delete and keep comments. Most of those didn't take into account the option to merge information. I would recommend merging this somewhere until such a time more than a single sentence can be written about him. As it stands the result is no consensus. - Mgm|(talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Bell (North Carolina politician)[edit]

    John Bell (North Carolina politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nom, and opine for ...
    Del: The page was ProD'd on the basis

    Mayor of "city" of 17K, no info but bare facts of ofc. If needed, should start from scratch with something more substantial.

    but ProD was refused, arguing

    239 gnews hits for "John Bell " "elizabeth city"

    That pathetic presence would persuade me of non-notability, if i could reproduce it.
    (Perhaps the colleague who asserted it will provide URL's that clarify the claim; going to http://news.google.com/nwshp?ned=us and pasting

    "John Bell " "elizabeth city"

    -- having clip-board-copied it from the image of the summary on the edit's diff page -- into the "Search and browse 4,500 news sources updated continuously" box, and clicking "Search News" gives me

    Your search - "John Bell " "elizabeth city" - did not match any documents.

    )
    In any case, my result from a vanilla G-search gives

    Results 231 - 234 of 234 for "John Bell " OR "John H. Bell " "elizabeth city" -"North Carolina politician" -wikipedia.

    Inspection of three samples -- the 1st 10, 111-120, and 223-end -- reveals

    1 - 10:
    3 for coverage by The Virginian-Pilot ("largest daily metro paper" in adjacent Va., and a good source) of 1999 election results, & 2001 filing;
    3 official postings of city or county business;
    2005 coverage, by supermarket chain, of him being the number-one attraction at one of its store openings;
    "Today in History: Lincoln defeated ... John Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen Douglas.";
    list of John Bells at www.reunion.com, including Bell, Johnny, 32, Elizabeth City, NC (born 5 years after start of the mayor's first term)
    Google-books hit on JB signing a deed ... in 1641.
    (That is, 7 of the first 10 are about him, each the inevitable result of his doing what it was inevitable that someone would do. But you'll see that the first few are not representative of the 200 and some:)
    112 - 121 :
    2 Johns with Bell as middle name;
    8 real John Bells, on lists where their name is not juxtaposed with Eliz. City's, even tho they both occur; of them the one with the best hint that it could be his, is that he could be the 1952 grad of a college only 281 miles from where he is now mayor, who is noted for first contributing to his alma mater in his mid-70s, to the extent of several hundred dollars. Or not.
    223 - 234:
    Essentially like the middle batch, except that two of these are Japanese sites that have the sort-key hits in the midst of sequences of words showing no syntactic structures longer than "free and clear".

    In fact Google offers plenty of evidence of him being no more notable than any other small town mayor or first selectman: it's one thing to say that if the Nobel winner hadn't done xyz, there are hundreds of others who could have done that feat, by some equally interesting (but interestingly unique) route, before too long; this is quite another situation, where anyone among something like 5 or 10% of those 17K Eliz-citians would have done the essential thing he did, as long as none of the other 800 or 1500 of them stepped up, on the same schedule, and we have no sign of his having done anything more worthy of encyclopedic mention than each them would have done simply as a matter of course.
    I'm open to learning how much, that is more significant than what i found, someone else can pull out of the 200 unique hits that i didn't look at -- some small-city mayors are notable -- but i think the above is a good-faith attempt no less than what WP:notability intended, when it failed to hint an exhaustive search for evidence is needed.
    --Jerzy•t 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Well he could certainly be a VP candidate! Ok sorry, bad joke. I know I know, he hasn't been governor yet. This nomination is very long! I don't really know by what criteria we determine notability. Two good references? What about people who were notable before the web. People don't use off-line references very much here (which is probably a good thing as they'd be hard to check). Mayor of a city of 17,000 for that many years? It seems kind of notable. How do we weigh it? Google hits? What he accomplished in office? Is there a harm in including this semi-notable guy? Inquiring minds want to know! I will watch for your informed reply. But if you don't convince me I may vote keep. You've been warned... ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notability now established the usual way. No reason to make an exception to our usual practice here. WilyD 12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Our "usual practice" has not been to keep such articles, since they would result in encyclopedia articles for millions of people who have been local officials. This article is already cranking up succession boxes, indicating an intent to create articles for every mayor in the history of the town. There is no precedent of automatic notability for small town mayors. Being the mayor of a small town naturally creates a few proforma newspaper article: "Jones runs for mayor, Jones wins election, Jones dedicates new Little League park." A small town mayor being mentioned in the small town paper several times does not establish notability, any more than a college vocal group or intramural softball team being mentioned in the campus paper at a college of the same size. If 17,000 is a big enough town, then how about a town of 1,259 which also has a mayor and a newspaper and has items about the mayor regularly in the local newspaper? They also regularly mention the city councilmen. Should we have articles about each of them, with succession boxes? There should be a limit. The mayor of New York City? Sure. The mayor of Dogpatch? Nope. Edison (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Local officials aren't notable unless notability is established for other reasons; and I don't really see how these sources prove his notability. By the way, why question EC as being a city? There's almost nowhere in the USA where a municipality of 17,000 people isn't a city. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to question: Perhaps i was making a subtle distinction: 17K is a town even if it has the legal status of a "city". (BTW, I was the first to use the term "small town", tho i'm not sure 17K is a small town. I am sure "Dogpatch" is serious hyperbole for "17K town/city", and i hope i did not encourage it.) The laws of municipal administration aside, towns (aside from "bedroom towns" near real towns) provide the resources that consumers are likely to need every week or perhaps unexpectedly on any given day, to those who live in them or nearby bedroom towns, and to any rural residents closer than the next town; cities provide resources that are uneconomical to provide, except in a market much larger than those of typical towns. I'm neither a demographer nor an economist, but my gut tells me that for 1st-world standards of living, cities start no lower than 50K or 100K, unless the surrounding area is unusually heavily settled.
        --Jerzy•t 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: In practice, we can't verify hope to verify city/town numbers without paying attention to the legal distinctions among municipalities. CT has about 200 municipalities, each a town, city, and/or borough. (One borough is also a town and has a population of 32K; the remaining 8, each part of a town, are 4K or under; i think we can ignore the boroughs.) There are 169 towns; two of them contain cities (not the reverse!), and each of 19 towns is in practice indistinguishable from a city with the same name and the same territory.
        The cities range from 137K down to 7K; FWIW, each of the two smallest is part of a town: the town including the 7K city has 11K all told; the one with the 9K city has 42K.
        The towns that neither are also cities, nor contain cities, range from 62K down to 751.
        Three cities (15%) are 17K or smaller; 48 of the no-city towns (32%) are 18K or larger.
        The median population of cities is 59 K; the median population of towns is 12K; the median population of no-city towns is 9K.
        --Jerzy•t 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Here is the gnews (archives) search that gets 239 hits for him, which I thought seemed a good number for a small town mayor, some articles specifically on him, like the one I added. WP:POLITICIAN says "mayors are likely to meet this criterion" of being "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and he seems to qualify with this amount of coverage.John Z (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment WP:POLITICIAN says "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." I think "major metropolitan city" is operative here with respect to mayors. Otherwise a town of 1200 with a newspaper will have about as many stories about their mayor as would this mayor of a town of 17000. Edison (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Well, the way it is written, "major metropolitan city" doesn't apply to "mayor." It seems to be saying that councillors of a big city would tend to have as much news about them as a mayor of a community of unspecified size. Towns of 1200 will be much less likely to have newspapers and they will be less likely to provide a large amount of coverage to anyone. Why should we worry about city sizes, if amount of (google-indexed) news coverage is more in line with wikipedia criteria, and will naturally be roughly proportional to city size for a mayor or councillor? In any case, 200+ gnews hits is a good number for anyone, and usually results in a keep. With articles specifically on him, this particular mayor seems to fit under the general notability criterion. I was surprised by the amount of newspaper coverage on him, and I don't think we should second guess, by arbitrary size limits, why there would be substantial coverage on a particular person.John Z (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That "Generally speaking..." quote is grossly out of context, which is why this has devolved into parsing the ambiguous relationship of the clauses. Please note that it demands context: it does not say that "mayors are notable" or "mayors are likely to be notable"; it says mayors are likely to be
        Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
      which is valuable in determining notability only because it implies the value of more detailed examination once it is established someone is a mayor, whereas "councillors of" a town or small city are prima facie non-notable, and deletion is called for someone takes on the burden of making a further case against it.
      The earlier sentence that i just quoted also bears a footnote, saying in relevant part (emphasis is mine):
      Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
      I think it should be clear that the portion i italicized demands information beyond what the mayor's office, clerk of elections, or town party committee emits in press releases or official records. And that nothing more than that has been exhibited here.
      --Jerzy•t 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: In light of the sampling of a "vanilla" Google search, i provided with my nom'n, why are you assuming these 239 apply to him? I don't have $700 to spend on seeing whether the hits say anything non-trivial, but i can see you've erroneously counted at least the 1862 one whose extract reads (my emphasis added)
      ... S E Spaulding left on Saturday for Elizabeth City with the ners taken by ... ths Cumberland iron works of Wood Lewis Co John Bell owning one third of ... "
      --Jerzy•t 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Of course there are a false positives in that gnews archives search. But as far as I can tell, the great majority are for this John Bell, 200+. (throwing in the word mayor doesn't change much) Searching using "john h bell" elizabeth city mayor gets 147 gnews hits, but omits ones not using his MI. Again, I think this, about 200, is a high number for a small town former mayor. This may be an artifact of google's selection, or of the logorrhea of the area's press. Compare results for "David Jarrell" Asheboro, current mayor of a slightly larger city in NC - 89 gnews hits, or 204 for "David Combs" Rocky Mount, a city three times larger. I added to Further reading one retrospective article on him at his retirement that seems to go into more detail - gives his age 69 in 2005 and former profession (insurance executive.), Here's one quoting comments when he was out of office 1982-2000 ("We're planning ourselves to death,'" said John Bell, mayor of Elizabeth City from 1971 to 1981. ..And some things are put in the plans over and over again")[12] This 1993 article reports he was under heavy pressure to run then - (see preview here). I was of two minds to deprod until I saw that there was a surprisingly large amount of coverage (of course much of it incidental, but it adds up) and which goes beyond official press releases. Of course it all seems to be from a few local papers, but there is no consensus I know of that nonlocal coverage is necessary. There's clearly some room for expansion just from free previews, and I personally do not understand any reason given for not having such an expanded article written according to our policies.John Z (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unless someone adds something notable to the article my inclination would be delete. I think the article could demonstrate notability. But it doesn't.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete We never have established a cutoff point for mayors. My guess is that it would normally be somewhere around 25,000 or 50,000. Obviously some would be notable below whatever point it was. I see no indications that he is. DGG (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; as long as sources exist, I see no reason why we should not have articles on significant local politicians. Some might argue for the exclusion of politicians from particularly small towns, but even then I don't see how this would qualify, as a population of 17,000 makes it more like a medium-sized town. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 18 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) 09:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious Merge to Elizabeth City, North Carolina. I'm all for civic pride, but let's be clear on this. This article is apparently part of a project to make a biographical article for all persons who have ever served as mayor of a small town in North Carolina, and it operates on the assumption that there is an inherent notability for any person who has ever been the mayor of any town. There are such presumptions for a limited number of politicians, such as persons who have served in a national legislature, or chief executives (like governors) for a state or province. There is a presumption that any incorporated city, or any documented unincorporated community, anywhere in the world, is notable. But one cannot assume that any executive of any incorporated city is entitled to his or her own article on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that this is all sourced; one would expect that there are sources that will prove that so-and-so was at one time the mayor of such-and-such place. It doesn't matter whether there are hundreds or even thousands of municipalities in the U.S. that are larger than Elizabeth City. What does matter is that there is no policy that says "all mayors of towns of more than _____ are irrebutably presumed to be notable". Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose merge A section about a small town which listed each mayor in the town's history would give undue weight to the mayor position, and in many cases would be the longest section of the article. A list of mayors of a small town 150 years old would be about as long as the List of mayors of Chicago but chances are no mayor of the small town achieved any coverage outside the town. There are many small towns of 2000 residents or less which have a newspaper which publishes routine coverage of the Mayor and councilmen. They are only of local interest, and their limited historical importance dioes not justify listing them all in the article about the town or in standalone articles for each or even in a standalone list like the one for Chicago. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This series of articles on local nonnotable politicians includes such articles as List of town council members of Chapel Hill, North Carolina which apparently aims to includes every identifiable person who every served on the town council since the settlement was founded in 1793.I don't know when the first town council met, but I expect some such group of Commissioners was elected pretty quickly. What is the point of this, with respect to having encyclopedic articles? Edison (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete You changed my mind, Edison. I think we both agree that we don't need individual articles about every mayor of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and on the larger matter that mayors of cities are not inherently notable. You're right, saying "merge" weakens what should be a united front that mayors aren't entitled to their own articles and that they have to establish their notability. I note that there are only two of these articles and there's so little content, a delete would accomplish the same purpose. However, I would point out that if someone wants to add a list of mayors to the Elizabeth City article, that's their right; and it's someone else's right to take the list back out. Either way, whatever someone wants to add or take away from the E.City page is no concern of mine. It's fair to say that I have no intention of visiting Elizabeth City, nor its Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can't this article be part of a list, "Mayors of Elizabeth City, North Carolina" or something like that? The list wouldn't need to be composed of just names and dates; each mayor could have one or two paragraphs, depending on the information available. Everyking (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a practical matter, I can say that the article Elizabeth City, North Carolina is beyond deletion, and that a debate would be swiftly closed based on the inherent notability policy. On the other hand, an article about a list of mayors of Elizabeth City would not be entitled to the same deference if it were nominated. If I were wanting to put this information somewhere, I would put it in the "protected" article. Mandsford (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ("Protected" means something quite specific that does not apply to Elizabeth City, North Carolina.)
      I agree that AfD on the town's article would fail, and i would be among those opposing it, as i would for the microscopic "town" (there i go again) of Success, New Hampshire. (It's really a lake with a stretch of summer places on one shore and a handful on the other or scattered elsewhere, and a half or whole dozen head-scratcher intersections of logging roads and access trails for the Appalachian Trail.) But in contrast to protection, the article's assured continuing existence does not interfere with prompt removal of non-notable information. If Mayor Bell's name were in the article as a lk, i would at least convert it to plain text; if it were in the article with only the information that is in this article, i'm guessing i'd be likely to move it out to the talk page with the suggestion that it would be more likely to be of value in the context of one well thot-thru 'graph abt him and/or a nearly up-to-date list of at least recent mayors.
      I'm not so far finding persuasive the argument that a long list of mayors excessively weighs down an article on a town this size. Yes, articles can be read thru in sequential order. But IMO users who set their Prefs to suppress display of the ToC are making a bad mistake, and we should assume that they will make use of the ToC as a means of picking and choosing which secn or secns to actually read. (I restrain myself from enumerating the small tricks for using the ToC repeatedly to select sections without refreshing the window.) So i'd say that size ratio alone is insufficient to decide whether the less valuable info should be retained. In fact, i might defend removal of something small, bcz it makes the article look like it's been taken over for vanity purposes, but accept the same dull info as part of a block of equally dull info about other individuals. Or not.
      --Jerzy•t 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentA small town mayor could be notable if he did something really good or really bad which achieved sustained national attention Even a dogcatcher could be notable if in his spare time he were the "BTK Killer." 99.9% or more of small town mayors, council members, and city employees do their mundane jobs and never rise to the level of encyclopedic notability, even if the local newspaper mentions they won election and went to council meetings. The town of 1200 I cited above has as much mention of their city officials in the local paper as does Elizabeth City for Bell, his predecessors and his successors, along with the council members. Smaller towns mention by name which of the three town policement arrested someone in weekly issues of the town paper. Every small town policeman, water department supervisor, fire chief and city clerk would have about as much justification for an article as Bell if only the number of newspaper mentions is used as criterion, ignoring that it is just proforma mentions in the local paper. Then we could have 100,000,000 articles about utterly unimportant local officials from all of recorded history, throughout the world. Edison (talk) 00:06, 22 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 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cory Martin[edit]

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

    Article is written in a (self?-) promotional style with numerous non-neutral and unsourced statements. Unlikely to meet WP:MUSIC, therefore delete. TheFeds 07:52, 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 speedy delete under CSD G7. Pagrashtak 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NCAA Basketball (NES)[edit]

    NCAA Basketball (NES) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I created this by mistake. I meant to create NCAA Basketball (SNES), not NCAA Basketball NES. FSUNolez06 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy it - one author who requests deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. I verified that it was created by this author; previous content did in fact reflect an SNES game (but article titled as NES). Inserted speedy deletion box, for convenience. TheFeds 08:03, 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. and salted Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Splendiforous[edit]

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

    Here are six reasons this article should be deleted: It is little more than a definition; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Apart from the content which belongs in a dictionary, this article contains speculation that the term "will be included in major dictionaries, including Webster's, by the year 2012"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The sources are almost certainly fabricated—the first several versions of the article listed the sources as: 1. "The English Language- an Ever Changing Dialect." Tim Geerlings, 2008. Not yet published. / 2. "Modern Etymology." Alexandra Oosse, 2008. To be published shortly / 3. "A Synopsis of Major English Dictionaries." Elizabeth Cain, unpublished work. 2007. This article has been speedied twice already. As noted on the article's talk page, the term being defined by this article is simply a misspelling of splendiferous. Furthermore, splendiferous was not "first used commonly in the later part of the first decade of the 2000's"; it has been in use since 1843 according to Merriam-Webster. This article is a hoax through and through. —Bkell (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete it with napalm. --Kickstart70TC 06:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As I outlined on the talk page, this appears to be a hoax definition placed as a misspelling of an actual word, which would belong on Wiktionary anyway. Thanks for taking this to AfD. --skew-t (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the very good nomination above. -- roleplayer 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:NOT Wiktionary. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Belongs on Wiktionary if spelled right.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete and keep it out of Wikitionary. It's a clear hoax. Alexius08 (talk) 10:05, 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. John254 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cook Door[edit]

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

    2nd nomination. Still fails WP:CORP and WP:REST. Kickstart70TC 06:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Every one of those 7 mentions is trivial and done in passing. Please re-read WP:CORP and see if this truly qualifies. --Kickstart70TC 07:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The very first of those Gnews hits is completely about Cook Door, as is this one - how can you say the mentions are "trivial and in passing"? Also remember that we are talking about a country which doesn't use the Latin alphabet for its native language, so searching in that alphabet can only be expected to come up with a tiny percentage of all of the potential sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, simply, reviews of local restaurants by one writer expressing his personal favourites are trivial mentions. Again, look at WP:CORP and see if this would qualify if it weren't a restaurant. Further, if those non-English reliable sources exist, then they need to be provided. We can't just assume they exist and go from there. It's "proof of notability" not "assumption of notability". --Kickstart70TC 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These reviews are in Al-Ahram, a national newspaper, so can't be called "reviews of local restaurants", and yes, articles of this length in major newspapers are accepted as showing notability for articles on all sorts of topics. Why do you persist in trying to impose higher notability standards on restaurants than we have for any other subjects? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I most certainly am not. I'm just trying to impose the standards that are set very clearly in an accepted guideline. I'm really not certain why people are having a problem with this. Is the guideline wrong? --Kickstart70TC 04:22, 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). The article needs better referencing, to be certain, but WP:RS concerns were fully addressed by Phil and Geoff (thanks, guys!). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brasserie Les Halles[edit]

    Brasserie Les Halles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails notability requirements per WP:CORP and WP:REST. Note that these restaurants are (were) names after the famous Les Halles in Paris, but are not otherwise related. This may confuse notability searches. Please understand the notability requirements on this (generally, reviews do not confer notability). --Kickstart70TC 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. What notability guideline (and I don't mean a proposed guideline containing one person's idiosyncratic view of notability) says that reviews do not confer notability? They confer notability on restaurants in just the same way that reviews confer notability on books, plays, films, exhibitions, musical works etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Brasserie Les Halles is very well known in New York City, and has national notability as a result of being featured on Anthony Bourdain's popular television show and in the title of one of his books. I suppose it's well known elsewhere now as well since additional restaurants have opened. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Always with respect, CoM, but notability needs to be proven...you're using OR :) --Kickstart70TC 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. Being featured in a major cookbook and on a major television series (repeatedly) is notability as best I can tell. Plus it's a pretty big deal and an institution of sorts in NY. But I'm often outvoted. So maybe others will have a different take! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, I don't mind if you are right and I am wrong, but since I don't know the show or the book (likely same for most people here) we need a little more to go on. --Kickstart70TC 07:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - though the article itself lacks sources at the moment, it's not hard to find them using various kinds of Google searches.--Boffob (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I added book cites to two of the Bourdain books in which the restaraunt is prominently featured, including the titular Anthony Bourdain's Les Halles Cookbook. The article does need internal references and additional editing, but the subject meets WP:N standards IMHO. Geoff (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - internationally known restaurant (more for literary reputation of chef patron than cuisine but still...). Obviously needs work. Terwilliger (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snow it Keep I live in London and mostly on toast, have never seen the Food Channel or read Bourdain's books, yet even I've heard of this place. I remember being mildly astonished at not finding it here when checking out the New York restaurants list a few weeks back. Burp. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources amongst the 352 hits in the Google News Archive, including reviews and non-reviews, both types of article counting towards notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 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 delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Amy Winehouse : The Greatest Hits[edit]

    Amy Winehouse : The Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreleased album of no notability yet, I can't even find verification of existence. Icewedge (talk) 05:39, 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 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Financial Domination[edit]

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

    No sources on the article, and not many good related sources to be found in books[13] or journals. Terms like "Instadommes" dont appear in any fulltext searches I have done. The Egyptian (film) doesnt mention this term. While there might be people who do engage in this, this article is just hogwash and doesnt touch on the psychological aspect, nor does it give statistical evidence that this is more than just a few bloggers/scammers who are happy to take money from unhappy men. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging this article and that of the other main character, Stephanie Edgely, can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skulduggery Pleasant (character)[edit]

    Skulduggery Pleasant (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant 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 the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:01, 13 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 04:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Lead character in two popular video games and a 400 page book books put out by a major publisher (Harper Collins). Notability seems well established, though article needs tightening and sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the confusion. I was confused. I guess there wasn't a video game and I just imagined it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per ChildofMidnight's comment. However has there been a video game popular or not? And there were Two Books. thanks--Beligaronia (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect, with or without Delete to character section in main article. Nothing here that can't be said there, plus then we wouldn't need the plot synopsis twice. Lack of real-world relevance dooms this as a standalone article. gnfnrf (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I appear to have imagined there being a video game, I did find this [14] discussing Warner Brothers acquiring the sought after rights to this character's stories and planning a movie franchise that's already being compared to Harry Potter. Seems awfully notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because as the major character of a best-selling pair of nov els it's appropriate to keep the article. As for the similarity between the material for the character and the book, he's not t he only major character. This article could, however, use a good deal of editing. And I wouldnt object to a merge, if there was a agreement on the talk page. DGG (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant. The article alone has no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:34, 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 and redirect to Remixed & Revisited. Since it was never sold, the track itself can't have charted on any chart based on sales, and even if it did receive some airplay, that's not enough per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A redirect to its parent EP is reasonable, though. Black Kite 18:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Into the Hollywood Groove[edit]

    Into the Hollywood Groove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only, no references and full of original research Paul75 (talk) 04:38, 3 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) 00:13, 8 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) 00:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the charting can be sourced then keep. Otherwise delete due to lack of RS. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect - Even with sources for the charting, none give it notability. If it placed first, it is inherently notable, but 2nd on a minor chart in Japan just doesn't cut it. DARTH PANDAduel 02:15, 17 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 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect Seems reasonable as way to include this information as there is not adequate notability to support independent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Barely notable, a fairly unknown single, it does not have an reliable references and it barely has any references at all! – Jerryteps 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Promo CD advertising and given away at the GAP. No references. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:40, 23 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. SoWhy 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonky (music)[edit]

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

    Nominated on behalf of a comment made at Template talk:Dubstep, at the bottom, quoting one of the references citing this article. "Wonky" is not a genre, and the article in its current state is bordering on CSD A1.. describing a style of music as being characterised by "use of synths" and "slow rhythm" is not exactly helpful in determining why it's so unique that it can be considered a separate musical genre. While the term "aquacrunk" does seem to have been used by multiple sources (though none explicitly suggest that it's synonymous with "wonky"), it is not necessary to turn every buzzword the press uses into a separate "genre" article. - filelakeshoe 11:56, 8 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) 00:20, 13 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 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Pitchfork and Guardian are very reliable sources. If Wonky Techno and Aquacrunk are the same thing they should be merged/redirected to this article as it is the best sourced. Claphands (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:11, 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 delete. - WP:NOT#STATS Black Kite 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WABDL Canadian Deadlift Records[edit]

    WABDL Canadian Deadlift Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or statistics, see WP:NOT#STATS, only references are to the organization itself. Terrillja talk 19:59, 8 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, 13 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 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - Strength Data is very important for the evolution of sports.24.82.151.229 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - Especially if the info on this articles Discussion Page is added to this Article.24.82.151.229 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Even were it to be prettily formatted, there are no WP:RS including what is noted on the talk page. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:47, 23 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. - WP:NOT#STATS Black Kite 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wabdl canadian bench press records[edit]

    Wabdl canadian bench press records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or statistics, see WP:NOT#STATS, only references are to the organization itself. Terrillja talk 19:59, 8 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, 13 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 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but the article needs to be reworked by an experienced editor. My only concern over notability is that the records are Canadian, and only for a particular organization. The article should be renamed to proper capitalization (WABDL Canadian bench press records). - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - Ever since ancient Greece Strength Data has been very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.151.229 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 24.82.151.229 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - Especially if the info on this articles Discussion Page is added to this Article.24.82.151.229 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Even were it to be prettily formatted, there are no WP:RS including what is noted on the talk page. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:46, 23 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 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frederico Beja[edit]

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

    highly questionable notability; purely promotional. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:35, 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. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Najat Aatabou[edit]

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

    This person does not meet the notability requirements for musicians at WP:Music. Further there are no sources. Delete as non-notable. Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep She appears to be quite well known and well established with a long history as a successful professional singer. I added some references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sufficent reliable sources to demonstrate notability can be found with a Google News search. Icewedge (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. Lacks sufficient third party sources to establish credibility of work. I'm not sure which search string you used Icewedge, but I found zero results under news search. Biographical presence on various websites does not establish notability either, since objective of such websites is towards offering directorial service than being critical of the work. LeaveSleaves talk 05:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try filtering it for all dates, not just the last month ([15]). Icewedge (talk) 05:27, 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 speedy delete per G7 - One author who has requested deletion [17] Nancy talk 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Goalscorers in the Football League Championship 2008-09[edit]

    Goalscorers in the Football League Championship 2008-09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is a long and sprawling list of statistics, per WP:NOT#STATS which are unnecessary details beyond that listed at Football League Championship 2008–09. This is superfluous detail, which is best in an almanac and not in an encyclopedia. See also the prod for List of Serbian Superliga 2008–09 scorers and List of Goalscorers in the Football League Two 2008-09 Season. Peanut4 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 04:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the highlights into the article about the season, and/or rewrite to reflect notable facts about the scoring title. If nothing is salvageable, then deletion wouldn't be uncalled-for, per nomination. TheFeds 05:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - top scorers already in the main Championship 2008-09 article. - fchd (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --ClubOranjeTalk 10:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Totally unecessary... nowt more to be said. Bettia (rawr!) 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and delete the article, judging by the comments above it's unanimous. Boddefan2009 (talk) 18:40, 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 Speedy Delete, G5 by User:Sarah. Lenticel (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Angel Active[edit]

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

    Fails to meet notability among corporations. Its coverage is few and usually discuss about its endorser Angel Locsin rather than the product itself. Starczamora (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Has not established notability. Clothing label established in 2007. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Angel_Locsin#Product_and_endorsements. No established notability but is mentioned in the parent article. I merged some of the text and ref from this article to the parent.--Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a clothing company thus it must have a wiki article. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As you have contributed a lot of content to the article, do you have any evidence of coverage in reliable sources? Your argument could be interpreted as WP:ILIKEIT which isn't generally taken well in AfD discussions. I've tried to Google it, but haven't come up with any coverage, but I am hoping you would have something. Asserting notability would also be a help! Fraud talk to me 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete'. If you'd compare this to Stuff by Duff, it's not that notable. I'd have to be convinced by extensive coverage other than the "official" website. –Howard the Duck 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - All companies has a right to have its wikipedia article as long as it has a source, website, ect. to proved that the company really exist. Now if you talking about, notability, Im pretty sure that Angel Active is one of the most popular clothin line in the country. I suggest to keep this article. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: No. If the company exists, it doesn't mean it should automatically have/deserve a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I asked a random DOTA kid at the internet cafe to give me 3 local apparels. He gave Bench and Penshoppe. The kid didn't know about "Angel Active." You'd have to cite a newspaper article not coming from a press release to say that this is true. –Howard the Duck 11:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete deactivate it as blatant advertising. Anyway, is the author an employee of Angel Locsin? If so, then this one has got a serious conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He/ She actually claims to be a "cousin" of Angel Locsin, which has been claimed by a puppet master I know. Starczamora (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes definetely Im proud to a cousin of Angel Locsin. But Admit that Angel Active - is a well-known clothing line apparel in the Philippine does it needs an article in WIkipedia, to help it more known. Just ignore Starczamora because he/she is has a past relationship of this User which what he thinks me because he really miss his boyfriend/girlfriend thats why hes tryin to kiss me and invite me to have a dinner, watch movies and have a shopping. Nek nek mo,asa ka pa. LOL. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so jologs. Starczamora (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have an identity but that does not mean I could have a page in wiki. Axxand (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. It's only claim to notability is because of Angel Locsin (i.e., you won't find articles about the clothing line that won't also talk at length about the celebrity too). --seav (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong-Keep - This clothing line is very famous in the Philippines. Yah Angel Locsin made it popular but its popularity is on the top. Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three "Keep" votes from the same user does not make it three votes. It's still counted as one. Starczamora (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont care Mr.Immature. Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone "immature" for the nth time is...well, I'm not sure if that's the work of a mature person, and I don't understand the point of doing that. There are other ways of addressing your issues with a particular editor, but for a start it may help to be a little more civil. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, here's my vote:

    • Delete or merge. "Angel Active", I think, is not yet up to the level of other brands such as Bench and Penshoppe, which are themselves both notable apparel brands and, arguably, have a strong identity apart from their big-name endorsers. True, Angel Locsin may be notable, but that doesn't mean that anything that has her name on it is automatically notable as well. Notability isn't something that is inherited (or, put it in Tagalog, hindi namamana ang notability). For instance (and these are all extreme examples), the janitor of the White House isn't automatically notable just because of the fact that he works at the White House (unless, say, he took a bullet for the incumbent president in a failed assassination). For another example, the comb, shoes, socks, or underwear of Angel Locsin aren't notable even if its user is a notable person (reminds me of the quote of Teodoro Agoncillo whence he laments that Rizal-mania was so despicable that some ultra-Rizalistas might add a marker on any tree where Rizal might have urinated :P). The subject of a potential article needs to have certain qualities that should make it stand apart and pass the accepted Wikipedia community guidelines for notability. (See WP:NOTABLE for more information about this, in case you haven't taken a look.) "Angel Active" isn't there yet; maybe in two or three years' time, I guess, but not now. However, be that as it may, since from all appearances it's a label that carries Angel Locsin's name, it might be better to retain the information and have it merged to the main Angel Locsin article as a better alternative to outright deletion. At the very least, the information about "Angel Active" would still be there, and until such time that it's ready for its own article--by "ready", I mean it will pass all possibl scrutiny such as the AfD process---creating the article is a simple cut-and-paste operation. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:49, 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, default to keep. Of course, merge/redirect discussions may continue outside the AfD process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bugs' Bunny[edit]

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

    Relevant information about the early incarnation of Bugs is already on the Bugs Bunny page, anything else that isn't there already can be merged into the main article. The rest seems to be a list of plot summaries of the various shorts the proto-Bugs appeared in. Odie Hume Hannity (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect per nomination. -- saberwyn 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Time to elucidate my thoughts more appropriately. I think that once the overly-detailed plot summary is trimmed down to a reasonable size, the content of this article will be of a convenient size to rest inside the Bugs Bunny article. As this article is entirely about Proto-Bugs, and therefore an important stage in the development of Modern-Bugs, this information would be more appropriately located together with the rest of Modern-Bugs' development history. In my mind, any appropriately sourced information should be merged over to the Modern-Bugs article, and the article should be redirected (anchored if necessary) to this location. If it turns out that there is such an as-yet-untapped wealth of reliably sourced and published information about the Proto-Bugs character that it overwhelms the Modern-Bugs article, it can be split out again. I agree with Reyk below that the overly-long plot summary needs to die a terrible, terrible death. -- saberwyn 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Certainly needs to be better referenced, but books on Warner Brothers and cartoons must cover this character's evolution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then would it not be best to keep all the information on the evolution of Bugs Bunny in one central location? -- saberwyn 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but looking at both articles I think the information is too extensive. I think they can coexist and link to each other as appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I thought long and hard about suggesting a merge with Bugs Bunny, but in the end I decided against it. The main article already contains enough information on this prototype of Bugs. It would not be improved by including what is rapidly becoming Wikipedia's most serious problem: unsourced plot summary. There's nothing here worth salvaging in any form. Delete, and reinstate as a redirect to the main article. Reyk YO! 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, and please pass the ketchup. The main article on Bugs Bunny could use some of the things the proto-Bugs says in Hare-um Scare-um. I couldnt tell if I knew that episode from the main article, but in the Bugs' article, i'm like, oh yeah, that was the one with the celery. I do agree with it being an excessive plot summary though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I argue that Bugs' Bunny is not the same topic as Bugs Bunny, and that Bugs' Bunny is a notable and worthy topic in its own right. There are many characters that have evolved over time, and I argue that the character we know as Bugs today is sufficiently removed from this topic that this topic deserves to stand alone. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I agree with nomination & Reyk. (Neostinker (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete. Plot summaries are available in the articles for the individual cartoons, which are linked in the "Bugs' Bunny" section of Bugs Bunny. I don't see anything worth merging to the main article. Deor (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Might as well stop debating. It looks like 69.123.133.101 did a merge and redirect already. It would have been nice if you had waited until the debate was over. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the merge. It;'s almost always wrong to do that during a contested AfD. I would have reverted this overbold step no matter what I thought about the article. The question has to be settled by discussion. DGG (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I can't give this a "keep" vote until it gets some references. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - This is indeed the prototype of Bugs Bunny as we know him today FMAFan1990 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Bugs Bunny. If there are more sources than what are already at Bugs Bunny, then a more in-depth break-out article may be useful and interesting but without WP:RS, I agree with Reyk that it tends to unsourced plot summary fancruft. I don't see any benefit in deletion or salting. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:57, 23 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, the reliability of the website itself should be addressed elsewhere (non-admin closure). Icewedge (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    VG Chartz[edit]

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

    Besides being used as a source a couple of times and having minor coverage, this is not a notable web site. There's no reception to the web site, no major coverage of it. It's just a site with a lot of hits, and that's got nothing to do with notability. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete with extreme prejudice per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I believe this website is in fact notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mean to badger, but why is it notable? That it has been used as a source doesn't mean it's notable - a web site should have far more than that to be called notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article [18] seems to discuss them in some detail. But my judgement was based on them appearing to be an established and important source for information used by mainstream media and others. So, a judgement call based on the article and the references I found indicating they deserved to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • definitely keep Per WP:WEB,

    1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

    These meet the criterion.[19][20]

    3 The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

    These meet the criterion.[21][22][23][24]

    It is obvious VG Chartz is notable.--Kukule (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strong Keep per WP:WEB--Claude (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not very obvious from the article's content. All I see is sparse usage of VG Chartz occasionally - heck, I've probably observed VG Chartz in a capacity of people arguing that the methodology is flawed, and VG Chartz not rebutting it by revealing what they are working with to find these figures. That Brett, someone who lacks any formal training in sales analysis, posts his figures on a web site and it gets used because no other sources exist is not a good reason for it to have an article. The article cites VGChartz for much of it content, including the Content and Analysis sections. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and most of the argument for keeping the article lies in it being sourced several times as a result of its popularity, not its accuracy. On top of all this, it's been decided time and time again that the vgcharts and vgchartz sites not be used due to its inaccuracy. I just don't see how being sourced a few times is an assertion of notability - I've seen far more articles deleted or merged that have much, much more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — the first two sources referenced by Kukule seem to meet the general notability guideline as providing in-depth coverage via multiple independent sources. MuZemike (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appears notable per the sources provided. I'm confused why unreliability keeps coming up so much here, such as this from ALttP: "...most of the argument for keeping the article lies in it being sourced several times as a result of its popularity, not its accuracy". Exactly. We don't base arguments for keeping articles on the accuracy of the subject—we base it (in part) on it the sources available. Pagrashtak 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep VGChartz had has third party reviews of how its sales data compares to NPD Group, etc., and thus has been a somewhat controversial subject, thus it is notable. Just because it has an article on WP doesn't mean it should be considered a trustworthy source for other game articles. --MASEM 15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep VGChartz is a popular website that has been sourced in many major news sources. The person who put this up for deletion appears to have a personal hatred of the site. Accuracy is NOT one of the criteria by which wikipedia judges whether or not to keep an article, as much as he would like it to be. - Anonymous, 18 November 2008 21:52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.175 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 November 2008
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Google news search lights up like a Christmas tree. PC World, Wired, Ars Technica, Kotaku, Joystiq. Shit, even the NPD hates their guts. "Besides being used as a source a couple of times--" Stop. Your rationale is false and full of inaccuracies. SashaNein (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, VGChartz's accuracy as a measure for sales is independent of its notability. Theoretically, it could be wrong 70% of the time, yet still be notable by Wikipedia's standards because of secondary sourcing (OH WATE). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:47, 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. SoWhy 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HHey Gujju[edit]

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

    Unreleased Bollywood film. No evidence of notability claimed, let alone having evidence provided for. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Fails WP:NFF. Although sources indicate production has begun, the article provides no details on this area. With proposed release 9 months away it is too premature to create a separate article. LeaveSleaves talk 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per the words "Unreleased Bollywood film" being all together. No cut on Bollywood, but the thousands that do get released are enough to manage, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, expand, and add additional sources. With respects, Times of India says shooting has begun. More to the point, since WP:NFF states that no film should have an article until principle filming has begun, this now qualifies. So with expansion and additional sourcing, this can be a very nice article per [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. The details are available, and I believe in WP:ATD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe in WP:ATD as well, but here's the deal with your sources. Sources 2, 3, 4 give one and the same information. 5 discusses possible plotline, 6 (unreliable source) details casting of an actor. 7 is useless and has no information at all. Neither of these sources, or the ones I've found in my search, provide production details, one of the requirements under WP:NFF. LeaveSleaves talk 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the article fails even WP:GNG with that Google news coverage of actors and producer, then it should have been immediately tagged for speedy deletion and not brought to AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said in my very first comment, there are valid sources available informing initiation of production and there is some news coverage present. But it clearly fails WP:NFF from thereon. LeaveSleaves talk 11:46, 13 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 02:07, 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. SoWhy 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominic Elmaloglou[edit]

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

    The subject of this article is a non-notable formerly-working actor who has won no awards that I was able to find, and has no material coverage--even on fansites like tv.com--beyond the most basic filmography info. The subject's roles have not been covered in reviews of the shows he has been on, nor has he had starring roles in any of them. Bongomatic 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The actor has been a regular cast member of two popular Australian television series and is a notable actor in this country. There are a number of links to this article. J Bar (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regular" may be a bit of an overstatement. On G.P., he was in 27 episodes of a total of 318 listed in IMDB (8.5%). In Far and Away, where IMDB doesn't have complete episode information, he is listed as having been in only one season of the show, which is now in its 21st year. IMDB doesn't show him as having been nominated for or having won any awards (major or otherwise). In short, it's hard to see how he qualifies for general notability or the specific criteria for entertainers (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment). But if there are verifiable sources referencing any claims along those lines, please highlight them. Bongomatic 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Given the work that goes into any article, and the material on this actor as described above by JBar, it's not worth deleting this article unless there's definitely something very wrong with it. Sardaka (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While this essay is not policy, it is pretty useful to review. You specifically mention this old chestnut, which the essay points out is not grounds for inclusion. Bongomatic 11:31, 9 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, 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 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. A search for sources returns no results. Cunard (talk) 03:05, 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. G7'ed. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SS Titan (2012)[edit]

    SS Titan (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    I have deleted this article per the G7 CSD citeria after the deletion was requested by the author of this article. -MBK004 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There appear to be no independent sources for this proposed ship, only the rather glossy promotional website, that has been in existence all of three weeks. It makes grand claims but the only other reference to this project I can find is here, on a page that lists dozens of attempts to build a new titanic. No funding sources have been finalised, suggests this is a bit crystal ball. Other AFDs such as this one would indicate that we ought to await further developments before a wikipedia article can be justified. Benea (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. This is a project of a nonprofit foundation which has been in existence only three months,[32] located in central North America far from any sea, yet proposes to commission and operate a vessel evocative (yet three times the size) of RMS Titanic. Wikipedia reflects notability, it should not be used to create it, nor to publicize someone's good-faith but unrealized and improbable project. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship) except the G4 criteria. -MBK004 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Too speculative. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agreed this article does indeed have many issues and should be deleted and IS very unrealistic until further developments. Theoanders23 (talk) 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    NB-- Theo is the editor who authored it; can this be treated as db:author? Kablammo (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, but I'd err on the side of caution and have you ask him to tag the page itself with that CSD tag just to be sure. -MBK004 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It appears that this is actually some promotion for the "SS Titan Foundation", which wants to raise 1.6 billion dollars in donations over the next three years, a tall order even if one is living somewhere that isn't experiencing a recession. Wikipedia is not the place for fundraisers. By the way, Wikipedia is there when you need it -- now it needs you. Donate now. But other than that, Wikipedia is not the place for fundraisers. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- even if there were RS, this would fail WP:CRYSTAL. There is no certainty that it will happen, so there should be no article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 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 Nick in the Afternoon. MBisanz talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stick Stickly[edit]

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

    Non-notable character, no out of universe info, mostly duplicates info from the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:41, 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. Jclemens and the nominator convinced me. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of characters from Total Drama Island[edit]

    List of characters from Total Drama Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not even bringing up the lack of sources and terrible prose (it also seems to have been vandalized significantly in Leshawna and Courtney), but it's mostly just a summary of what the characters do in the episodes, which isn't important, and acts mostly as a second list of episodes. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Sounds like the article needs to be fixed and redundant information deleted. If there's nothing left... well. But my problem deleting the list is that the characters appear to be notable. So I'm not clear on what that would accomplish. And I prefer a list of character article (even a bad one) to a plethora of individual articles on these characters. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because there would be no target for the characters doesn't mean we need to make separate articles. They're notable to some extent, but not enough that they need their own list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you'll be hard pressed to fit that amount of content in the main article. And it appears (again and again) people want their character and character list article. I'm not big on fighting losing battles. Is there some important reason not to "live and let live" when it comes to this kind of article? Won't it just be recreated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Because the article is beyond unsalvageable, has no assertion of notability for one single character, and is incredibly indiscriminate. There is the main article on the cartoon, and the episodes list. so there's much reproduction of the content from those articles in this one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      "Beyond unsalvageable" is just an excuse for people too lazy to do the work, I'm sorry to say. It took me ten minutes to trim the article to just the necessary details, and a lack of sources on a character list, which are made for the express purpose of clumping otherwise unnotable characters, is simply not enough reason to delete once that's done. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm afraid this is a major television show, and a popular one at that, and so by definition notable. This extends to the characters in the show. The article has recieved very substantial interest from a large number of editors, also indicating a sort of notability. I actually agree with you in a sense that the characters aren't notable, but that's my personal opinion. And it's contradicted by the rules governing notability and the interest in this article shown by editors on Wikipedia; my preference for a greater focus on more "substantive" articles not-withstanding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a network television show, thus notable despite the lack of sources currently included in the article. The AfD notice is NOT placed properly on the article; I'm going to fix that. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The {{afd1}} notice is now placed properly on the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article needs cleanup, and lord knows I've done it at least three times, but not deletion. Such character lists are perfectly acceptable spinouts, particularly with such a large primary cast. You can barely leave this thing alone for a day before IPs flood in by the dozens and fill it with nonsense. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Besides the over-eager anon edits keeping the regulars on their toes and a seemingly nn section for the animals it's a good candidate for more watchers and cleanup, not deletion. treelo radda 23:49, 17 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) 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment The AFD1 template was not placed on the article until the 16th. This should stay open a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment at 4 keeps vs. 1 nominator delete !vote, I seriously doubt that the outcome is going to change, especially per WP:OUTCOMES. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, while it was unlisted (could have sworn I put it on the page), if it was put on the page when it was made, it's not like we'd see any input on the deletion side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephanie Edgely (Valkyrie Cain)[edit]

    Stephanie Edgely (Valkyrie Cain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant 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 the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:00, 13 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, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant. As long as that list exists, this character should be included in it - but there's no need for as much information as there is here. (If left as it is, it would violate WP:OR and WP:PLOT, as argued by the nominator.) The best approach is to cut this down to a much shorter summary, then merge into the character list. Terraxos (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Necessary information. She is the main character. Admittedly Plot summary has gone feral but that can be cut back.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Separate articles for the two main characters seems reasonable. That being said, they need to be referenced and made shipshape. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep important enough to justify keeping, though there isn't too much material to make a combination article impossible. Basically a question of style, and I see no reason to decide such things here and compel the article to be done one way or another. DGG (talk) 03:57, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Finey's Final Siren[edit]

    Finey's Final Siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    as per WP:NOTDIR, also a bit of WP:SPAM and WP:FANCRUFT. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:52, 13 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) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete It's a bit too promotional to me, almost like a private web site. However with references to help establish notability it could sway me over the other side of the fence. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete Indirect references in reliable sources, but most likely to be referenced only in AFL blogs and forums, I think it falls foul of WP:FANCRUFT and lacks general notability. Murtoa (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment very limited third party coverage as revealed in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete, seems to be a regional sports programme of little notability, as User:Michellecrisp points out above, while there is some coverage of it, it appears to be sporadic and minor. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 23 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 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Gnarls Barkley costumes[edit]

    List of Gnarls Barkley costumes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is basically unsourced listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seriously? This I've got to see. Hmmmm... Well, it was better and worse than I thought. I don't know what to do with this "article". But kudos to whoever made it for having an interest in the subject and providing such unique and interesting content. It's hard for me to vote keep on soemthing that doesn't seem encyclopedic, but it's kind of cool. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 13 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) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I see nothing that would suggest this list to be of any importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- First of all, it's totally unsourced. I suppose it's possible that some references can be found that verify some of the costumes, but there'll be nothing to show notability. Then there's our first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains encyclopedia articles. I just don't know how this could be considered a topic appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--even if this were sourced as well as the Ken Starr report, it'd still be unsuitable. Gnarls Barkley's customes, cool as they are, are not encyclopedic content. If they belong anywhere, they belong in the GB article. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 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 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emilia Pinball[edit]

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

    Article does not explain how the game is notable (WP:N), or provide any references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed without comment by the article's original contributor. As for a web search, [34] and [35] are the nearest I could find; basically blogs that do not satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 09:55, 13 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, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per above really, there's no notability that I can find at all and the stub seems to be more promotional than encyclopaedic. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 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. MBisanz talk 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CJ Follini[edit]

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

    No reliable sources with non-trivial coverage to substantiate this individual's notability. Reads like a resume. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:25, 13 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, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It has references and meets bio notability, though it needs a lot of work in order for it to be encyclopaedic (MOS, Wikifying, etc) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep I just wanted to add that i recently attended the RealShare Helathcare Real estate Conference in Dallas where Mr Follini was the featured speaker. link title He is considered on of the leaders in the industry and a sought-after speaker.Chrisreen (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) — Chrisreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep CJ Follini is the Executive Producer of our documentary - [36] and was the CEO of the largest indie film studio in NYC during the 90's and early 2000's. Davenovack (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)— Davenovack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Neutral or very week keep as this article has been listed for 9 days with nobody but the nominator arguing "delete". However there seems to be a strong conflict of interest here. Both with the previous "keep" !vote (CJ Follini is the Executive Producer of our documentary) and with the fact that the article has been extensively edited by the subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:44, 22 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. SoWhy 13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NABARRO LLP[edit]

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

    Declined speedy; promotional tone, no references (third-party or otherwise). KurtRaschke (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Speedy delete as copyvio http://www.nabarro.com/about-us I will tag as such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Well, portions are definitely copied off their website, but I couldn't find the history section which makes up the bulk of this article. As it contains no references and serves solely as a corporate profile and advertisement I think it should be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 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) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only example of detailed coverage by independent reliable sources that I found was this recent article[37] in a local newspaper. Not enough here to pass WP:ORG. Most of the info in the article is unsourced (not even to the firm's website), so looks like WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability is not asserted. Do it sounds like an advertisement for the law firm? Alexius08 (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A UK law firm with 4210 layers is large enough to be notable. Look for some real sources. DGG (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Used (album). MBisanz talk 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Demos from the Basement[edit]

    Demos from the Basement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed prod. Article on a demo. Per WP:MUSIC, demos are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article cites one reliable source, but the source does not mention (much less cover substantially) the demo in question. Source provided is about a collection which, presumably, drew from this demo. No other sources provided. No other reliable sources found. SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 13 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, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as not notable per WP criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable per the music notability guidelines, and seems overly promotional. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to The Used, because it's a term that's likely to be searched. The info in this article can be placed in the "Early years" section, which needs to be expanded more. Some info, like the tracklisting, could be put into The Used (album), which would provide more of a background on the subject. I'm willing to do the work of merging all the info into these articles. If notability is established in the future, the article could easily be re-created with the edit history intact. --Pwnage8 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-direct, as suggested above--Cassius 52 (talk) 13:23, 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 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet magazine[edit]

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

    This article makes no claims of notability. One of its references is to a media guide that may show circulation data (aggregate seems to be 460,000, which seems quite high--but composition matters), but it is in Japanese and the information is in bitmap format, so translation software fails to identify it. Neither of the other references does anything to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and there are no hints in the article. It has been tagged for reference improvement for more than a month and nobody has touched it since the day it was written. Bongomatic 22:09, 13 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) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, basically per nom. The references provided do not demonstate notability, and google searching in English does not turn up much either. If somebody can find Japanese sources demonstrating notability, it would be a different matter, but as it stands does not pass either WP:N or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: smells like sweet spam. Notability was not asserted. Alexius08 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The magazine isn't notable and the article does have a tinge of spam to it. The magazine label itself could be notable under the guidelines for orgs; but this article doesn't attempt to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete - To save on the pileon I will leave my rationale as "per nom". — neuro(talk) 06:53, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Human Doable Challenge-Response System[edit]

    Human Doable Challenge-Response System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable research project. Only citation is someone's lecture slides. Search for "Human Doable Challenge-Response System" on Google or Google Scholar reveal no results. ZimZalaBim talk 19:21, 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, treelo radda 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's an essay. It's a very pretty essay, but it is still an essay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 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. John254 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MikroTik[edit]

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

    Non-notable company with. Article cites no 3d party references, makes (let alone demonstrates) no claims that would give rise to presumption to notability. Bongomatic 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. Not completely sure about this, but it looks to me like this probably passes WP:ORG. There are several books that provide coverage of this company which, according to them, is a popular router manufacturer in the developing countries:[38][39][40]. A plain google search[41] gives over 4.5 million hits. While I usually wouldn't reply on plain goggle searches for checking notability, in this case a look through these results seems to show a pretty wide presence of the company around the world. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those references don't appear to me to meet the "significant coverage" test. Nor does presence in the absence of "significant coverage" confer notability. Bongomatic 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Article is rather well done and company may sneak past notability criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Operative words: "sneak past", meaning evade. Yes, if this article is kept it will be through evading the notability guidelines. Bongomatic 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I simply don't see this meeting the muster of wp:corp in its current state. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Google News has a handful of entries. Whilst they should be reliable, I can't be sure if they are press releases or what. Perhaps some of our slavic-speaking friends can assist. Marasmusine (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Keep as it is enough to satify me under the notability guidelines for organisations. Weak because it just does that. Importantly it doesn't seem overly promotional in nature. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Cranky, so take with grain of salt. I see Baltic articles being nominated for deletion because of perceptions which, in the end, state that nothing Baltic is big enough to be notable. This is quite frankly killing off any initiative to create and develop Baltic articles. I would very much like a break from arguing over Baltic history during Soviet occupation. It would be a nice change to work on some small articles, but not if there's a whole new set of WP:HOOPS to jump through, which is the unfortunate perception I'm developing. -PētersV (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. Baltic is not Slavic. Glad to help, but not if it's more WP:HOOPS. :-) -PētersV (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination makes no mention of the size of the company. There are plenty of notable companies that are small in number of employees--this just doesn't (to the nominator) appear to be one of them. Bongomatic 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pēter, the reference to Slavic-speakers has to do with the fact that a major market for MikroTik products is in central, eastern, and southern Europe (particularly Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Serbia), where they like robust and inexpensive technology solutions. If, for example, some Polish or Czech IT person could find a reputable third-party reference to MikrotTik's significance in these markets, then the article could probably be saved from the threat of deletion. I'm trying my best to find one, but I'm only an historian after all... —Zalktis (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Third party references have now been added to demonstrate the significant penetration of the company's products in markets as diverse as Czech Republic and Brazil. —Zalktis (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Penetration" doesn't seem to be a criterion in WP:CORP, and the references don't appear to me (noting I don't read the languages) to provide significant coverage of the company itself. Bongomatic 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added more third-party references, some of them scholarly, and about a new area, Africa. —Zalktis (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "the references don't appear to me (noting I don't read the languages) to provide significant coverage of the company itself." The whole Czech article (the first of a series), is about MikroTik routers. A Brazilian newspaper specifically mentions a Latvian company's products; does this not satisfy in part the demands of WP:CORP#Primary criteria? "Significant coverage" is, at best, a subjective criterion. Do you mean to say that, following your reading of WP:CORP, a company's products or brand name may well be notable, but that this does not necessarily mean the company itself is notable? —Zalktis (talk) 13:14, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_18&oldid=1081072566"