Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Cquan (after the beep...) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Science Fiction and Fantasy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Epic Science Fiction and Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 24 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-A7. — Scientizzle 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kolstovna[edit]

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

A normal man here in the world. I cant find any notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per WP:CSD#A7... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:04, 25 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. Original research; non-notable; unverifiable; etc. seicer | talk | contribs 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Senators Average Tenure Increasing[edit]

US Senators Average Tenure Increasing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure WP:OR-- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:32, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Educational inequality[edit]

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

While this is a well written and well referenced piece, it is a paper with original research and a conclusion, with recommendations. It has a place somewhere, but not in its current form on Wikipedia. The phenomenon will be notable and verifiable, that is not in doubt, but sweeping changes are required to make it acceptable here. We must not confuse well written pieces with Wikipedia articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, could you please provide specific suggestions on what needs to change? I deleted the conclusion, and furthermore do not believe this article needs to be deleted in full. I have cited all my sources, and have made no unsupported claims. All research cited is valid from reliable sources. Please reconsider its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psflasch (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please see your talk page, where I will leave some thoughts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a lot of work, but that isn't a reason to delete it. Educational inequality is a valid encyclopedic topic. -Atmoz (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Needs work but has good refs and is a very important topic in education and social policy. Disclosure: my political opinions are right of centre in UK terms, but I still think it's an important topic. --Philcha (talk) 13:35, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of science and religion scholars[edit]

List of science and religion scholars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a well-defined notable classification of scholar. Certainly some people have written about both or have written about the intersection of science and religion (for instance, Michael Behe), but does that make them science and religion scholars in any consistent sense? The inclusion criteria whitelist a few sources, and generally require original synthesis. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate. This article should be split into "List of science scholars" and "List of religion scholars". Jonathan321 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was doubtful about this at first, but it is list of scholars in the science and religion community. i.e those who are seriously addressing the relationship between the two activities, and have been peer reviewed by in that community. The idea of splitting it into two lists completely misses the point of this list. I doubt that Michael Behe would qualify for this list. As the non said he is not part of the science and religion community. ,--Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, an unusual one--I share BDukes view--I expected a thorough mess, but the article actually has quite reasonable criteria--people who are notable or published a notable book, and who are listed in standard lists. The titles of their books make it evident that they are indeed notable scholars on this subject. And the subject is a well defined one. I don't think there's synthesis here--just a good conception of n article and a model for how to do others. DGG (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the nominator. It appears to be a hodgepodge list that doesn't properly explain why these scholars deserve special citation. It is, admittedly, an interesting idea for an article -- but not in its current indiscriminate state. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it does need an inclusion principle stated somewhere, but right now it looks like it is a solid list full of notable people in a narrow field. --Buridan (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list contains several individuals who have had their own Wikipedia articles for a while; enough for them to have been deleted already if they were not notable. The current science-religion debate is all over the news, enough for the topic to be considered notable. Michael Behe is certainly a key player in that debate.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ecoleetage, too indiscriminate for my tastes. JBsupreme (talk) 21:55, 26 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 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Airlines[edit]

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

Another failed airline start up, it seems. No non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for it if we could find some non-trivial coverage in reliable third party publications. Oh, wait, we can't? JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 26 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 08:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Air Group[edit]

DJ Air Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A proposed start-up airline (read: business plan). Directory-style sourcing, but no evidence of a plane. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 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 08:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Airways[edit]

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

An airline that promises to deliver business class service for 40% of other airlines' coach fares, but for some reason does not seem to be able to get off the ground. Can't imagine why. Sources are extremely thin, and the company apparently has no existence other than as a wildly over-optimistic business plan. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No employees, aircraft or financing?! Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GetCITED[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found. Powers T 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject needs to GetNOTABILITY before we can include it here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is actually a fascinating site-- a social bookmarking site for academic papers. Well worth browsing. I had heard of it, but never tried it until just now. Now if i could only remember just where I had heard of it.... .Found the following refs. 1/ a blog posting [1] from the Chronicle of HE blog, but its just a member posting, and isn't a RS, and what it says is not indicative of notability. know something about it? 2/ recommended,not just listed, at the Vanderbilt Univ Library Site [2], 3/ Univ. of Alberta, 4/ A discussion on the professional mailing list web4lib, [3] which although not a formal source, is a fairly reliable source widely used in the profession--and with a quite informative pair of comments. ,6/ Refs on other professional lists : [4], [5], and, finally, a group of well informed letters to Science magazine [6]. Put together, I think this is enough to show widespread academic use of it, & consequent notability . DGG (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that this article discusses it although I can't access the full-text (saw a snip of the paragraph in a GScholar search). This SSRN working paper (author affiliated with the Max Planck Society) also discusses it. So this this article from Liber Quarterly. Anyhow, sad and ironic to see overzealous Wikipedians trying to squelch the flow of structured scholarly information. You don't score points for successful AfDs. II | (t - c) 08:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The university sources listed by DGG and II make it clearly notable. Close this AfD per WP:SNOW --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE This was erroneously closed as a WP:SNOW keep by a non-administrator. I have overturned that as the person had absolutely no business doing so. JBsupreme (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was actually closed by Schuym1, the editor who brought the AfD, presumably in an attempt to withdraw the deletion request. I agree, however, that the AfD should run its course as there are delete comments from people other than the nominator. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I have access to the tourism article mentioned by II, but that only mentions this site in passing. DGG arguments are compelling, but I am mitigated I guess because I registered on the site myself months ago and then never really used it because it was just too much work (for instance, in contrast to other sites you cannot import articles from, e.g., PubMed, so you have to input all your publications by hand). Perhaps this will change (or even has already changed, I just never went back).... --Crusio (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nor have I used it, though I know about it. But there are quite a number of things I could have used but don't--that does not make them any the less notable. I use some rather odd things, too, and it doesn't make them notable either. DGG (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. You're right, whether or not I think it is useful is immaterial. I don't knw anyone who uses this site either, though. But there seems to be some notability per the sources that you uncovered. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 29 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 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Gravity Corporation[edit]

Unified Gravity Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Coverage extends to a patent application and a related paper in a low-tier journal. Prod contested (Talk:Unified Gravity Corporation). - Eldereft (cont.) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Start-up company with no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the factoids listed on the talk page is notable. Powers T 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has been satisfied as Wiki guidelines state as the Unified Gravity Corporation paper "Gravity Theory Based on Mass-Energy Equivalence" is published by Acta Physica Polonica B (established in 1920), which is recognized by the European Physical Society. ChildofMidnight, Powers, and Eldereft equates European with low tier so their statement show a high degree of American bias. All patent material should meet notability as it is published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In addition if a person enters Hydrogen Lithium Fusion in a google search, Unified Gravity Corporation and their patent is the first two of 1030 entries. It is notable that this is this company is working with Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion at a NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The statement that there is no in-depth coverage from independable sources is not true as the patents document the inventions as well as experimental proof of concepts and experimental results. In addition, the published gravity theory give an explanation as to the functioning of the inventions. Gravityforce (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patent documents are not the same as in-depth coverage from independent sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tossing around unsupported accusations of nationalist bias does nothing but harm to your position. Powers T 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the United Nation's website mentions the part about them working with NASA. Can anyone submit information to them, or do they check up on it properly? How come its not mentioned on the NASA website? Anything NASA does usually has people discussing it on science sites. I Google for "Unified Gravity Corporation" and "NASA" and hardly anything comes up. I'm doubting the story now. Also, do they work with them, or is it just them down there like countless thousands of others each year, trying to show off their latest concept to ask for funding? Dream Focus (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no independent reliable sources that comment on the significance of this company. A patent filed by inventor X does not prove the notability of the invention. Otherwise we should have a Wikipedia article on everything ever patented. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a patent is not notable until there is significant discussion in other sources whether involving litigation, or exploitation. In this case it isnt even a patent, just an unexamined patent application, which is of no authority whatsoever. An individual journal paper not widely referred to is not evidence of notability either, no matter in what journal. Hydrogen-lithium fusion is very real, and worth a redirect to an appropriate article, but that does not mean this claimed invention or this company is. DGG (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The corporation satisfies notability for a corporation as it is a business. Even in the editors guidelines it states "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." This is not the case. EdJohnston and DGG needs to know a patent is independent reliable secondary published source and the Wiki guidelines do not state otherwise. The Unified Gravity Page does not go into the patent app but rather uses it to establish the company exists and what it is trying to do. Would people please re-read the Company guidelines as I feel editors are getting off topic. From the guidelines a publication of any form (i.e. patent or academic physics journal) does establish notability a company. I thought the notability from a credible academic journal was encouraged as well. Gravityforce (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Nuclear Force Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:N, WP:COI, and probably a whole bunch of others. Gforce has yet to make an edit not promoting this alternative gravity theory and now the company attempting to profit from it.Horrorshowj (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With bonus points for the name of the business: Gravity — we own it! No showing of importance at all, let alone a description of the alleged gravity technology. Besides, everybody knows that gravity is the work of invisible Smurfs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It even sounds like a hoax. DVdm (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any article that satisfies DGG that it should be deleted has no hope :) Stifle (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please don't judge by that--there are a number of areas where i am more deletionist than the consensus--and I am as subject as anyone else to erratic misjudgments and idiocies. Rather, if my argument convinces you, then and only then, should you follow it. DGG (talk) 03:26, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossein[edit]

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

Band which does not seem to pass WP:BAND, no independent source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Unfortunately this does not past WP:BAND, they lack independant sources to verify themselves. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lengthy article with some good information on a band that does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Your Subculture Soundtrack on Wikia. While there are no independent sources, no albums on a record label (major or otherwise), and altogether no evidence of notability, I'd hate to see this hard work lost. Powers T 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you need our permission to do that. Sounds like a nice idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this page as the band is extremely popular in many parts of the NJ independent scene. I updated the page today with references to more independent sources, and I believe the page now passes WP:BAND. MetalheadFromNewJersey (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008
You need to find substantial coverage from reliable media. The Exctomag interview is pretty good, but it's probably not enough. I suggest saving what you've done and when there is more news media coverage or you find more substantial coverage you can try recreating. I also recommend reading article on Wikipedia to understand the standards and formatting a bit better. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link to an extensive interview with a fairly large website, as well as a link to a nationally distributed magazine spot, among the one you mentioned. That makes three substantial sources, including a national print article; not sure how much substantial I can get. MetalheadFromNewJersey4:09, 25 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is little more than a combination of a dictionary definition, original research, and a list of useage examples. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Article is far more than a dictionary definition. It needs to be better referenced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be immediately transwikied to Wiktionary. Etymology is in the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Usage examples are in the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Unless some sources can be found that expound upon the concept of blah-ness, rather than upon the word itself, this article belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit Although much of the discussion of blah-ness (thanks Powers :-) needs to be cut down or otherwise cleaned up, this is nowhere near a dictionary definition: a reasonable dictionary definition would have far less information and go into this subject far less. It's like any other phrase: if we can find examples of its usage and significance, it's suitable for an article. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dictionary articles are defined not by size but by content. Examples of usage are explicitly within the domain of dictionaries; any good-sized dictionary has plenty of usage examples. A clear demonstration of significance would be sufficient to support an encyclopedia article (as is the case with, say fuck), but I just don't see "blah" reaching that level of notability as a word. Powers T 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (to counter the equally ridiculous "Speedy keep" above). This is an over-glorified dictionary definition. Just because the article is lengthy, due to a long list of "examples", which are not cited by reliable third party publications mind you, does not mean it gets a free pass from our WP:NOT policy. Dictionary definitions belong in, you guessed it, dictionaries! JBsupreme (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're addressing content issues not notability. As I understand them, AfD proceedings determine notability not whether an article is bad enough to delete when it could be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you're addressing thin air. Saying you hope something can be fixed without demonstrating in a verifiable fashion that it actually can be is meaningless. Vapor. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fixable. More than a word, a concept with several related meanings. Considerable potential for expansion. and sourcing DGG (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend and DGG. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Blah" is not a subject, nor is the word itself covered by sufficient reliable sources to warrant its own article (unlike, say, supercalifrajilisticexpialidocious). I don't believe the article can ever advance beyond a dictdef even if all the original research and editorialising were fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything here that goes beyond what should be in a dictionary entry.--Michig (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear consensus to keep in previous discussion. Efforts should instead be made to improve article at this time. --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The original discussion took place 3+ years ago and our inclusion guidelines and policies have vastly improved since then. Do you have a keep argument founded in policy other? Suggesting that this should be improved is appreciated but you need to show that it actually can be within the framework of an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word appear even in titles and is discussed accordingly. See for example, this. Other sources discuss how the phrase has been supplanted by other phrases. See for example this. In other words, it is addressed in multiple published books that are not just dictionaries and in diverse contexts. These and many other sources should be more than enough for writing an encyclopedic article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are spectacularly weak references to base an article on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • When added to the ones already in the article and the ones mentioned by others in this discussion, they are collectively more than sufficient. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Multitudes of trivial sources do not collectively make a subject notable. That should really be made explicit in our guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which is why we are fortunate in this case that we have significant coverage in reliable sources. --A NobodyMy talk 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional reason to keep: Apparently, "blah" has a presence in academic research: [7] ("Two experiments showed that articulating “blah” repeatedly aloud or silently interfered with the speed and accuracy of judging whether pairs of words rhymed"); [8] ("In the suppression condition, subjects were instructed to repeat the word ``blah’’ at an even pace "); [9] ("Close your eyes and substitute the word blah-blah for alcohol in any one of those sentences"); [10] ("For example, the model might see three different shades of red, all named by the word blah"; [11] (""the collection of all statements that assign a value to the variable 'x' and are contained in procedures whose documentation contains the word 'blah'"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't see how simply using a word in academic research is demonstrative of its notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are millions of words used in academic research; what makes "blah" notable among them? Powers T 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that the word serves a function in the research methods, not that it happens to appear in the research reports. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah; then we would need a source that identifies that commonality and discusses it, otherwise it's original research. Powers T 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Without a source, we don't have license to identify it explicitly as a commonality, but the reader is at liberty to infer this (or not to infer this) if we point to individual instances of its use in research. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it isn't explicitly noted by a source, then there's no establishment of notability. This chimes with the general rule of not inferring notability through the inclusion of a plethora of trivial examples. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not talking about notability; I'm talking about verifiability. This is where the fine line between policy (WP:V) and guideline (WP:N) can make a difference. We can't establish from these sources that there is a notable general property of "blah," but we can point to individual instances in which the word is used in publication. I'm not claiming that this is one of Wikipedia's strongest articles, but I do think it's verifiable enough to keep and to work with. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Evidence should be used in order to back up facts; if not, it's just a data dump. You're suggesting that we include evidence that the word is used in some specific, notable sense in science, while omitting any explicit assertion of such, apparently in order to induce such reasoning in the mind of the reader; and that further, this is sufficient grounds to keep the article. I'd suggest that if the route to notability is as circuitous as this that it may be that a userspace rewrite would pay dividends if and when direct sources show up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs more references and a clean-up (as the headers indicate), but these are not reasons for deletion. Also, it seems to fit into a wiki category system. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has potential as an article beyond a dic-def, notable element of speech, blah blah blah. MickMacNee (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is notable about it? Simply asserting notability doesn't move the discussion along. Powers T 12:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a dicdef. —Angr 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Yes it is." But neither terse statement is very useful here without explanation. Powers T 12:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary - The "Examples of use" section is distinctly dictionarial. The Etymology section is also dictish. In the absence of a "The word blah's impact on ... something," then the cited history of the word should be migrated to the other project, and a soft redirect set up on the page lingering here. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't do soft redirects in articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary and delete here. I don't see anything beyond a dicdef. -- Alexf(talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs enhancing, not erasing. The arguments for its deletion are...well, for lack of a better word, blah. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And not because the article is poor, which it is--and a vast array of additional sources wouldn't make it inherently better. The problem is that it's a dictionary definition, at best. Sorry Ecoleetage, but you'll have to do more than just blah us naysayers ;) Because definition and usage is all I see in the article; nothing in the article suggests that the word is more than just a word. Now, some of the Keepers have proposed such meanings. Child actually gives no reasons, really. Nyttend says it has too much depth for a dictionary--I respectfully disagree, since the article actually has little depth, though it has mass, and even if it did have more depth than a dictionary definition, well, filling a whole page on 'blah' is still a lot of blah. DGG, in their usual terse fashion, offers suggestion and claims concept-status but gives no proof. Cosmic Latte says keep, and then expands--but, for instance, there would need to be an inherent quality to the word 'blah' that makes it useful for these experiments (like the relationship between leprosy and the armadillo), and I don't see that there is (and of course there ought to be a double-blind study, with placebo blahs, etc.). Finally, Nobody proposes an example, but unfortunately that example of proof of the notability of 'yadda yadda,' and hardly makes 'blah' notable. Alright. It's a NO for me, since there is nothing that I can see about the word 'blah' that means anything beyond the meaning of the word, that makes it a real-live thing, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we should make it a "list of notable blah uses". :) I notice there is already a blah disambiguation page, and yet you would propose deleting the entry on the term itself instead of fixing it? Interesting, but illogical. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing illogical about it. The Iggy Pop album, for instance, is notable (and good, by the way), not because it has the word 'blah' in it, but for plenty other reasons. The word 'blah' is not notable, in an encyclopedia, because it isn't that special of a word. Not like 'yadda yadda,' which carries the weight of Seinfeld and a whole generation, or the word 'is,' which has the weight of President Clinton, not to mention the entire mass of existence. Blah is simply a word. Just like 'simply.' I can come up with 680 example of people using the word 'simply' in a sentence, and you'd think me crazy--why is 'blah' any different? Drmies (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply doesn't even have its own page, let alone a Disambig page. Blah however, is big time. It's got a disambig page, an article, and hopefully a "list of", coming soon! Simply Red, but it's still just an adverb (is that right?). But I can have a case of the blahs, I can talk a lot and blah blah blah, or I can use describe things as non-descript, as in your arguments are rather blah. But blah is a big time cultural phenomenon and more than just a word. That's why it's such an integral part of life, as in the case of that album you like. And who's going to be reminded about the Sesame Street Count using blah without this crucial article? Did you even realize it was the name of the newspaper in Archie Comics?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cosmic Latte says keep, and then expands--but, for instance, there would need to be an inherent quality to the word 'blah' that makes it useful for these experiments." That would certainly help, but people are strange critters who don't always prefer things due to their "inherent qualities." But, maybe "blah" does have the inherent quality of..well...blahness--that is, blandness and neutrality, which make it a handy, practical research tool. I'm not sure if that can be verified, and I admit that it seems slightly absurd to be seeking the inherent qualities of "blah," but it seems reasonable at least to point out that various researchers have found various functions for the word. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely: "'Blah' is also used within a compound noun, suggesting a psychological state or expressing an opinion; for example, February blahs describes a generally depressed condition during winter" passes the denotation component of WP:NAD. See also [12] and [13]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:52, 28 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. I'll elaborate on deletion details on the talk page, but in a nutshell, while the article is notable in-universe, there hasn't been significant coverage on it to prove the notability of the subject matter in the real world. Also, transwikiied to Gundam wiki here. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century technology[edit]

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

I have seen some in-universe articles in my time but this really takes the biscuit - It has large sections about fictional equations (which it actually explains) and a typical piece of content is

"The Minovsky particle has near-zero rest mass - though, like any particle, its mass increases to reflect its potential or kinetic energy - and can carry either a positive or negative electrical charge. When scattered in open space or in the air, the repulsive forces between charged Minovsky particles cause them to spontaneously align into a regular cubic lattice structure called an I-field.".

All of the sources seem to be primary and I suspect (but not speaking Japanese cannot check) that it's also largely a cut and paste from those source books - the discussion on the talkpage says as much (and also mentions that the article would make no sense if written from an real world perspective!) . I don't believe that the material exists to make this an encyclopaedia article of the type that we host here. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks my heart to say this, but Delete. While the show itself is notable, This list/article is concerning something so far back, the only sources we could really get are from fansites. --Numyht (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several sources a referred to and subject is well established as notable by the coverage and books that discuss it. Article may need to be cleaned up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they are all primary - where is the secondary coverage? clean-up with what? to what? Gundam is clearly notable, but that doesn't mean all articles on gundam are notable, it's not inherited. I find the comment "may need to be cleaned up" laughable - have you read it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources to demonstrate the notability of this technology, and it does not inherit notability from the series of which it is a part. Powers T 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While most of this article's sources are primary sources, it links to multiple articles on the Japanese wikipedia, which indicates they think the topic is rather notable and hopefully could be used to obtain more sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the .JP wikipedia's rules on notability? they can vary quite widely between projects. Notability on .wp can be entirely difference from ours. Again, Gundam is highly notable, it doesn't mean that every part of it is notable for our purposes in producing quality articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might sound weird, but wikipedia's on other languages are not reliable --Numyht (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article got at least 3 third party secondary sources, 2, 4, 5, 7 are all third party(2 and 5 are the same source) 2 and 5 are from a magazine that published in the 70~80s, 4 is a magazine that is still selling well and 7 is a news article. This would show the very basic argument of this nomination as faulty. The only equation in the article is actually a real life equation, see Nuclear fusion for the reaction equation. In fact, the article is only poorly written, and the nom does not show any regards to the first 2 paragraphs where those are actually talking about the out of universe impact on the real world. Looks like the nom simply scanned through the article and did not read it before nominating. MythSearchertalk 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no - the real world impact is WP:Syn/WP:OR not based on the sources quoted - I do read those things before noming. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' a good combination article. In articles such as this every item does not have to show notability, just be relevant content. The technology of the series is clearly a major aspect, and its good to have it brought together Dividing up content this way is a matter of editing convenience, not a matter of deletion or inclusion on the grounds of noatbilty. . A reasonable article. The material is reasonably well sourced. DGG (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's all primary - it's all in-universe, there are no secondary sources and it all seems to be cut and paste from technical manuals (as noted by the authors on the talkpage). It's completely incoherent to anyone not versed in the gundam universe. This is a good article? wow - what an eye-opener this afd is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at 2006 discussions, I have edited the page long since then to counter that. Per WP:RS, magazines and published online newspapers by major publications ARE secondary sources. They are NOT dedicated to the Gundam series and thus your arguments are incorrect. Read the first 2 paragraph and those are obviously not having the slightest chance of being cut and past from tech manuals. MythSearchertalk 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. Sources are all primary and I fear that the article contains a great deal of original research and synthesis. It's also the type of article that doesn't help the reader understand the fictional work. Instead, it slamming them with technobabble. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, tell me which part of the magazine and online newspaper sources are primary in your Sources are all primary argument. MythSearchertalk 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete In-universe. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." This article about fiction is in no way encyclopedic, and no sources are possible to find to assert that "Universal City technology" has any reception, impact, or significance to the real world. The article itself admits that "Although most can argue fictional technologies carry no real-life impact, these technologies are referred to in almost all of the series of Universal Century." The "references" all have to do with the game, no independant references can be found to assert why this technology is notable. Themfromspace (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those who said delete PLEASE define why magazine sources are primary. If you cannot do so, your arguments are faulty at best and does not show any willingness to discuss and fall into the category of WP:NN, WP:CRUFTCRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT since you don't read the discussion before you vote and per WP:NOT, this is NOT a vote but a discussion. Magazines and their special editions like appendices from third party publications and editorials ARE secondary sources, and reliable per WP:RS. All of the arguments here are simply western biased or I should say biased because of users do not know the magazines published in Japan.(And a fact is that at least one of the magazine sources listed a magazine that is publishing in North America) MythSearchertalk 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with the sources are that the magazines are not independant of the article's subject because they all specialize in the Gundam anime. Find some articles about Universal Century technology from sources that don't only write about Gundam. Themfromspace (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The magazines are independent of the subject, for example, the Gundam Century source is from OUT magazine, and it mainly talks about L points and electromagnetic projectiles and space colonizations and such. It is using the name Gundam in it because the anime talks about these scientific subjects and is very outstanding at the time. Having the name Gundam in it does not mean it is dependent of the subject, it only means that it is specialized in it. MythSearchertalk 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said there was no "significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". Meaning that any secondary sources do not have in depth discussion about the fictional technology from the perspective of the real world. You must read all of WP:N, not just the secondary sources bit, as well as WP:PLOT. Jay32183 (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the perspective of the real world, which is what the sources and the two sections are talking about. It is not only important to the development of the series and other later productions, but also inspiring to the academic world. How much more independent do you want to have other than having an academy set up to thoroughly inspect the possibility of such fictional technology in the real world? MythSearchertalk 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You still have not addressed the significant coverage issue. There is also no real world context, which you seem to be confusing with real world content. The plot information needs to support the real world information, which is not what this article does. There aren't sources with more than trivial coverage to allow the problem to be solved. Jay32183 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you are not answering the question. The sources showed enough notability that the topic is concerned by the real world enough so that an international academy is found and working, do you have an international academy working on Star wars or Star Trek technology? No, like the new source I have just added in said very clearly, to other universities, these might not be of significant, but in Japan, it is high academia. The source itself is addressing the notability issue once and for all, the other plot parts are not an issue here, but should be brought up in the talk page of the article. As long as the article is notable, it does not matter if some of the contents are not notable as long as they are of the topic. Should they be included in the article is another problem and does not support deletion arguments. MythSearchertalk 07:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing the point. There is no significant coverage for anything beyond plot. It doesn't matter who's publishing the real world material if there is only trivial coverage. Notable and important are not the same thing. Importance is completely irrelevant if there is no significant coverage. Universal Century technology is not notable as the is no significant coverage of real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Significant coverage means substantial coverage, not coverage that makes it seem important. Jay32183 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're missing the point, the sources are NOT about plot, but about its notability, all of them are asserting the notability of the subject in the real world, not plot summaries. Like I have asked several times, go read the first 2 sections and find the sources yourself, they are not plot summary at all, and shows that you are not discussing on topic item and kept using your own imagination or stereotyping the article before you come to vote MythSearchertalk 05:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have read the sources (or source rather, pictures of book covers are not sources) and the non-plot sections, one of which is completely unsourced. However, they are still not enough to justify the article. Not one source establishes the notability of the Universal Century technology. There are trivial mentions of the technology, nothing of substance is discussed. The Times article doesn't discuss the technology at all. I've checked the sources, I've read the article. You need to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, all of which this article fails to meet. You've been hinging on only a part of my argument, but not the part that actually matters. Stop looking at plot, stop looking at independent. Look at significant coverage. That's what is lacking. Also, the sources cannot discuss the notability, as has been mentioned many times before notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic". Please don't take me to be some fiction hating monster. I'm a bureaucrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki and I have not only supported, but recommended the removal of Xiaolin Showdown articles from Wikipedia because they didn't comply with policy. Jay32183 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This I don't understand what your point is. The Times source included things like mega-particle cannon and At a recent symposium held by the founders of the academy and academics, there were lively discussions about emulating the protective coating which prevents the fictional battle suits burning-up on atmospheric re-entry, and the airbags that protect the pilot from the violent lurches of battle., which is related to Universal Century Technology. The sources that you did not read are stating clearly that later productions are influenced by these technologies, and produced similar writings. Gundam Century is significant enough that a magazine published a special edition book with 1/3 of it discussing about the real life technologies that are related to them, which would be worth over 2/3 magazine length if they did it within the magazine. And 27 years later, Times have an article telling you that an international academy have been set up to research on topics including these. The Gizmodo source even directly relate a current development of the JSDF with these fictional technologies, with tons of other news sites follow up the story. Like I asked, how much more significance and third party coverage do you need for an article to exist? MythSearchertalk 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing admin Please consider all the arguments above and if no one answers why are magazines primary, their arguments are not fully developed and should not be considered. magazines publishing additional booklet for the topic calling them special edition is very notable in any sense per Wikipedia:Notability, and per WP:NNC, The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content. for what content should be modified, discuss in article talk page, not AfD discussion. MythSearchertalk 07:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Newtype article only covers one little statement out of the entire article and has nothing to do with covering the fictional technology of the series. The rest of the article is based entirely on original research and primary sources. --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OUT magazine special Gundam Century and the newspaper source are not primary and OR and the Newtype source is talking about how this is earning money for the company, how can you say that it is not related to the article? MythSearchertalk 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gundam Century is book printed under license and is hardly independent. And I don't see a newspaper source. I do see a blog used as a source, which doesn't pass under WP:RS. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gundam Century is NOT a book printed under license, it is from a magazine that predates the Gundam Anime and includes interviews and non-Gundam oriented topics. gizmodo is not a simple blog but a newspaper archive, use the title and you get hundreds of newspaper sites with the same news, like this one and this one. Gizmodo actually is a news provider in Japan and the blog is one of the news archive of it. MythSearchertalk 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's printed under license. A major magazine couldn't publish all that copyrighted material if it didn't have permission. Any magazine on Gundam will either be legal and not independent, or they are independent but don't have permission. When you're looking for a third-party source, it seems like common sense that it wont have Gundam in its name. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer then delete - This info is probably useful to someone and should be preserved on the appropriate wikia site; but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even ever read Gundam Century? Those info are copyrighted to Gundam Century instead of the official company, they made it up BEFORE the company took notice to the marketing possibility of these stuff. The company endorsed the info AFTER Gundam Century got popular, and hired some of the writers of it to continue their work there. It is published in early 80's where the copyright issue is not that much of a problem then all they need to do is have an acknowledgment in the back stating the name Gundam is licensed to Sotsu Agency, especially when it is a special edition that tagged with the anime magazine and not sold independently at the time(The renewal version is sold independently since the magazine is out of business already, the difficulty of re-publishing is also addressed in the renewal version since the copyright is not from the currently existing Gundam license holder but a closed company.) The main topic that covered 1/3 of the book called Gundam science is also 100% not referring to the science in the series but real world science like all the 70's development of space colony from L5 news and powered exoskeleton, space shuttle and mass driver, etc. The word Gundam is only used in the title and the introduction stating the technology of Gundam is derived from those.(Which comes from the interview parts that cover another 1/2 of the book) The only copyrighted item might be the 4 page(out of 176) plot summary and the fictional weapons names, and the 16 page story that uses the names of the main characters in the original story, yet in Japan they have a way better system for fans to create their own doujin and thus most of these does NOT require license beforehand. Your common sense does not work in Japan and is very obviously biased by your own local law. MythSearchertalk 07:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion reasons given under policy. Those claiming that these magazines are primary sources need to show some proof. Jtrainor (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is popped. There's plenty of Gundam articles floating around with no sources and blatant copyvio article bodies, and this perfectly well sourced and very informative one gets the chopping block? The world has gone mad. MalikCarr (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or just some of Wikipedia's policies are to blame and if necessary I would say for my vote Transwiki because my belief is that articles that have verifiable through good sourcing and identifying the material deserve to be moved to another wiki site if possible rather than deleting peoples good work for trivial reasons such as nobility. Yet I am willing to choose transwiki over deletion anyday just so both sides of the conflict will get what they want. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fansite material at best; completely inappropriate to a formal encyclopedia. Lack of referencing is a major issue — this can't be cited to acceptable sources, because all the sources are primary. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 29 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. Self-penned bio; NN; COI seicer | talk | contribs 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ponton Kennedy[edit]

Lee Ponton Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-written bio, reads as CV, no sources to back up claims. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:07, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vee Baku[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography, with no references provided and no information establishing the notability of the subject. Prod contested by author. BradV 20:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit that's an amusing take on the saying. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, played at the highest level of Ugandan football. Can I just mention how much I despise you for deleting people because they play in a poor country? Guess that would be against the rules. Juzhong (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that a personal attack directed against me.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "You" means "Wikipedia". Juzhong (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats a bit harsh, you should know we like to see evidence of said information, there is a cross reference system we use called citation. Please use it if you have websites to help support the information of said biographies otherwise we will delete all those with no support information. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence provided that he played professionally or in a full international match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:02, 29 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. Leaning towards delete, though, so if this isn't improved I would expect to see it back here in a month or two. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pornstar (film)[edit]

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

Future film, currently no notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there was even a description of what type of person each character was, it might be better. But as it is, I vote to delete. TopGearFreak 20:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more seriously is a copyvio of the iMDB page. Copyvio addresssed and article tidied up. Jeodesic (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried my best to clean this page up, but I don't think that there is enough information available for it to have a legitimate article. After changes I'd have to change my vote to Weak Keep, though the movie isn't well known, there are certainly more notable actors in this film then in many others. TheXenocide (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing useful here. Powers T 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I have just expanded and sourced the article and it does have quite a few notables in its cast. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based upon current version which includes sources and a cast list that includes notable actors. The film has been released according to the infobox, so reviews should be added in order to shore up the article. 23skidoo (talk) 15:30, 25 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 The Colbert Report. Content is still there under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrodioxinlithiochlorate[edit]

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

Not notable. A fictional chemical, only mentioned once on the show. Rissa (talk) 20:24, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstone Veterans[edit]

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

Barely creeps through WP:BAND #6, but even so do not seem to be notable enough in their own right not to be a redirect to Dean Tidey. Only cited source is their MySpace. Rodhullandemu 20:23, 24 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 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Confederacy[edit]

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

In my opinion the article is an attempt at self promoting a non-notable political organization. The editor who appears to have created the article, is mentioned in the article as having apparently founded the organization, in my opinion a violation of the policies regarding neutrality. A Google search returns nine hits, seven of which are blog entries, one link page, plus the Wikipedia article, a LexisNexis Academic search returns zero. This suggests to me a non-notable organization and at least not yet, an appropriate subject for an article in the encyclopedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Could find no reliable sources, in fact could not find any, concerning the organization. Sorry to say, without at least minimal coverage from ANY reliable – creditable and verifiable source, the article should be deleted. ShoesssS Talk 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, but no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be little more than a spark from someone's imagination at this point. Powers T 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be found. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC
  • Explanation - I merely submitted background on this as the organizer of New Confederacy, simply because, and only because, someone else created an empty link in, I believe, the artcle concerning "Neo-Confederates" or something related to it. I did a fairly exhaustive search of this term, and discovered the person who created the empty link to us meant us and not someone else. Then I submitted a brief article describing what New Confederacy was. Otherwise, I would not have gone through the trouble of submitting the article. I still haven't yet even submitted a link in New Confederacy for myself, as I do not believe it is proper for an article to be originated by the subject person of the article. Should this be determined to NOT be appropriate for Wiki, I will not contest it, HOWEVER, I would request that if the article is deleted then ALL LINKS in Wiki to our organization also be deleted as well. We never asked to be counted as "Neo-Confederates" and frankly, I don't believe we belong in a grouping of people the author of THAT article is determining to automatically be racist, which most pro-Confederacy people are not. Lizmichael (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason not to remove that link from the Neo-Confederate article; the description of The New Confederacy as Neo-Confederate, while seemingly obvious on the surface, is explicitly not sourced. Powers T 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As author of the page, and seeing the opinions of the group, I now concur that the article should be deleted, and fully consent to same. Although we have more activity than is apparent on the net, I concur that we have not broken the threshold for 'notability', I 'wish' that were not so, but objectively, it is so. The link in Neo-Confederate has already been removed... the listing required someone 'accuse' us of deserving to be in that list, but no one is listed as having so accused us.Lizmichael (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 25 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 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selaiah (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Seems to fail WP:RS too. No big tours. No notable label. No notable members. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 20:02, 24 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 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsize Blues[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. No good sources. No label. No tours. Nothing at all. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:59, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay through the nose[edit]

Pay through the nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:DICTDEF. Mintrick (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Not referenced, but as the nom is contesting this article simply for what it is (i.e. notability is not being questioned), this is not a problem: it's explaining the history of the phrase and its uses, going far beyond what a dictionary would do. No way that this is a dictionary entry. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:DICTDEF, articles that belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, are about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.". That is what this article is about, referenced or no, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I did a quick check on some of the claims in the piece and have to say, they can be cited from Scholarly sources. Likewise, there looks to be enough information from secondary – reliable – creditable sources to meet inclusion criteria, as shown here [14], and expansion of the piece. I’ll do some inline cites and a little rewrite, but overall, I believe the article has earned a place here. ShoesssS Talk 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing but a discussion of the phrase's etymology. Etymologies belong in a dictionary. Powers T 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOT a dictionary. There seems to be a misguided notion that if a dictionary definition contains an etymology then it somehow isn't a dictionary definition any longer. WRONG. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no objection to words and phrases being listed in Wikipedia as long as the articles have some sourced encyclopedic content, but this doesn't. Without sources for the etymology, it can't even be transwikied to Wiktionary (which has an entry for pay through the nose, but without etymological information). —Angr 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is now referenced - sourced and cited. ShoesssS Talk 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: even sourced, etymology belongs at wikt.—msh210℠ 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I respectfully disagree. As defined in Wikipedia is not a dictionary only after copying, the final disposition of the article is up to Wikipedia and only after the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, only then should it be deleted. I submit that the article is at stub status and therefore meets the requirements for inclusion. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it stands right now consists of a) a definition, b) a series of possible etymologies, and c) other idioms that use the word "nose". None of that is encyclopedic; the first two items belong in a dictionary, and the third is irrelevant. Powers T 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- My day to be contentious :-) My contention is that though Wiktionary contains the phrase it does not contain the etymology of the phrase, as it does not with most phrases/idioms. Wiktionary does link to the etymology of the separate words contained in the phrase but not to the idiom itself. That is what Wikipedia is for, to expand on and offer more in-depth explanations and definitions as covered by Wikipedia is not a dictionary states, as I mentioned above. ShoesssS Talk 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reading of that policy is that encyclopedia articles should discuss the concepts that lie behind certain words and phrases, not the words themselves. Depth of coverage is explicitly not one of the differences between a dictionary article and an encyclopedia article. I quote: "A full dictionary article ... will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed." Only if, after we remove the etymology and usage notes from this article, there exists something worthwhile to say about the concept of paying through the nose, should we have an article on it here. And no one has really provided any sources that we could use to write such an article. Powers T 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, my personal view of a dictionary, shared by many people, is that it does and is used to offer all the examples mentioned in your comment such as; meaning, etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects. However, I look to a dictionary for a word. On the other hand, when a phrase - quote or idiom is used my first thought/reaction is to look to a encylopedia and not a dictionary, Maybe I am showing my age :-). However, either way it goes, it kept me busy today. ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Definitions belong in a dictionary. Truthanado (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are 680 limited preview and full preview books, going back to 1785[15], that have this term. In the right hands, this certainly is enought reliable source material from which to develop a Wikipedia article well beyond a dictionary definition. There might be reasons to delete the article, but meeting WP:N doesn't seem to be one of them. -- Suntag ☼ 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mere usage of a phrase is not demonstrative of notability (to an encyclopedia, at least; it is to a dictionary). We need sources about the phrase. Powers T 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought that was provided in the references and inline citations, on the page itself, with regards to the actual phrase. Or have I misinterpreting what you are asking for? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only references and inline citations I see are for the other "nose" idioms. Powers T 15:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--and frankly, I don't understand some of the arguments from the Keepers. Dictionaries aren't just for words, they are also for phrases (think "instead of"), and, as is applicable here, idiomatic expressions. The poor quality of the entry is easily proven by a quick look at the OED, which has 1666 for its first occurence--one simply cannot have an article like this that doesn't correctly cite the OED, it's the ultimate authority on the topic. And oddly enough, the article is really like that entry, but with some flowery narrative thrown in. And what does 'nosebleed' have to do with anything? No, this is strictly idiomatic, and belongs in a dictionary. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've done some editing. The sources for some of the claims were problematic, to say the least. But I stopped short of a full overhaul--the next thing to do is deleted the other 'nose' idioms (of which there are dozens more, BTW). And then, what you have left, is the following: "'Pay through the nose' is an English idiom which means 'pay a very high price for an item.' The first citation appears in 1666, according to the OED." Now, if this article had been more strictly edited, would this even have made it to AfD? (Seriously, look carefully at the earlier version--it's full of unverified bull-crap...) Drmies (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--I don't understand the reference you added: it presents the result of a Google search, not a source that explains the meaning of the phrase. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as stated, this isn't wiktionary. Grsz11 05:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a dictionary entry. No information that one would not expect to find in the OED. RJC TalkContribs 17:02, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Truth[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N and WP:RS. Contains original research. Google searches turn up very little about the band. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Christensen[edit]

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

I consider this borderline on notability - enough to decline a speedy, but enough to nominate for deletion. I assert that it likely fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – But needs a complete rewrite. There is enough information out there to put together a decent article, as shown here [16]. However, we need someone to write it. ShoesssS Talk 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be fixed up and referenced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Borderline case. Christensen is not head coach and does not coach at the top level (that is, the NFL or the CFL). The article Missouri Tigers football makes no mention of him. However, a quick Google search revealed seemingly reliable sources that bill him as a notable coach nevertheless. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If the claims in the article are true, has marginal notability beyond the raw data of his current job. Powers T 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but definitely needs a complete overhaul, as already stated.... Definitive notability: OC for a major Division I-A football program (the team was in contention for the national title last year), and a potential candidate for the head coaching job at at least one major BCS football college (Washington, if the article is accurate). (Blanchard I forgive you since you're Canadian, but...) To say American college football is not "at the top level" is laughable. You compared it with the CFL, which perpetually teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, while most BCS college football programs provide revenue to their universities--essentially subsidizing the other athletic teams at those schools. Notre Dame's football program is valued at $91 million dollars, and in 2006, ten college teams earned at least $45 million for their respective institutions. The Big 12 earned $16 million in TV revenue this season ($1.3 mil per team on average).[17] CFL teams average less than half a million in TV revenue per year.[18] (Please note: Don't mean to sound snippy, so I apologize if I do. I am simply trying to illustrate that American college football is on par with high-level professional sports in other nations.) Strikehold (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a shot at re-writing the article, but its still far from good. Let me know if you guys think this better demonstrates notability... Strikehold (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Notability guidelines require only one criterion to be met, and Christensen meets at the very least these two:
– The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
– The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Strikehold (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally, even the college football project does not consider assistant coaches to be notable per the project notability essay. However, Christensen has adequate coverage in the media, awards, and general other significance to warrant an article. In other words, he's met WP:N and WP:BIO well enough, no arguments from me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:06, 26 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) 20:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet Airlines[edit]

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

Hardly notable as doesn't even exist yet! Looks very much like wanting to get the info into the public domain. Paste (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Paste (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on the same grounds as the last time, as nothing has changed substantially. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangarap Ko Ang Ibigin Ka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pangarap Ko Ang Ibigin Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted article, still with no sources making it a probably hoax. Starczamora (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems to be on IMDB [19], and for sale here [20], although it looks like a move and not a tv series. Either way, I don't know about notability... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The movie listed on IMDB is a different work from the one that this article claims, the said movie contains a different cast of characters (all of them Filipino) and was produced by Viva Films about ten years ago (and sometimes makes the rounds on cable TV reruns :P). So I think the said movie wasn't the one that this article is supposed to refer to. Having said that, I'm voting for a delete. No reliable sources, no article. Most probably, this article was created by an overzealous Filipino fan, as is the case with some supposedly-upcoming TV shows or movies that weren't backed up by any references, not even a press release from ABS-CBN. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the original uploader merely created the article because it is "confirmed" without any valid source. The article is about a television collaboration between ABS-CBN and an unnamed Korean broadcasting company, with Korean actor Eugene as its lead actor. I suggest that we edit the article based on the movie of the same title, which is, as Tito Pao said, completely different from what we have now. Starczamora (talk) 19:21, 25 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. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First african american police officer in winter park[edit]

First african american police officer in winter park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article about the hiring of the first black policeman in a specific force. The article, however, concentrates on the civil rights movement that led to this being a "first". There are numerous notable firsts for African Americans. This is not one of them. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An essay about the first African American policeman in one small community. Not notable. Either a homework essay or a plain copyvio of a local newspaper. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whichever Winter Park this is--Florida? Unless it's a copyvio, in which case, nuke it. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If merging any information first, however unpalatable the term is, please remember that the term in the era for "African American" was the word we now consider pejorative: "negro". An encyclopaedic article does not reflect the linguistic niceties of the present day, it reflects the realities of the time it writes about. Even if those realities are perceived as unpleasant it is facts that we record here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every force is going to have a first African American copper at some point in history. But unless they did something more than that, they shouldn't get an article. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely not notable: some of the sources are interviews! If we can get access to a source, it would be useful to add some of this to the Winter Park article (again, assuming that we can discover which Winter Park this is), but no need for a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A first-time contribution from a new editor who isn't used to the Wikipedia rules yet. Although it's a pretty good item that is lists its sources, and Buddy Lewis's experience as the first cop in a segregated Southern town would make a good newspaper article, it can't stay on Wikipedia. This site has rules about what one has to do to be notable, and one of those is to show that there has been coverage from sources outside the local area. I'll do a wire service search to see if the 1952 story got picked up by AP or UPI, but if not, it's a story that will have to be posted somewhere besides Wikipedia. While that may seem harsh, the rules are in place because there have to be limits on how many people have their own articles in an online encyclopedia; or else, almost everyone's story would be posted here. All I can say is, don't let this discourage you from writing articles about persons who may have been notable in the 1940s, but who have been forgotten now. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Full of Fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In doing a search, it turns out that Mr. Lewis wasn't the first African-American policeman even in Winter Park [21] (this may or may not link up); an AP story of May 17, 1926, reported a "Negro policeman" from Winter Park being charged by a police chief in Bartow for carrying a gun in an area outside of his jurisdiction. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 25 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 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akamba Hyacinth Mengwa[edit]

Akamba Hyacinth Mengwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed with this edit summary: "he came all the way from cameroon to play amateur soccer - that's dedication" Sounds awfully like WP:ILIKEIT. Albanian Superliga is apparently not a fully professional league, no evidence that this player meets WP:FOOTYN. Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 24 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.

Bush (43) Era Republican Scandals[edit]

The result was Speedy delete. Alvestrand (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush (43) Era Republican Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Article is an indiscriminate collection of information; article has a non-neutral POV, and is a borderline attack article. Article was PROD'ed, and the article creator objected to the PROD. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:59, 24 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 because no-one, not even the nominator, actually wants this article deleted. Do not bring articles to Articles for deletion when you want them renamed, not deleted.

Renaming the article over the top of the edited redirect doesn't involve the deletion of this article. Such moves are the province of Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, (a) a name change is a matter for the article's own talk page (which hasn't even been created, I notice, let alone used for discussion of a proposed name change), not AFD; and (b) editors should pay closer attention to the edit summary given when this article was renamed from Gothenburg Stock Exchange, before being rash about renaming. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothenburg City Hall[edit]

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

    I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I can't see another route. If wrong, perhaps someone can redirect to a suitable location. The article starts with the words "The Stock Exchange is a building in Gothenburg" and is about the stock exchange, not the city hall. It links to and from the Swedish article on the stock exchange. the obvious solution, I though, was to move the article to a new title Gothenburg Stock Exchange Building, but this already exists as a redirect back here. Similarly, Gothenburg Stock Exchange. Confused and running round in circles, it would seem easier to delete these and start again. Again, apologies if I'm in the wrong place. Emeraude (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge to Sweden? That's a bit rash, don't you think? I can picture an AfD in Swedish Wikipedia for San Francisco City Hall and somebody says "Merge to United States." --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This looks like a very historic building, as shown in the Swedish article on the stock exchange. I think the confusion lies in its dual usages in its history. According to English sources I've found, it was built in the 1840s as a stock exchange, but transformed into city civic offices in the early 20th Century. [22] I think even as just the stock exchange and/or the city hall of a major city makes it notable in itself. It's also apparently Heritage listed [23]. Perhaps a redirect to Börsen, Gothenburg would be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Undoubtedly a notable building (just look at it!) but my concern is the article and/or its name. If, as you say, it has had dual uses that might explain the confusion. And also why it is such an insignificant article at the moment. Swediah Wiki refers to it as a Stock Exchange - and presumably they should know - so I feel we should in English. So perhaps its advisable to delete the Stock Exchange article and then rename this as Gothenburg Stock Exchange. Is that possible? Emeraude (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think a rename of this article would be controversial. A deletion is not in order though. If you are talking about deleting the the Swedish article, you would need to take your case up at Swedish Wikipedia (how's your Swedish?). --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Impossible to rename, because alternative page already exists as redirect! That was my point. (Not suggesting playing around with Swedish Wiki, beyond altering interwiki link if changes made here.) Emeraude (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think that content of this can be developed from the Swedish article cited by Oakshade, and the aid of a Google translation Börsen, Göteborg and this [24]. It seems to be enough of an historic landmark in Gothenburg to merit its own article. However, someone with a knowledge of Swedish should probably augment the google translation. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 24 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 Wrong forum, not a deletion issue either way. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunting Lodge[edit]

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

    There exists already an article Hunting lodge (with lowercase "l") as redir to Hunting. Redirecting Hunting Lodge to Philmont Scout Ranch camps makes no sense because this not the only Hunting Lodge, and also a band with that name exists – I've already corrected the false links.[25][26][27][28][29]. "Hunting Lodge" should either modified into a redir to Hunting or, which I would prefer, should be deleted. Cyfal (talk) 12:34, 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 merge to Kids in the Hall. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Tyzik[edit]

    Mr. Tyzik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is unverified, and has no indication of notability. seresin ( ¡? )  01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge back into the main article where it came from. The article is definitely growing too large, but a random character is not the thing to split off. - Mgm|(talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Mac's logic seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re I don't much care either way if it's deleted or merged, so long as this article is no longer a standalone article, as mandated by this AfD. I see no particular benefit in retaining the history and merging, since there is nothing in the article but plot summary and character descriptions; neither of which are verified, and both can be easily be written again in a more concise manner. seresin ( ¡? )  23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Yup. Character isn't notable outwith the context of the series. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 26 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 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicolai Boilesen[edit]

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

    Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game for his club Brondby IF. He is actually only in the under 17 team for Brondby according to club's website here (Danish). He has caps for Denmark youth sides but they do not warrant notability. Re-create when he plays a game. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think being mentioned is enough, and I don't see evidence of substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Telegrah and Ekstrabladet articles don't just mention him, they are substantially about him. Both certainly contain more than trivial coverage, thus meeting the "Basic Criteria" of WP:BIO - fchd (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Not notable. Some of you should read a newspaper one day - they are full of little articles like the one(s) quoted every day of the week. Due to the internet and journo's wanting to sell copy, such articles are 'dime-a-dozen'. Having a little write up in a newspaper does not in itself make someone notable. Ask yourself whether the subject of the article has actually done anything more notable than any other kid that has had a trial at a professional club. There are far more notable kids than this one that still fail criteria--ClubOranjeTalk 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      While it's true that it may be impossible to find significant coverage of far more notable people than this one, that doesn't make him non-notable. If they failed some other "criteria" then the criteria are broken. Juzhong (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor does it make this kid notable. He is just another kid that didn't quite make it yet. The point is that just because some journalist wrote a little article about someone, it does not mean they are notable. Wikipedia isn't about conglomerating snippets of information about all and sundry that get mentioned in a newspaper, it is an encyclopaedia - at least it is supposed to be, but one wonders sometimes with all the trivial nothingness that gets included these days. WP is fast becoming just another blog. I say delete article like this and ask those that want to actually build an encyclopaedia to write articles about things others may actually want to research one day. The only people who are ever going to look up this kid are a few of his old school mates. We have Bebo and Facebook for that sort of thing, yet I can find no WP info on Eyolf Kleven Jørgen Rasmussen or Steen Steensen Blicher.--ClubOranjeTalk 18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more notable people in the world, but he's not actually competing for space with them. Don't you think someone might actually want to read about notable youth players? Juzhong (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but this kid is not notable.--ClubOranjeTalk 19:52, 27 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. As ever, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be made on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ubayakathirgamam[edit]

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

    Non notable religious organization with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - find sources and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Keep for what? There is no reason and specifically no notability. Also, where are the reliable sources that merit an expansion? Please do explain your comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Murugan or to Katirkamam (Hindu temple). We have to apply the same standards to a Hindu temple in Sri Lanka that we would apply to a house of worship anywhere else in the world, and not every church, synagogue or mosque would be considered inherently notable either. If verifiable sources can be found for some of the statements that might indicate notability (such as the statement that this is the second such temple in all of Sri Lanka), then that would be a reason for keep. As it is, however, the nominator is right that there are no reliable sources. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No notability, no reliable sources and no clear place to merge. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:37, 21 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, Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Temples or the yantras that appear themselves are considered to be having high devotional power according to Hindus. Resources should be found and added. Thanks. --Kanapathipillai (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Katirkamam (Hindu temple) unless RS sources are founfd to back it up. Taprobanus (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merger: The article says the temple is second Katirkamam, no reliable ref to back it. The fact it is called second Katirkaman, points to it being distinct from Katirkamam. Merging in Katirkamam (Hindu temple) or Murugan is not the solution.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are no reasons provided for keeping this article other than; 1) "find sources and expand," and 2) "Temples or the yantras that appear themselves are considered to be having high devotional power according to Hindus." These are not good reasons for keeping this article. This article is still about a non-notable organization with no reliable sources. As such, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Presently, there are no arguements that address the issues laid out above concerning the lack of both notability and reliable sources. There has been an oportunity for these issues to be addressed, but no evidence to the contrary has been provided. As it is, this article continues to be about a non-notable subject which has no reliable sources to verify claims to notability, and should thus be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is about a temple, where all the deities - God Muruga(Yantra), Vilatheeswaran(Wood apple tree), and the letters representing Vinayagar, Siva and Shakties appeared in nature. This is known to be the one and only Hindu temple of this kind, in the country(may be even in the world). It has significant similarities with Katirgamam(but Katirgamam has been leaving the hands of Hindus, and now considered a major temple for Buddhists). The article is, yes of course, based only on two sources, as listed. I can send a scanned copy of the pamphlet for review if it is allowed. According to the God Muruga's wish, the temple has not been given any major modification. I hope that the wikipedia contributors from the region will help to add more sources. I know the rules of wikipedia of notability. And thanks to all contributing to this discussion. --Pradeeban (talk) 06:35, 29 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 Itazura na Kiss#Main. MBisanz talk 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Naoki Irie[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Itazura na Kiss 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 Itazura na Kiss#Main is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to Itazura na Kiss#Main as per WP:FICT so people who look for this name are properly directed to the information (added bonus, tends to stop recreation). - Mgm|(talk) 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Itazura na Kiss per everything MacGyverMagic said. A quick search doesn't turn up anything to support his independent notability, though I note that since neither the manga nor any of the (many) adaptations have been licensed in English (or other languages I can read), which makes finding sources a wee difficult. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 24 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 history of perpetual motion machines. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry Perrigo[edit]

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

    Little and unsourced content and has not been touched since this [edit] HairyPerry 17:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • redirect to appropriate section of history of perpetual motion machines, from which nearly all the text of this article comes. I could not find any meaningful content beyond what that article states. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. This seems like he might have been notable at the time, (demonstration before congress) and notability doesn't have an expiration date. However, I am not sure there is enough information available to keep the article as stand alone, so it should be redirected and merged to history of perpetual motion machines with no prejudice against recreating the article if more specific information can be added. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or redirect. Here are a couple of book sources and it seems that he was later noted as a fraud suspect. This web site is probably not a reliable source in itself, as it appears to be self-published, but it contains what it claims to be copies of newspaper articles about the subject. As the article stands at the moment it might as well be a redirect to history of perpetual motion machines, but if is expanded it would be better as a standalone article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:09, 26 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 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthy diet[edit]

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

    The whole subject of what a healthy diet is, is by nature a subjective one. This page is never going to be more than a list of people's opinions on the matter. Either that or (god forbid) it will just become a direct copy of the official guidelines from the US. 212.248.169.208 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep – An article that is well referenced – well written – linked to several other articles – and has been around for almost 4 years. ShoesssS Talk 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Seems a useful article and it does mention in the opening paragraph diets depend on the individual and can vary widely. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The title is subjective as stated and the list of references are not specifically citing any of the actual content any how. JBsupreme (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the addition of sources to this article pre-dates the existence of the <ref> syntax. As can be seen from this November 2005 version of the article the article originally had links between the source citations and the content that the sources being cited support, using the template system that was what we had at the time. Editing has, over the intervening 3 years, damaged every single one of those links. Deletion of the article doesn't fix that, however. Nor is such damage a reason for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm sorry are you saying to delete because the title is subjective? In addition, concerning your second remark, I agree the references are not inline sourced, which is easily correctable, but have to disagree they not only specifically cite but also are linked to the actual source. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. Clearly verifiable and notable. E.g.[30][31][32] -Atmoz (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have much better general articles on nutrition--perhaps there is place for this sort of cursory summary, or perhaps it belongs in another wikiproject. DGG (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The sources aren't placed correctly, but that is problem that can be overcome by editing. There's several encyclopedic topics that contrast opinions. These can be backed up by scientific research. A group of opinions can be reported on in a subjective manner (there's a policy that says we should give different viewpoints equal 'screen time' and we wouldn't have that if having multiple opinions in an article makes it deletable). - Mgm|(talk) 20:38, 24 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, I don't see an assertion of notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Minutes 2 Meltdown[edit]

    Minutes 2 Meltdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Minus the YouTube links, your obligatory Google search for "Minutes 2 Meltdown" offers 115 hits, of which the top ranking are the bands on website and MySpace page. The assertion of a fan club and live shows is enough of a notability argument for me to avoid A7 CSD, so that's how we ended up here. Non-notable band. Consequentially (talk) 17:38, 24 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 WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Insidecupboard[edit]

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

    Your Google search for "insidecupboard" yields 3,400 hits, with the top five seemingly unrelated and the rest pointing at message boards, a Flickr account, and articles about things that happen to be "inside cupboards." Non-notable biographical subject. Consequentially (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete Generous coming here I would have thought! I'd have been tempted to tag it for a speedy delete. Paste (talk) 17:32, 24 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 WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce macintosh[edit]

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

    A Google search for '"Bruce Macintosh' Gerund' yields zero hits, while a similar search for "'Bruce Macintosh' Himalayas" points mostly to an astrophysicist. I'm inclined to believe this is a hoax, but at the very least he's a non-notable subject and thus safe for deletion. Consequentially (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agreed Delete ASAP as a hoax. Paste (talk) 17:26, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterdays (band)[edit]

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

    I don't see any evidence of third-party, reliable sources covering this band. There are few Google hits (Yesterdays +Bogáti-Bokor gives just 400. All the external links are commercial sites, self-published ones, blogs and things of that sort: no newspaper articles, for instance. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete in the absence of sources. I'd have rather seen the article tagged for improvement of the references first. Since they're a Hungarian band, there could be language and transliteration issues with searching for online sources. That said, if reliable sources turn up, my recommendation will likely switch to the keep side of the equation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The nominator's reasoning is faulty. The number of google hits is irrelevant. It is the quality of the hits that matters. And both external links and references can be commercial (most are) or blogs. It's quite likely the reliable sources are in Hungarian or Romanian which requires someone who actually knows those languages to make the evaluation. - Mgm|(talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree the quality of the hits is relevant. As it happens, those hits are of unacceptably low quality: MySpace, YouTube, blogs and the like. Per WP:SPS, blogs are actually not acceptable: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". Per WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Once those are adduced, I'd even be happy to withdraw this nomination. That has yet to happen. I was unable to find much in Romanian on this band, but I've asked a Hungarian editor to see if anything is available in his language. -- Biruitorul Talk 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Seems notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the sources I could find and the information in the article I think it's notable based on Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Biruitorul, please visit the listed Reviews and you will find that there are many reliable resources. Please put away your feelings about the Hungarian minorities in Romania (I strongly have the feeling that your submission for deletion is something personal... please look at the relevance of the hits, or read the reviews which are published on very reliable websites... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And let's not forget, that Progarchives (www.progarchives.com) is the best and the most reliable source for progressive rock music on the internet! Here's a quote from their Yesterdays entry:
    "About six months ago, I heard YESTERDAYS for the first time, and was really impressed with the exquisite combination of 70's Symphonic influences with Hungarian folk elements, so after I asked the team, the addition was approved immediately."
    So, I don't see why this submission for deletion is relevant (if there aren't any personal issues of course...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't checked the full history of the page, but Progarchives does not have an entry on the English Wikipedia. That calls into question its prominence as a source, but not necessarily its reliability. Also, please keep the discussion on the article, the underlying subject, and the related sources; this discussion is not the place for discussion or personal attacks regarding any involved editor. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that comment, C.Fred, and just to clarify: it seems preposterous that when I nominate an article for deletion for its failure to have reliable sources, that somehow would translate into my "feelings about the Hungarian minorities in Romania" -- which I have neither stated nor have any relevance whatsoever to this nomination. 86.105.122.11, please do review WP:AGF before repeating such a charge. -- Biruitorul Talk 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long comment to assess the reviews. I just hit the about page for each review's website, and:
    1. Arlequins is an Italian fanzine dating back to 1990. It has a strike against it for being a fanzine, although it is a long-standing one.
    2. Musearecords.com is the band's website label and is not independent.
    3. DPRP is a website dating back to 1995 and maintained currently by a staff of 16 editors.
    4. Progressor is an official representative of Musea Records in Russia, so its independence is questionable.
    5. Music in Belgium is unclear. I can't find an FAQ document on the site.
    6. ProGGnosis likewise lacks an explanation.
    7. Progarchives appears to be fan-edited, which generally fails the reliability test.
    8. Babyblaue appears to have evolved from a maillist, which would put it in the realm of non-reliable and fan-edited.
    In my opinion, DPRP meets the editorial rigor standard that goes along with WP:RS and the general notability guidelines, and I'll give Arlequins the benefit of the doubt. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must correct You, Musea Records is not the band's website, please check it again. The band's website is www.yesterdays.hu Musea is a well known French record label, dedicated to the promotion of Progressive Rock. Since we are talking about progressive rock (which is not a popular musical style), resources and articles are very hard to find. Musea - in my oppinion - is a very reliable reference (since they only promote quality music... just have a look on their website...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad. Musea is their label. Same issue with independence, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we are talking about their article about the band, You are right. But if you are familiar with progressive rock music labels in Europe (Inside Out is the bigest, Musea is the second one and has a big reputation all over the World) than for a band is a very serious reputation being released by Musea and this is why I consider this a reliable reference for the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak/provisional keep. The DPRP and Arlequins coverage are sufficient to keep the article around—at least for now. After their second album is out, I'd like to see more independent coverage of the band. If the second album doesn't happen, and if the article doesn't evolve from its current state, then another AfD would be warranted (though not for at least six months to a year, IMHO). —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I don't really have time now to look into this very much. After a quick search I've found an online available interview with them on HirTV (basically the Hungarian Fox News, or conservative CNN if you wish). Squash Racket (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • After a little google research I found 4 other resources (in Hungarian) about the band (I will continue to look after more articles):
      • [33] - on a Hungarian Art Portal (based in Hungary) about the MiniProg Festival 2007 in Budapest (featuring ex-Yes guitaris Peter Banks)
      • [34] - in a Romanian Newspaper called "Szabadság" (some thoughts/report after a Yesterdays gig)
      • [[35]] - a long interview after Yesterdays released its first album in 2006 on Romania's most important political/cultural portal www.transindex.ro (in Hungarian)
      • [[36]] - some photos from a Yesterdays gig in 2007, on the Félsziget Festival's website (one of Romania's bigest rock festivals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • and some more:
      • [[37]] - a very long interview in English in the German Progressive Newsletter
      • [[38]] - a review about Progfarm Festival 2006 (The Netherlands) including Yesterdays - in Dutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 23:33, 27 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 List of Dragon Ball characters#Ginyu Force. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recoome[edit]

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

    This article does not establish any sort of notability independent of the Dragon Ball series. It is covered adequately within the character list for the series. TTN (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Redirect. Very, very minor character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect, possible speedy. Adequately covered in main list. Does not assert notability for character. Fails WP:NOT and WP:N. Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:46, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Helms[edit]

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

    No notability. Appeared in some films, but uncredited. His own home page sings his praises but no notability established from this (unreliable) source. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non notable actor. Paste (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, he was credited in Cabin Fever and in Ding-a-ling-Less. 2 does not equal 0. 2≠0. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, also, I did not count his homepage as a refernece, it's an external link genius. The IMDB entry is a reference. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Recommend reading WP:CIMDB about the usage of IMDB as a reference. Also, inclusion on IMDB does not establish notability. Please be civil to other users. The comment above, and the "What the Hell, Man" comment on my talk page, is inappropriate. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Article does not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject," and the subject appears unnotable at best. Quoting WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Furthermore, for actors... "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." From my observations, this individual fails all criteria for notability. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - i didn't want to speedy this, but the lead roles seems to be for local productions (remakes) and beyond the one credited role in an film that has an article here and the TV appearances there do not seem to be sufficient reliable sources. He seems to be quite accomplished as an martial artist, though. See e.g [39], but unless better sources come up, rather later.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWhat makes these discussions pointless is that even if I add to the article it wont't matter because all too many people have already said delete. It's hard to explain what I mean. It's as frustratingt as the DMV.

    Theortically, this discussion must be updated every time the article is modified, because these decisions reflect outdated opinions every time the article is modified. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, the deletion discussion is about the potential and not just the current version of the article. Additional sources can be brought up here or added to the article itself in which case it is useful to drop a note here. Many editors will actively look for sources and others are willing to change their opinion if new information comes up. See eg. WP:HEY and WP:RESCUE. Of course it helps to post articles that are reasonably cited to begin with.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 25 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 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Elevator[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Magazine with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Feedback? Rather than contesting every change, could you at least be constructive and outline aspects you think need changing. "Magazine with no assertion of notability" isn't very descriptive and implies that you either assume the magazine is fake or has no worth, which is a fairly bold statement to make for this publication. The legitimacy of the publication should be evident by the presence of an ISSN... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seopher (talk • contribs) — Seopher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Response It might help you to read the criteria for notability at Wikipedia. It is no judgement on the existence or value of the magazine, but merely a question of whether this magazine is so significant that an international encyclopedia would require an article about it. All you need to do is add a few independent sources that discuss the magazine's importance in its field. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The title of the magazine makes it a little difficult to google for reliable sources of notability. Using the search term, "The Elevator," "magazine," and "HEPT", I found 0 hits using google news, and only a few hits using google, none of which appeared to affirm the notability of this publication. Of course, I am open to the possibility that my methodology was flawed; I'd be glad if someone with 133ter google-fu can find the sources that I couldn't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non notable. The article offers no clues to notability and, as above, I've been unable to find any independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 14:40, 28 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 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slainey mace[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Military award with no assertion of notability, and no source asserting its existence. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Zero google hits, and the linked pages do not even give the name "Slainey". Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Air Training Corps is a youth organisation and this award within their ranks, whilst maybe notable to them, has no coverage. I would suggest merge but it is impossible to even verify its existence. Nuttah (talk) 14:05, 28 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 05:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince DisneyMania[edit]

    Prince DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Princess 2 DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Disney Channel Mania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Group DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Disney Games 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Radio Disney Xmas Jams 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unsourced speculation about a 2010 release, a 2011 release, and a 2012 release. WP:HAMMER applies. AndrewHowse (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete All hammer the crystals. Besides, if these people are flops in the future, Disney won't care about them. --Numyht (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All 2012, wow...imagine the size of the crystal ball you'd need to see such a thing... -Verdatum (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete All We've been down this road before with an AfD about Disneymania albums five years out in the future. Also block Boi91 for vandalism as a probable sock of Kielz86 (both insist that Sher'Quan Johnson exists as the hot new Disney star via speedied articles about her). Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh. Delete All; violates WP:CRYSTAL. SKS2K6 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another, slated for 2012. A9 doesn't apply since the performers are notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:42, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital Library Production Service[edit]

    Digital Library Production Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Poorly written and has not been worked on since 2007 HairyPerry 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete- Little content and clearly nobody plans to add to the article. What little information contained belongs on the University of Michigan Library article rather than its own page BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are suggesting merging the material, why do you still vote delete then? -= Mgm|(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to University of Michigan Library. - Mgm|(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - Changing vote to suggestion made above sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A good deal can be added to the article. The various projects that it provides the software for are among the most important in the world. Their functionality is at the basis of the improved new version of Google Books. The article does need expansion. DGG (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - No valid deletion reasoning given in rational. The only reasons given are plainly reasons to be bold and edit it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:45, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Randall Travel[edit]

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

    Previous AFD result was "Delete-Spam". Page has not been updated with non-biased 3rd party references, as page continues to read as an advert SpikeJones (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete A possible G11 here, plus I think this is a WP:SNOW cause. --Numyht (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. It's not optimal, but decidedly different from the previously deleted versions. It now actually has some independent sources. I'm prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt if the self-referential sources are cut down to a bare minimum to assert non-controversial stuff in the next few days/weeks. - Mgm|(talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (I created it) Could somebody please talk me through the problems? I don't know what G11 means. I will address the problems individually. It "continues to read as an advert"? I have been critical, much more so than last time, when I was too new to wikipedia to understand the concept of advertising on it. I thought that the better I made it sound to a certain level, the more likely it would be seen as worthy of inclusion. I don't see where the advertising is. I find it a very hard line to tread, between not advertising and proving that it is worthy as an article. Obviously, I think it should be kept: it is as neutral as I could make it (if somebody else went through it that would help a lot), it is worthy of an inclusion (National Geographic is about to run something on it, I think: it fills the criteria of coverage from non-biased sources, as well as being significant for the number of awards etc it has won. Should I make a list of them? A plea: Please google Martin Randall Travel, and read a page on it that is not written by the company. I will do as MacGyver said, but I don't quite get what he means. I referenced certain facts from the least controversial source there is: what the website says. Are you implying that the website may be wrong/lying? Help me out here. I simply do not see what is wrong. The website quotes 48 excellent reviews (implying lots of others not so good and not quoted), and actually there was one in the Daily Mail on the weekend. Unfortunately, the company's clientele is rather too old to be overly familiar with, or of interest to, the internet, removing a lot of potential sources that only appear in papers. I will say this: I am losing my faith in wikipedia. The more I see of it, the more I see deletion being used as the easiest way forward. It is my personal opinion (which should not interfere with this process) that this is wrong in any case that is not spam. Not believing that this is spam, I would vote keep whether I had created the page or not.Fuzzibloke (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is established by demonstrating the article subject has been covered substantially by reliable media. I don't know if being included as a travel marketer in travel magazines is sufficient. What makes this company important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? This is usually determined by showing its been covered by good sources as a notable entity, which I don't think includes acknowledging its existence or noting that it sells tours. I'm having trouble finding notability according to our guidelines. Is there something in about its history or a source that talks about the company as a substantial and important subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I did a casual Google search for "Martin Randall Travel", and only one News result appeared (as an advert for a travel trip). There were no unbiased 3rd-party pages in the first 100 articles returned either. One page, from Frommer's, simply reiterated a quote that already existed on the site. The refs in the current article are (mainly) from the company itself, and do not provide any insight as to the *encyclopedic* reason for the article. As WP policy states, just because a company exists, does not mean a WP article needs to exist as well.SpikeJones (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment G11 above refers to the criteria for speedy deletion - Numyht is opining that the article is blatant advertising. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creator's Comment Thanks for that. This article is not blatant advertising, I promise. You will note how at least one of my more critical points needs a citation; I had trouble finding harsh articles. But, if you want, I could list some articles here which show that it fulfils the criteria. I repeat that the website itself lists forty eight articles; isn't that something? It is unfortunate that so many clients are above "the internet age" (my parents being younger than the average). There are several articles talking about MRT. What is the definition of "unbiased"? Are the writers not allowed to have been on a tour, in case they became biased from it? I know that not every company deserved a WP page, but a leader in its field with loads of awards and twenty thousand current subscribers, renowned for its orgaanisation etc, surely deserves a mention more than a lot of articles. The links to the website merely prove something from the primary source, but I have included secondary sources.
    There are two problems found in this article: advertising (which is reparable, and which I will do a lot to stop) and notability, which is inherent and unchangeable. Let's face it: the majority of articles in wikipedia (ie anything not rated good or better) is poor or worse. However, they are in wikipedia because of their potential. I would like to move away from the "delete for advertising" idea (though I would appreciate help to fix it). The issue here for me is notability, right? I will find those relevant pages, shall I? To SpikeJones: Do even 1% of the articles in newspapers make it onto the internet? We cannot rely on that for anything, really. Just independent, online reviews, which do exist, even if there aren't dozens of them. Fuzzibloke (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Fuzzibloke: you need to answer the question of what makes an article *about* this company encyclopedic? Info about the cost of tours, the number of brochures sent out, etc, or that the company has x tours planned for 2009 are all advertising related statements. If I were to go through the current article and remove all non-encyclopedic statements, you'd probably be left with 5 sentences (an exaggeration, I'm sure, but I chose "5" to make a point), and as such you would have an article that could still fail notability. What is significant about this travel company in the industry when compared to *every* other travel company? Not the tours offered, the company. There have been no counter-refs providing unbiased-3rd-party articles *about* the company (again, not articles about the tours, but articles written about the company). Unbiased does not necessarily mean critical. Aside from notability, one other concern that may be raised is whether you have a vested interest in having this article appear. As you are the article creator, what was the reasoning you have for feeling like the article should be created in the first place? SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Thank you for that. Articles about the company... there is the Australian one referenced somewhere. Other than that, I now see that you have a good point. However, I fail to understand why articles about the tours do not contribute something. Surely if the tours have secondary sources, they deserve articles, but in that case, it would be easier to cover everything on this page? I will say again, you are right about the shortage of online articles that are not about individual tours, but there have almost certainly been some in nonline sources. Does that help at all? I see that I do not have your honed sense of what is encyclopedic, which renders me probably unable to rewrite this satisfactorily without support. The company is significant, in my opinion, for dominating its specialist field and winning awards. What defines unbiased in your view? If the writer was a client, does that count as biased? If only there was a way to find out more about this national geographic article that was mentioned somewhere. I have no idea whether it would be sufficient - heck, it might even be an advert - but it would be useful. Pity we won't find out any more (if there is any more) for a few weeks. And I have been fighting, above everything else, for neutrality. Why did I write this? (skip the next bit if you don't want a story) A few years ago, I fell in love with the wikipedia ideal without being old enough to have bothered to read all the guideline stuff. Martin Randall Travel was something I knew about, which I could obtain facts for easily, which did not already have an article, like the other couple of articles I wrote. Yes, they were bad. I can't remember how many I created, but only two stubs I made from dead links have survived. This one was the only one which had a nomination debate before its deletion. I was disheartened, and stopped creating articles, just dabbling in WP. Then that questionnaire came around a few weeks ago, and I realised I really must get into WP again. This article had been called "pork," so I reasoned that if I recreated it more neutrally, it should be alright. It became a sort of flagship for me. You did ask... Anyway, addressing the comment below: one of the profiles is an awards thing. I don't know what the other awards are (I could find out eventually) so I don't know how notable they are. Taken together, I think they are, but for now I don't have much to go on. If my article counts as contentless blurb, I must honestly say that I do not know how to write an encyclopedia article. Which is annoying, as MRT tour-goers and Wikipedia editors are going to be almost mutually exclusive. Well that was rather long... oops, I think I sound rather too defensive... Fuzzibloke (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I'll try to be brief:
    • Regarding awards received - they need to be notable awards that are recognized in the industry.
    • Regarding articles written - they need to be about the company, not about the tours. Business-related articles profiling the company or founder are good. Travel articles talking about a destination with a singular "travel can be done via Martin Randall" blurb is bad.
    • Regarding WP policy - now that you're old enough, please read the guidelines and help articles that we have been pointing you to. Reading and understanding those policies will make you a better WP editor.
    • Regarding "articles about the tours" - what is significantly encyclopedic/notable about the tours that would allow them to have articles about the tours... instead of articles about the destinations themselves?
    • Regarding "the company is significant, in my opinion" - the issue is whether it is signiciant in others opinion. You may think you child is the cutest, most well-behaved child on the planet, but others may call it a spoiled, ugly, little brat. But if there is an outside reference that could show your child being featured as the unlikely author of a book on child etiquette, then you would have something to work with.
    I'm sure others could chime in, but the essence is that WP is not a repository of all things. I know of an "award winning travel agency" down the street, but Joe-Bob's Swamp Tours would never make it as an entry because it's just not unique/notable enough on its own. Perhaps when they become known as the world's largest Swamp Tour operator, but not now. SpikeJones (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Thanks for that summary. In order: what makes a notable reward? How large must the field be? Do multiple small ones add up? Ref 5 links to a non-tour article. I have read lots of guidelines. Wikipedia is not just about helping existing articles in small ways: I believe the optimum article number is several million. Articles about the tours was just a point I was making. I put the "in my opinion" there for that reason. I was trying to demonstrate why it's my opinion. The following quote is taken from the website: "Sunday Telegraph, January 2003 ‘Now unquestionably the leading specialist in cultural tours, with an extensive programme themed on art, music, architecture, archaeology or history.’ — Tim Jepson" Of course, that isn't good enough as we do not have the entire article. However, you see my point. I know wikipedia is not a repository of all things. This company is undeniably notable. The question is: is it notable enough? But about the whole writing as an encyclopedia thing, I must say I just do not get it. Otherwise I would have written it the correct way, as I tried. Fuzzibloke (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: What makes a notable award? It helps if the award ceremony is covered in the mainstream press, for example, and not just by the people issuing the award. A Webbie award for best website is notable. A "Joe Bob Cool Link Of The Day" award is not. Multiple non-notable awards do not equate one notable one (see previous sentence). Regarding the quote "Now unquestionably the leading specialist in tours...": "now" should be replaced with an exact timeframe, "unquestionably" is hyperbole and would be removed, and "leading specialist" needs to be qualified by an external source (in other words, if there is any doubt as to the fact-base of the statements, then they must be removed). This would leave "the specialist in tours", which is not unique/notable enough of a statement to warrant having an article written. In any case, so we do not digress too far away from the original topic, I will refrain from further addressing your concerns here so the AFD discussion can continue appropriately. SpikeJones (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Without checking the article, notability in the context of companies is discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I suspect that many of the articles being cited are viewed by other editors as "fluff" pieces which do not provide the sort of in-depth coverage needed to write an encyclopedia article rather than another almost contentless blurb - harsh reviews are not necessary, but critical attention of some sort is. Has the company been profiled for one of the awards mentioned above? The awards themselves may also confer WP:notability if they are prominent to the field. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The ITM Travel Gazette item is a press release; The Age article was not written from a non-biased source, but rather is from a paid tour guest of the company; I'll grant the Telegraph article is about a business item, although the SFGate version of the same story states that info from Martin Randall Travel is from a press release; the Times Online article doesn't have any red flags on its surface; the amazon book reference needs context, as the excerpts indicate content is phrased as if from a travel brochure advertising upcoming trips. SpikeJones (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Even though several of these sources are not 100% neutral, they indicate that this company is notable. The article from the Travel Trade Gazette might be a press release, but the fact that the "world's oldest travel trade newspaper" wrote an article about it asserts some notability. The Age is an Australian newspaper which is a very reliable source. The reviewer of this travel company interviewed the Martin Randall, the founder of the company, so this article is a wealth of reliable information about the history of the company. The article quotes from an employee (in this case, the founder) at the company, but isn't that what the majority of articles do? I agree with you about book probably containing excerpts from a travel brochure, but the other sources seem fine to me. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The article from The Age is footnoted with the disclaimer of "(author) Michael Shmith was on the Austro-Hungarian Festival cruise as the guest of Martin Randall Travel". The issue with using this as a ref is that Mr Shmith would not be a neutral, unbiased, 3rd party. Other articles that solely use/quote the press releases are equally suspect as all they are acting as is PR distribution. The earlier comment about AITO brings up the fact that the organization has 150 members -- why should an encyclopedia article exist about THIS AITO member and not any of the other 149 travel companies that are members? SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: That's true, but Michael Schmith a newspaper reporter who is writing for a notable newspaper. Even though the author of this review has a slightly slanted opinion of the travel company, he's still a reliable source. Why would Schmith write about this company and use this company's services out of the 149 travel companies in the AITO? The answer is that he wrote a review because he was most likely invited by the company to attend a complimentary vacation. This invitation gave the company coverage that they probably wouldn't have received. Nonetheless, this is acceptable, reliable coverage. Although Schmith now has a favorable opinion of the company, his article still qualifies as a third-party source. It's not neutral, but it's still third-party coverage. Addressing your second point: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST isn't a good deletion argument. Articles for the other AITO companies haven't been created because they either a) haven't received enough coverage or b) editors haven't gotten around to creating pages for them. Winning the AITO award adds to this company's notability but is not the only reason for it. The other references I mentioned above are enough for this company to pass the notability requirements. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Age does not harp on about the company; it talks about the founder. Surely, whether or not the writer was biased towards the company is irrelevant, since he does not take the opportunity to go on about how great it is, nor does he take the opportunity to go on about how great The Age is, or any other thing he might be biased towards... if you see my point. Fuzzibloke (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Thanks for notifying me, Spike. I contested an earlier speedy nom. The article is far better than its earlier deleted version, but the article could use more improvement. The sources are okay but not great. Most are either lower quality (reliability) sources or aren't focused directly on the company. I think there's enough quality in the sources to require a full discussion instead of a speedy deletion. Royalbroil 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, feedback is not flowing in right now. So far we have a delete nomination, a strong delete citing G11, a keep (UPDATE: two keeps), a creator's keep and two weak keeps. There is consensus that this article is flawed, and division over notability. There is a possibility that we will have no more participants until the five days are up. I will try to weed out advertising, but I have said that I may have trouble spotting it. What do you think the situation is, Spike? You and Numyht are the only ones to challenge this article's existence at this stage. Fuzzibloke (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article needs a good looking at but the newspaper articles linked to (and included in this discussion) amount to more independent sources than many others have. Nuttah (talk) 13:47, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of World War II aces from Philippines[edit]

    List of World War II aces from Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    PROD removed with the reasoning, "better than not telling people anything about World War II aces from Philippines". Currently a list of one, no evidence that more Filipino World War II aces will emerge any time in the near future. Mosmof (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The one person on listed currently is included in other lists to do with Filipino military personnel and WW2 history. No need for a further list BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the ace, Jesus A. Villamor: there are enough such lists for other countries that this might not be at all an unreasonable search target. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a clear attempt to airbrush a notable Philippine pilot out of history when people of other nationalities can be found from the top-level list. What movitates people to try to conceal small countries' achievements like this? Juzhong (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have an actual policy-based reason for keeping this list or are you just going to ignore WP:AGF and accuse me of trying to destroy Filipino heritage through housekeeping procedures on Wikipedia? --Mosmof (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well which is more important, the ability to access Filipino heritage or wikipedia housekeeping procedures? Juzhong (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed my point completely. You're presenting a false dilemma - you can perform Wikipedia housekeeping AND preserve the "ability to access Filipino heritage", whatever that means. My point was your unwillingness to WP:AGF and your specious reasoning for keeping an (IMHO) unhelpful list. Mosmof (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You still don't understand the problem with deleting the list. Let me try to talk you through it. Try to imagine: Someone from the Philippines is interested in World War 2 aces. They come to Wikipedia. They find the list of WW2 aces. Unfortunately you deleted the Philippines part, so they go away with the impression that there are no WW2 Philippine aces. This is a *BAD THING*, because actually there *IS* a WW2 Philippine ace, and they would probably have wanted to read all about him. That's what encyclopedias are for. I can't really make this much simpler. Juzhong (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus A. Villamor appears on several other lists including Filipino military personnel and Philippines WW2 history, its not like people are attempting to have the artice on Villamor removed, simply a list which at present only has 1 person on it. If you can find many others to go on that list then ill change my vote to keep, but one person doesnt justify a list. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This seems to have been created in order to be a link from this [40]. Instead of listing the air aces from each nation (and in the case of excessive length, putting in a link), the creators of that list have something that ostensibly looks like this "Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria...". Clearly, Jesus A. Villamor should be mentioned in articles about air aces, but the List of World War II aces by country could certainly be reorganized to be more informative of an article. I'm going to be bold and add Villamor's name to that list, where it will be regardless of what happens to this article. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - a single entry is not a list. But I agree with the above comment, it should be "merged" (if we can call it that) to List of World War II aces by country which requires major cleanup.--Boffob (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with this solution. It seems a global list of WWII aces seems more practical than a separate one for each country. Mosmof (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've done some cleanup work on List of World War II aces by country, and this could now be redirected back to that article. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Morello discography[edit]

    Tom Morello discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is only a copy of two discographies (Rage Against the Machine discography and Audioslave discography). Copy and paste without making any changes in its content is very easy and ridiculous. Cannibaloki 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above anon comment is mine. I switched browsers, and the one I switched to didn't have me logged in.- Mgm|(talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems notable and Mac's logic is reasonable in regard to needing a separate article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It can be expanded as well. - Steve3849 talk 08:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete On Tom Morelo's article,("discography" section) can be included the names of the studio albums and then include the template {{main}} redirecting to the band's disco (both, Audioslave and RATM). I agree with Cannibaloki, this list is completely unnecessary.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:39, 27 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. Advert; NN; spam; recreation of previously deleted page seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nilachal Men's Hostel[edit]

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

    I tagged this article for speedy deletion and thus it was deleted. The article was then re-created. Prodded by another user, and contested. So here, it is in AfD. I still think this article is valid for speedy deletion, per non-notable hotel, no sources and spammy. Dekisugi (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete non notable hotel and verging on an advert. Paste (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as someone who 'prod'ded it already. Non-notable hotel. CultureDrone (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (By the way, the AfD link on the originating article is a redlink) CultureDrone (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No need for a whole article on this topic, the author should just add more detail to the Tezpur University page about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete per CultureDrone. 212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above comments. HairyPerry 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Otherwise, after Men's hostel, Ladies hostel, class rooms, and play grounds will follow. Salih (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G11) — I respectfully disagree with the above; it's spam (at least judging from the wording and tone). MuZemike (talk) 17:21, 24 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 verifiability and notablility established with sourcing, advertising and deadend concerns which made the article questionable addressed. Gnangarra 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Hotels[edit]

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

    Tagged as advertising, deadend article is also tagged as needing cleanup, no sourcing. Gnangarra 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete poorly wriiten advertisement, but still it is an advertisement and last time I checked those weren't allowed on Wikipedia, WP:Advertising. HairyPerry 14:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G11) — (Lots of spam today) Contains spam spam spam spam baked beans spam and spam. And this is taking into regard that cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion; however, CSD trumps that. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Largest hotel chain, and the list of hotels will indicate this, as it includes the major hotels in Israel,many of which probably do have articles. Primarily descriptive not promotional; and not even all that spammy. CSD does not trump general deletion policy, but is rather one part of it. . In any case CSD11 specifically says it is for articles that cannot be improved by editing. And saying spam 7 times is not more of an argument than saying it once. :) DGG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability determined the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not sure that the claim that this qualifies for G11 speedy is based on an understanding of what G11 is actually for. This article might be written like an advertizement, but this is not a reason to delete an article about a clearly notable topic. Only stylistic changes are needed to change the tone of this article, not a substantial rewrite. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Part of the nom's reasoning was the current state of the article (deadend/poor formatting), so I took the liberty of doing simple Wikification. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article needs a serious rewrite, but it is notable. I've just added some info and a ref. -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 25 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James A. Donnelly[edit]

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

    Is this podcaster notable, I'm not finding much to back that up? There are claims of awards with no references. Not finding any mention via Google News Search (though the common name and variations mentioned in the article makes this difficult). Based on the username, Donnelly appears to have created the article which has been tagged with COI, reference and peacock concerns for months. Rtphokie (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've found him mentioned in a book on video blogging but since it is a limited preview, I have no idea whether it is a list of notable bloggers or a contributor. Anyway, if his awards can be verified, he's definitely notable. I'll look further.- Mgm|(talk) 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some sources say he won Mad-Atlantic Emmy's other left the mid-atlantic part out, but all sources seem to parrot the person up for discussion here. The easiest way would be to ask for sources directly. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article has been tagged for months with reference concerns. Could you add these references to the article instead of here?--Rtphokie (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)--Rtphokie (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's one claim done. The website for the Addy Awards makes no mention of him in any of its archives. - Mgm|(talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source claims he won telly awards in 2005 while the article says 2006. - Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A google search of http://www.tellyawards.com pages doesn't find him either. I'm starting to think he got in that book based on faking his awards... Anyway, I'm going to look for the next award. - Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no reliable sources. Everything is being copied from his official website. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I could not find reliable sources the other sources are either copies from his official website or give no indication we're talking about the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of verifiability for this person. Usually, COI, poorly written content, etc., are not valid reasons for deletion, but this is so poorly written in every aspect (down to the linkfarm at the bottom) that I would ignore the rules and demand a complete rewrite in the event this person was notable. MuZemike (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the lack of verifiable evidence that demonstrates notability of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daitetsu Minase[edit]

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

    This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect As with the previous AFDs the nominator didn't explain why the articles can't simply be redirected (with anything salvageable being merged). - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manuel Ledesma[edit]

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

    No notability, vanity bio? Oscarthecat (talk) 11:08, 24 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. OR; advertisment; NN seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Business dna[edit]

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

    No notability, appears to just advertise. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:02, 24 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Bin Thabit Al Kuwaity[edit]

    Mohammed Bin Thabit Al Kuwaity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No notability established. Part of a rich and royal family, but no notability established in his own right. Oscarthecat (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article certainly doesn't make that clear, "relative to Al Nahyan ruling family.", "he was the heir to the throne,". If this can be cleared up, then as you say, notability will be clear. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Indeed the claims in the article are notable, but there is no evidence for their veracity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless sources can be offered to establish notability "the usual way". He certainly is (and it seems unlikely that he was) not "heir to the throne" in the sub-national unit, Abu Dhabi, or the country, United Arab Emirates - in both cases that is Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. There may be a transliteration issue here, but Google comes up with absolutely nothing when searching in the Latin alphabet, which, if the subject were notable, would be very unlikely. Also, if the subject is listening, I would advise him against calling his restaurant the Taj Mahal Palace - that sounds like the sort of establishment you find on every British high street where people go after pub closing time and dare each other to eat the hottest dish on the menu. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Bunch[edit]

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

    Creating page for IP. Reason on talk page is:

    This article has a number of errors and there are no sources cited for documentation. 64.105.104.28 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep — If this actually happened (the external links suggest that this is not a hoax), there shouldn't be much problem establishing notability of this person. Cleanup/lack of cited sources are not valid deletion arguments. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Presidio mutiny The latter is demonstrably notable (it got an article in Time, among other things), and the article in question is largely about that event, not about the person in question (which begins with his death). He is plainly not independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Whether to move or rename is a seperate issue, but it appears to be a notable event involving this person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge to Presidio of San Francisco. Redirect to Presidio mutiny. The person clearly fails WP:BLP1E. He was not involved in the said mutiny but an initiation to it. There are some evidences available for occurrence of Presidio 27 mutiny, which it seems was a part Presidio of San Francisco. Considering that there is no article on Presidio 27 and if there is consensus, then I think the said merger should be undertaken. In any case, I don't see the notability for a stand-alone article. LeaveSleaves talk 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a move to Presidio Mutiny would be better. Do you think the event is non-notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is notable. It was covered in Time magazine, for one thing, and was made into a movie. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, the event is notable. But we don't have an article on it. And at least at the moment I'm not sure if this article can be qualified to be termed as the one about the mutiny. If current information is considered sufficient or expanded further, I'm okay with the move. LeaveSleaves talk 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well it sounds like we all agree an article on the event would be better, so do we create that article and revise our votes for a merge there or vote keep and wait until the AfD is over to make the move and do the editing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone is willing to undertake the task of creating a new article on Presidio mutiny, that would be a good development. The article, however, must stand the test of notability and be well sourced. Michael Bunch can then be redirected to this article. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted in its present state. LeaveSleaves talk 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have completed said article; please take a look. I think at this point we can safely redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The newly created article covers the event very well and this article can be redirected there. Great work Mangoe! LeaveSleaves talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Having completed the article on the Presidio mutiny, I find that the article has the wrong name! It is Richard Bunch, not Michael. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In favor of the accurate and well done article on subject of mutiny, thanks Mangoe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a great confusion. For a moment I thought there were two different persons, Michael Bunch and Richard Bunch. As it turns out, according to historical evidences [41], it was in fact Richard Bunch. But the documentary Sir! No Sir! says it was Michael Bunch [42]. Obviously, we rely on historical evidence. LeaveSleaves talk 20:45, 25 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 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh Dear! What Can the Matter Be?[edit]

    Oh Dear! What Can the Matter Be? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Although the song may be well known, the article is nothing more than a copy of the lyrics. As far as I can tell, it does not meet general notability criteria, no references or sources are provided, and there is no indication of any encyclopedic content. WP:IINFO CultureDrone (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Well-sourced, notable subject matter. AFD is used to discuss whether articles are notable enough, not content issues. Content issues are handled at the article level. The article includes the lyrics in context as part of a discussion of the song's evolution, and the song predates 1923 so therefore the lyrics are completely fair game. I don't see an issue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep actually does contain more content than the nom. inaccurately claims, which people will clearly see if they view it. There are paragraphs of content, with refs, between versions of the song. Otherwise it could just be on wikisource, but it does contain more content so in this form does also belong here. For instance Early One Morning does have an article here, as do other songs, with content. Anyway, AfD is not for clean-up and the subject is notable regardless of the article's current form (which is fine anyway.) Sticky Parkin 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Traditional songs are notable, and additional material can be added. DGG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep When I removed the deletion proposal, it wasn't an obvious keep, but should not have been deleted without discussion. The article has grown, and now it's a real keep. Fg2 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious keep as a well-known traditional song. I was interested to see that this is yet another trans-Atlantic cultural difference - here in the UK only three old ladies were locked in the lavatory. I'll try to find a source for that so it can go in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, it didn't take long to find some sources for "three old ladies"[43], but I don't have time to add them to the article at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 26 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 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mckenzie Quotient[edit]

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

    I've attempted to verify this in the hope that it is real, but can only conclude that it is original research or something made up one day. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:09, 24 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. c'est gone. StarM 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles j. willington[edit]

    Charles j. willington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Pretty clear-cut WP:HOAX. Prod removed by anon. The backstory is somewhat clever, the spirit is definitely there, and parts of the linked LiveJournal are in the general direction of "amusing", but this ain't the Onion - not in terms of writing quality nor in terms of notability. Badger Drink (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do Not DeleteThe journal is real...It is one of my favorite weekly publications. I have several hard copies and am even more excited to find out that they have a website. Charles Willington is a genius! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.233.142 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete The National Journal of Truth actually exists. I have physically read the hard copy. It is locally distributed and does not have a strong online presence, but it is definitely real. Also I have met Charles J. Willington in person. He exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.78.74 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete The National Journal of Truth does really exist and has been distributed at The University At Buffalo in New York for, at the very least, several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.23 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Probably not a hoax, but it is a non-notable person inventing hoaxes. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Obvious, unfunny, non-notable hoax. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Only relevant Ghit was a cached version of the LiveJournal blog. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Likely not a hoax, but he fails bio policy. The "Journal of Truth" is simply a livejournal blog... DavidWS (contribs) 14:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G3) — Wikipedia is not the place to write stuff on stuff you make up. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, that hit is not relevant to this topic, because anybody can type those Live Blog entries, so this article is non-notable as well. HairyPerry 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G3 does apply. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonestown conspiracy theory[edit]

    Jonestown conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Bizarre non nonsensical article, clearly pushes a npov POV agenda. The body of the text is using its basis for existing by telling readers to go read old newspaper headlines, The other articles on Jonestown massacre are well written, but this needs to go. Cloveious (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I altered your comment above, to what I assume you mean. A Neutral Point Of View is a good thing, you probably mean it's pushing one particular viewpoint. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree on the merits of the article. It's only purpose has been to serve as a repository for various wacky entries that some have attempted to enter into the other People Temple-related articles. Because of the magnitude of the event, much like 9-11, it attracted a lot of conspiracy theories. This was amplified by three other causes:
    (1) Jones himself generated many conspiracy theories about the Temple's destruction for years before its final demise;
    (2) For the last six months of its existence, Jones actually paid noted super conspiracy theorist Mark Lane (JFK, MLK conspiracies) to help him whip up more; and
    (3) Because of some embarrassment regarding their relations with Jonestown, the Soviets came out with a book in the 1980s parroting many of Jones' theories.
    While they've died down a lot, many conspiracy theory materials popped up in eighties from every author wanting to make a buck was peddling some conspiracy book or article in a wacky magazine. Some of it even made it into old crazy basic cable TV show blurbs.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect Mosedschurte's comments indicate that there's some notability behind the whole thing, but having its own article would give it undue weight. I recommend merging a much reduced version into the main article (if not there already). - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in the article worth merging. The only notable items are already in Jonestown. The conspiracy theories about Richard Dwyer (inconsequential figure) and the fact that the media reported death toll was lower the first few days (not at all notable) aren't notable for Jonestown.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a valid theory that should not be repressed. It is labelled as a conspiracy theory, not as fact, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.224.105 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not a single shred of evidence supporting these theories. The only reason for keeping this article would be as a repository in which to shove all of the POV conspiracy material so it doesn't clutter the real articles on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't have to be any evidence supporting the theories as long as we are presenting them as conspiracy theories rather than as facts. The reason for keeping the article is that coverage in reliable mainstream sources shows that the theories are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The theories can be included in the Jonestown article if they have any merit, which looks doubtful. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Again, the issue is not whether the theories have any merit, but whether they have received significant coverage in reliable sources such as the ones I listed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No. "Merit" not being about the theories themselves, but meaning that they have sufficient references from reliable 3rd party sources, and even if, that it is more appropriate to put this info in the Jonestown article. --Fremte (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm now leaning this way. The theories themselves are unwaveringly silly, but -- like the moon landing and 9-11 conspiracy theories -- they've certainly received enough attention I suppose to be covered separately in their own article as their own phenomenon. Their development (literally starting in the 1960s with Jim Jones own pronouncements of conspiracies out to destroy them) is rather interesting.
    If kept, I would work on the article, redesigning it chronologically and explaining the theories and their origins. The large subesctions would be (1) Theories pre-Jonestown; (2) Theories during Jonestown tragedy; and (3) Theories after Jonestown tragedy. Obviously, Jim Jones himself is the main actor for (1) and (2). The writings and speeches of U.S. grand daddy conspiracy theorist Mark Lane would, of course, be heavily included in (1) and (3) (Lane mostly just fled into the jungle during the tragedy). The trio of Soviet authors, John Judge, Jim Hougan, etc. would follow in (3). Mosedschurte (talk) 03:45, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionel Dorling[edit]

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

    This article does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biographical entry on Wikipedia. The most notable aspect of this man are his military awards which, although not easily achieved or obtained, were not highly uncommon or rare to British Army officers around the time of the First World War. The article's creator also appears to be a relative of the subject, and was perhaps created as more of a "tribute" then anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't think that last reason is relevant. They made a good attempt at referencing their edits in line with policy. The problem is that those edits never go any further than mentioning the guy in lists of award winners. There's no significant coverage of him. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for not verifying the subject's notability; I can't find sources that elevate the subject above other, similar combatants. However, I think that his notability may also depend on your own definition of "awards", and how military medals qualify as such (and which medals are notable).
    As a complete aside... he does appear to have been photographed by Walter Stoneman, who also took a famous photo of Churchill amongst others. These photos are in the National Portrait Gallery, which may infer some level of notability, were it not that those are the only links that I can find regarding this. Thought I'd mention it though, as it piqued my interest. onebravemonkey 11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet the WP:MILHIST interpretation of the general biographical notability criteria, see WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#Notability. David Underdown (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Companion of the Order of the Bath is notable--though not as much so as the higher ranks. The combination with companion of the Order of St Michael and St George is probably fairly rare. There are about 2000 of each--and I think many fewer at the time of these awards. DGG (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep agree with DGG the combination of Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George is not that common, also note that the not meeting the MILHIST notability is not a problem as a lot of officers and soldiers listed in Wikipedia would probably not meet it either. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep agree with comments immediately above re decorations. Additionally as a Command Paymaster he would have been in command of a significant corps of men. Not a regiment granted, but certainly heading towards meeting MILHIST criteria for notability. RAF station commanding officers have been included for commandant less men in the past. It is not a bad little article and has more cites than many that go unquestioned. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to note, the awards of a Companion of the Order of the Bath and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George together is not exactly rare, particularly during the First World War. Dozens, likely hundreds, of officers were awarded both for their actions during the First World War. I will add below a comment that was posted on this article's talk page by User:PalawanOz:
    "I had a quick check of Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, which has 697 people listed. In the "A's", there are 41 people. Of those 41, 12 (29%) also have an appointment in the Order of St Michael and St George. Now, I acknowledge that the GCB was often awarded to royalty (and hence they also received a lot of other Orders)... so, looking at the Category:Companions of the Order of the Bath, again, of the 33 "A's" listed out of a total of 643, 6 (18%) of them also had an appointment to the Order of St Michael and St George. I might add that many of them had appointments to higher Orders (of the Garter and Thistle in particular), as well as a sprinkling of DSOs."
    I cannot see how it can be considered rare if 18% of just the 33 "A's" in that category also have the Order of St Michael and St George. If one was to search through the London Gazette anouncements of awards for the First World War, one would find a significant number have been awarded classes in both orders. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    very good to have some numbers--thanks. i wish people did this more often, but I think it back what i said more impressionistically-- this comes to about 400 people. I think the top 400 Briitsh officers and civil servants of this sort is about the right proportion to call them notable. If it were 50% not 18%, the combination wouldn't mean much. DGG (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured that supplying some figures would be able to help, which I was able to add thanks to the initive of User:PalawanOz. However, the facts that he was able to supply are only on people who have articles on Wikipedia, and this does not include the hundreds, even thousands, of other people who were recipients of these orders. For example, if you view the London Gazette reference for Dorling's CB you can see his name is listed among 55 people recieving the award for "services rendered in connection with Military Operations in the Field", a number of which also have the DSO and/or CMG. There is also the factor that these people could have (like Dorling) recieved the CMG or even DSO later in the war. He is also among 55 people recieving the CMG for "services rendered in connection with the War", once again a number of which have also been awarded the CB and/or DSO. Aside from his awards, the notability guidlines also specify that a secondary source has been published on the person in question; besides the London Gazette award anouncements and the photograph at the National Portrait Gallery, there is no other source I have been able to find on this man. Once again, I am forced to reiterate: I do not belive this man is notable enough for Wikipedia. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 29 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 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Angela Johnson (presenter)[edit]

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

    fails WP:CREATIVE. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ... oh yeah, and a passing mention that she'd left The Music Jungle. http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,23861225-5013560,00.html Juzhong (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment simply being a TV presenter is not necessarily notable especially as a a part time role in a phone in late night quiz...main thing is wide third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While I don't feel any of her roles are notable enough to pass WP:N, it should be noted that she has had more than are mentioned in the article 1. What this source does not mention is what her roles were in these various productions, and without that information in a reliable source I have to say delete. FlyingToaster 07:31, 26 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. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoho Office Suite[edit]

    Zoho Office Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is blatant advertising. Article format (design) is a product brochure due to extensive use of subheadings detailing products and features using feature benefit and selling terms. Features and statements are unreferenced (delete as per WP:V). Examples of advertisement content includes "adds a few innovative twists", "it integrates well with other", "powerful drag & drop interface", "includes greater support", "a natural fit for the Web", etc. If content was reformatted with pictures it would be suitable for handing out as a brochure at a trade show where a dictionary article would not. Also delete as per WP:N for headings detailing non-notable offerings as headings are being used as notable destination links using misleading Zoho#SubHeading link syntax in other articles. 2 of the existing 3rd party references did not contain facts stated, 6 of the 9 references are self published, blogs or sponsored content.

    Article has improved to a point it is no longer a sales brochure, although there are still outstanding concerns below, I am withdrawing the nomination. - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Note DGG is now working on the article. I posted suggestions for improvements on DGG's talk page. When I nominated the article it was in this condition. - DustyRain (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I added some references from reliable sources on 23 November 2008 after DustyRain tagged the article for speedy deletion. I believe that this is notable software, and that concerns about the tone of the article are better addressed by editing than by deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, it's improving. Would you be able to provide additional references for the unreferenced statements? - Otherwise I think the content needs to be reduced to ensure verifiability - DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I just stumbled across it, never heard of it, but it appears at least a few major publications have. Appears to be sourced, even if it needs work. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but unfortunately some of the sources but do not contain relevant information they were used for. References must be relevant for verifiability. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — Appears to be notable per the GNG, and the copyediting is currently being worked on. MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not being challenged, hopefully verification of the many facts are provided as that was the largest concern. Note recent editing has improved the article but content still contains bias selling phrases and at least 90% of the facts are still unreferenced. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Adequate 3rd party references for notability in the reviews. Based on what he said on my talk p., the nom seems to be under the impression that the article should be about the company, not the product; I can't think why. I havent checked the company to see if they have other products--if so, that would be an additional article. Routine facts about a product can come from its own web site--what I left is basically a mere description. Sure, we could say where exactly on the site the info is given, sentence by sentence or fact by fact, but why? For noncontroversial material, that's over-referencing. The article was spam in the usual ways, so, as I try to do for a major product, I removed the worst of the spam. . Contrary to what is stated in the nom, the title=Zoho_Office_Suite&action=history page history shows that I had already done the cleanup when the article was nominated for afd, True, it was nominated for speedy when in a bad condition. That was the second speedy. Eastmain, an uninvolved editor, had already declined one, and the nom put it back. That's contrary to deletion policy. It's also contrary to policy to delete articles that can be improved, and the nom seems to admit that even by his standards it could be kept if improved. DGG (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I stated before, notability of this article was not challenged, it was the design format and concern about verifiable facts. Verification references are required for ALL articles. Personally I think information about the company would be good as well as company history (like most other business articles). There's still a few "marvellous" sales type phrases, personal viewpoint conclusion statements, incorrect facts (as noted in your article comments) that still need to be addressed. The primary point of verifying facts is that any joe blow can create a website and state anything and reference their own content. Wikipedia is not the place for such and this article was excessive stating promotional information without references as well as using valid notable references that did not reference the facts stated. Hopefully you or others will address the outstanding concerns and provide additional references. In regards to your comments regarding nomination, note the AFD process has worked well to force improvements to this article. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I nominated the article it was in this condition. In summary, I think DGG has done well, it no longer looks like a sales brochure, there has been enough improvements for me to withdraw the nomination. DGG, well done, thank you for your efforts. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep When articles look a bit too commercial, the answer is to edit them so they conform more to encyclopedic standards, not to delete them.--Filll (talk | wpc) 07:16, 25 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 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spiked Review of Books[edit]

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

    The mere fact that a magazine has a book review section does not seem notable. None of the sources discuss it, at most they just mention it in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 24 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 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Burgon Society[edit]

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

    fails WP:ORG. almost no secondary coverage as indicated in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Added another reference (to an item on a BBC Radio 4 documentary). Coverage in Google News searches isn't a good enough criterion for deletion: for example, the London Mathematical Society currently only has one match, and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest deletion of that article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep is an active society. As above. No reason to delete. Couldn't quite believe this has been nominated for deletion. Oliver Keenan (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, an important and active learned society.Ncox (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to last 2 respondees. If you are so strong about keeping it, perhaps some reliable sources to back up your case? Michellecrisp (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. It's devoted to a relatively obscure topic, yes, but that shouldn't make it any less deserving of inclusion. It's been featured in a BBC documentary, one of its council members has just been elected to the Society of Antiquaries of London (and the society is mentioned in the announcement here), it undertakes and encourages serious research, and has published a number of books on the subject of academic dress. Mere failure to appear in a Google News search isn't adequate grounds for deletion (lots of otherwise valid societies also don't show up) - can you provide a stronger rationale? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nicholas said It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. That in itself does not satisfy WP:ORG. The availability of significant third party coverage is a better determinant of notability. Of course, if people find enough sources, then the outcome of this discussion will be obvious. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the society does satisfy the criteria for noncommercial organisations in WP:ORG - its activities are international in scope, and its existence is verifiable by independent sources (including the BBC, the Society of Antiquaries of London, both well-respected significant sources; also one of the society's meetings was reported in a French newspaper a couple of years ago - I'll try to find a reference). The only argument for deletion presented thus far is a failure to show up in a Google News search - which isn't in itself enough, because lots of other established and valid organisations don't show up either. I recognise the importance of winnowing out articles on organisations with questionable relevance or verifiability, but this isn't one of those organisations. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:24, 26 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. and a copyvio from one of those college weeklies. StarM 04:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Toy soldiers band[edit]

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

    Bump up from A7 speedy. The only press coverage is from a college weekly, which is generally not enough to meet the notability guideline for bands. So delete. chaser - t 04:30, 24 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) per WP:SNOW...and Wendy better put some clothing on or she'll catch a cold! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wendy Williams (porn star)[edit]

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

    I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:27, 24 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 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vicki Richter[edit]

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

    I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO by virtue of her AVN win. Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • She meets the secondary criteria of WP:BIO. Secondary criteria are common sense exceptions. In this case, established media tends to shun porn stars, but they can still be of general interest at certain levels of achievement. That's the rationale behind WP:PORNBIO and AVN is considered a reliable enough source here. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed... the criteria for notability under the "Any Biography" section clearly states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Vicki has won one AVN Award, and been nominated for at least one more (I'm still double-checking my archives of past nominations), and the AVN Award has been called the Oscar of the adult film industry. Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep passes WP:Pornbio by such a wide margin that this nomination is laughable. All but 5 of the noms career edits are for a mass deletion campaign targeting transsexual porn stars. WP:NOTCENSOREDHorrorshowj (talk) 09:52, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmen Cruz[edit]

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

    I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:21, 24 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 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eva Vortex[edit]

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

    I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:17, 24 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. a9 Elonka 06:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I-5 Killers, Volume 2[edit]

    I-5 Killers, Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    2nd in a series of compilations from a n-n label with no evidence of notability. StarM 04:18, 24 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Boots[edit]

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

    I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed... the problem with what you pulled out is that there isn't a reliable source immediately locatable for the conviction. I can find blog and forum postings detailing what her real name is and the details behind the conviction, but no reliable source for the name. I can also find a reliable source ([51], which is ultimately tracks back to "The california lawyer directory") that spells out the results of an appeal to that original sentence. So given the one key missing link in the chain of information (reliable sourcing of the name) we can't use it. Tabercil (talk) 21:49, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deep voices[edit]

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

    Non-notable band. Article claims that songs have charted in several different countries, but I have been unable to find evidence of that. No reliable sources provided outside of the interview listed, no in-depth independent coverage found. TN‑X-Man 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Additional references http://www.nickyzimmer.com/artists/03c1989b150dab602/index.html http://www.djmag.com/music/9030 http://www.trance.nu/v4/reviews/kyo-gil-la-ultima http://www.djshog.de/charts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillsdj (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They have had releases on major labels in the electronic music genre. (Trance) I've added additional references for those. They have also recieved airplay (since 2005) on A state of trance Which is hosted by Armin Van Buuren. The archive of playlists can be found here. ASOT These are major accomplishments for this specific genre.

    Sorry, I thought I put enough references there for them to be considered to be included on the site per WP:MUSIC.

    --Skillsdj (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep Just notable enough although the sources are pretty marginal. If you can find an article or two from a newspaper or magazine that would really help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's some from Dj/electronic music magazines:
    Dj Mag review 1
    Dj Mag review 2
    Mixmag 'tune of the month' article copy - I can't seem to pull anything one from mixmag.net since most of their printed articles don't seem to be posted online so it might not be credible enough.

    --Skillsdj (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't have to be online to cite (although it's nice if it is). You just have to provide all the relevant citation information about the article name, p. number, author, date, source etc. (if I left anything out). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 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, SoWhy 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per ChildofMidnight based on all the new info that has been given since Ten Pound Hammer's comment. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how Djmag.com is not a reliable source. I tried to find newspaper sources, but because the words are common, I'm having trouble whittling them down to something useful. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I have to agree with Hammer on this. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 28 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kimberly Devine[edit]

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

    I know I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I spend hours reading articles here and when I found this one (and a couple of others like it) I started to read on some policy and decided that maybe it really doesn't belong, and I honestly don't think that it does. There are no sources, first of all, and then second of all, it looks like it was written by a fan. At worst, it's self-promotional. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia has several policies, including: no original research, notability, and verifiability. This article doesn't fall into line with any of them. Being a transsexual porn star shouldn't qualify as automatically being notable, and I've done searching and there's literally no mainstream press about this person. I've since found that Wikipedia has a lot of articles about porn stars, with most of them not being notable (and notability in this regard would require at least some mainstream press). I have no idea how to nominate multiple articles, because this isn't the only one that doesn't have any sources and has no notability, but maybe it's best for more experienced people to handle them. Wikipedia should at the very least maintain some level of standard for articles, otherwise anyone who has ever appeared in an adult video or who is an "exotic" entertainer could have an article just because they have some fans. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge". In my opinion, a lot of these articles don't add to that mission, which is becoming more important day by day as the project grows as well as its readership. Wikipedia needs to be taken seriously. MartinShadow (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment (for now)... so how does your argument differ from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Tabercil (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have to echo Tabercil. This really sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is there is WP:PORNBIO which spells out criteria under which articles on Porn Stars -- and WP:NOTCENSORED, so articles on porn stars are allowed -- are considered notable. I'm not commenting on whether or not this particular article (or any of the others nominated) meets PORNBIO or not; I do have to express concern over the nomination rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination differs from IDONTLIKEIT by citing 3 policies and telling us that some effort was made to find sources, but was unsuccessful (I like nominators who at least make an effort). If you try and look for reliable sources yourself I don't think you will find any (I didn't), but good luck. Delete if none are found. Juzhong (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was responding in part to the nominator placing several additional porn articles in quick succession up for AFD -- articles that are verifiable. I placed it here as this is the initial AFD of the "set". The fact I have not chosen a keep or delete option should be evidence that I am undertaking exactly what you suggest. 23skidoo (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If you look past the nominator's commentary about why he/she doesn't think the article belongs, you will see the nominator also cites policies and indicates that research looking for reliable sources was done. This is more than many nominations on AfD have, and a detailed discussion of why the article lacks merit is certainly better than the many "delete per nom" or "keep per above" votes, and even the nominations that say "useless, delete" or "NN, Delete". The fact is the nominator cites policies in their nomination, and indicates that they attempted to establish notability. They should not be bitten when they are citing WP policies in their nomination. That said, the article fails the general notability guidelines, and also fails WP:PORNO. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete It is possible that her career is notable, but the article offers no evidence. DGG (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Article does not establish notability of the subject. Tatarian (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete, exactly as DGG lays out: she probably is notable, but there's no evidence. From what I can tell, her career predates when the major adult awards had specific transsexual award categories (e.g., AVN didn't add a Transsexual Performer of the Year category until 2004). Tabercil (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to List of One Piece characters. This was brought here because a single person opposed a merge. That should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanji[edit]

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

    The article, about a fictional character, does not satisfy WP:N or WP:FICT. The only sources are non-independent. A merge discussion about several related characters was held at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Merge-in protagonists. The result of the discussion in case of this page was declared to be "merge into List of One Piece characters" and the merge executed. The result of the merge discussion was contested by Gune (talk · contribs). -- Goodraise (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopen merge discussion - Not sure why you put this up as an AfD. This is obviously a merge discussion, not a delete discussion, so just reopen the merge discussion again at the talk page. Reading the talk page, there was really no consensus, since only there were only two participants. Not sure where this "4 day to improve article" deadline came from either, nor do I agree with it. I think what is needed here is patience for people to voice their oppinions. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most participants voiced their opinions in the "General" section a little bit further down. The discussion had stalled. Everything seemed to have been said, even though the discussion was advertised on the project's talk page. Also the deadline wasn't a deadline, merely a "Okay, this is how I summarize the discussion, if nobody disagrees by either speaking up or by improving the article, I'll take that as silent consent." Another reason why I put this up here is because I followed the example of a previous merge discussion that was contested. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and Reopen merge discussion: It does seem like there was not too much participation in the earlier discussion, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't stand just because one person opposed it (with some very bad faith). As long as they don't cite policy reasons to revert the redirect, it can be reinstated without going through any hoops. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:01, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SimpleSAMLphp[edit]

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

    Declined speedy for a PHP protocol. Not convinced of notability, most of what Google turned up was documentation from the software's producers and a review in someone's blog; no non-trivial, secondary sources. Google news turned up zero hits. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    simpleSAMLphp is being used for some big federations: as an example, the Danish University Federation (Wayf) is completely implemented with simpleSAMLphp. Unfortunately, the web page of WAYF (https://www.wayf.dk/) doesn't say their implemented solution was simpleSAMLphp, wven though I heard on the Terena conferences that is (although you could consider that biased, coming from a simpleSAMLphp's developer).

    Anyway, I found an interesting source: http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/news_events/iddy_awards the Liberty Alliance (a well-established name, I'd say) gave the IDDY award to UNNINET for the implementation of simpleSAMLphp. I guess that's a good external source! I'll add some more info to the wiki. Again, I am just trying to help here, because I noticed that this article didn't exist and I thought I could create at least a little one to help people. Blink0gmailcom (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Nice job for finding that! Even if it is slightly biased, that is certainly a valid assertion of notability. If we can find a few more sources, I'll withdraw the AfD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Actually it is not slightly biased. Liberty Alliance is a well-established name, completely separated from Feide (who developed simpleSAMLphp), so I don't agree that it's biased. What I said was biased was the claim that Wayf was done with simpleSAMLphp, since it comes from the talk of a simpleSAMLphp's developer at the Terena conference. I'll try adding more sources later like you suggested, but at the moment I am a bit busy! Blink0gmailcom (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://saml.xml.org/wiki/saml-open-source-implementations

    This page: https://www.wayf.dk/nyheder says: "UNINETT gets awards for simplesamlphp, the software that Wayf is based upon and participating in developing" in danish though.

    https://spaces.internet2.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=11484 - Fronter, one big e-learning platform is using simplesamlphp in hundres of installations.

    A complete workshop held about simplesamlphp in australia: http://www.eresearch.edu.au/2008ws12

    The danish government is reccomended simplesamlphp as one of three software packags to connect the national ID solution: http://www.softwareborsen.dk/projekter/softwarecenter/brugerstyring/oiosimplesamlphp and http://fugensolutions.com/danishgov.html

    Nominated for European Identity Award 2008: http://www.kuppingercole.com/articles/eic_award_290408

    simplesamlphp part of really large EU project GEANT: http://www.geant2.net/server/show/ConWebDoc.2879

    Unique search string on google, gettings 1.5M hits: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=simplesamlphp&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreassolberg (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the bust out Andreas :-) I was going to let you guys know I started your wiki entry, just so you would know and also so you could provide some more info, if you wanted. I just thought that simpleSAMLphp deserves a wiki entry ;-) When I have time I'll try integrating some of what you mentioned on the page, but I really don't have so much (you can say "any" actually) experience with editing wikipedia... Not that it's very hard, I can just copy the structure of some other entry, but still... Not quite sure what would be a good struct, maybe a "Prizes/Nominations" heading? I mean it's not common to have a wiki entry just listing the prizes and stuff, I guess some other info and that as a complement (and as good external sources Mr Senseless wants ;-). PS: Nice presentation at Terena Andreas! Blink0gmailcom (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete See wp: notability (by entering it into the search box) for wikipedia's guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge & redirect to SAML 2.0. No independent notability for this implementation, but the article about the protocol is currently lacking any mentions of products implementing it. So, the contents of this article is a welcome addition there. The IDDY industry award (also mentioned in Network World) is not sufficient in my view for separate article; the other projects that won an IDDY award don't have a Wikipedia article, and are unlikely to get one either. Pcap ping 09:27, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indoor Gridiron Football League[edit]

    Indoor Gridiron Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Substantive enough that it's not an A7, but it failed to launch and apart froma minimal announcement of such, there's no evidence this proposed league with 2 teams is notable. StarM 03:55, 24 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 the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dental amalgam controversy[edit]

    Dental amalgam controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not a real controversy. There are a few crazy weirdos and groups who have sponsored Zogby push polls and others who try to "drum up" the idea that a "controversy" exists, but in fact, none exists. There are no independent reliable sources which indicate that a dental amalgam controversy exists: only sources to obvious POV-sources such as "Mercury Watch" and autism pseudoscience groups. The material that is notable can be sourced in dental filling, but this article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. Please delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. As the article noted by Gnfnrf (dated 2007) states:

      The FDA provided a “White Paper” for the Panel’s consideration that selected 34 studies out of many hundreds that fulfilled their criteria for inclusion. Following a careful review and discussion of the presentations and science, the Joint Panel voted 13-7 to reject the FDA’s conclusion that amalgam was safe. By the same voting margin, the Panel also concluded the paper did not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about mercury exposure and health effects of dental amalgam. The Panel did not say amalgam was unsafe, only that its safety could not be established based upon the data provided.

      A recent lawsuit has essentially forced the FDA to update their page on dental amalgam.[53] In any case, there is plenty of literature out there. The page is badly organized and doesn't even have nearly all of the sources that could be added, so it certainly would not fit within due weight within the dental amalgam page. In 1995 FASEB, a fairly respectable group, published a review entitled: "Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm."[54] Since Mutter's paper is in German, that source, though lacking in the newer information, provides an interesting freely available full-text overview for those interested. II | (t - c) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. The claims ScienceApologist makes are blatantly false. Among other esteemed scientists, Alfred Stock, one of the greatest chemists of the last century, published about the pernicious effects these fillings can have. Among others, one of the top dentists at Walter Reed has urged that amalgam fillings be banned immediately. European dental societies do (tacitly) acknowledge that amalgam fillings can cause serious health problems in some people.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep The FDA investigated the the whole thing and concluded it was not safe, Scandinavian countries ban it, and yet the American Dental Association claims there's no health risks. Sounds like a existing controversy to me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Good arguments are given by others above. MaxPont (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but cover the controversy - WP is not the place to fight it out. Amalgam (dentistry) is long enough and the concerns have received enough mainstream coverage that a spinout article is indicated. The present article, however, is in serious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per everyone else, the controversy exists alright. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Not only is there a strong case that amalgams pose a danger -- with two advanced industrialized nations banning the substance -- but to claim that no controversy even *exists* smacks of, in the words of the nominator, "drummed up" "crazy weirdo" POV. Madscribbler (talk) 10:36, 25 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 snowball keep. the wub "?!" 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Byronic hero[edit]

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

    This page is does not have many sources such as heroes who fit this quality type of hero, there have only been five or less articles on the subject.Also the term Byronic Hero is basically an ancient term of today's term anti-hero with similar concepts to today's type of anti-hero I ask you kindly to please consider my proposal of deleting this article. Tylerwade123 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep A notable concept; there are at least two books entirely about Byronic heroes. There might be some overlap between Byronic heroes other kinds of "flawed heroes", but that doesn't mean we should delete this entry entirely, since the exact term is commonly used in literary studies. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's not the amount of sources that matter. It's how detailed they are and the quality. Zagalejo's research indicates there's plenty of material there to use. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As I understand it, "Hero" is in refference not to the character being a "good guy," but rather being a main character in gereral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.245.34 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Actually, the article is well-sourced for its size. As Zagalejo shows, more sources could be added and it is not a duplicate of antihero. Several examples of Byronic heroes are given in the acticle, there is no need to turn it into an example farm. The nominator is also incorrect about the number of articles which link to this one,[55] though I suspect they should be checked for original research. Edward321 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I was made to study byronic heros way back in AP English, if it is good enough for that cirriculum, it should be good enough for WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep well established concept as shown by the references. I point at that older critical views not currently in vogue are still notable. Notability is permanent & thats one of the the basic premises behind any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:23, 25 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 Speedily deleted as re-creation of a page that's apparently been deleted 4 times before: also spam, also minimal context (some of the previously deleted versions were in fact better), and, what the hell, no showing of importance either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Auslogics Disk Defrag[edit]

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

    Article is a second attempt at advertising in vio of WP:SOAP after previous iteration of same article deleted in accord with AfD. Same issues remain: no apparent notability. No refs (and no suitable candidate refs, as it seems). This (or any other) software application could take on notability by dint of involvement with a significant event of some kind, but the odds are against it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure software products. There are lots of computer applications out there; some are excellent and useful, but most are not notable. This one has little or no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources so there's no reason it should be included in an encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, possible speedy delete, both as obvious spam and as a very brief article without context. The text only announces the existence of a defragmenter program, and "helpfully" supplies a link to the page where it can be downloaded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G4. -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G4/A7/G11) — take your pick, either recreation of deleted material, no context, or spam. Text your response now!!! MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G4. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 24 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! 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Eva[edit]

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

    fails WP:CREATIVE. simply being a radio announcer is not notable enough. Limited coverage as per Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nn per nom. An unremarkable career.--Sting Buzz Me... 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This article details a 22+ year in print journalism as well as the publication of three books written by the subject so he's not "simply" a radio announcer (not that there's anything wrong with that). Article needs sources for verification but subject should not be dismissed purely "per nom" in this case. - Dravecky (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    so are you wanting a keep or delete? Yes he has written books but I can't find evidence of The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comment" is simply a reasonable statement of "I'm not sure I want to say either keep or delete". Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Weak Keep haven't had time to go through these but he appears to be mentioned in several books which may help establish notability. StarM 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- Most of those hits are for a different Bruce Eva. The books he co-wrote with the likes of Crackers Keenan (A North Melbourne footballer) etc are not exactly top sellers. Does every niche writer that ever published some minor coffee table book deserve an article here? The guy was just doing a job, and not so well because he was dumped. Or should I say contreversial [sic] sacking. Did he win any awards?--Sting Buzz Me... 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with above, WP:CREATIVE says the work must be significantly recognised. Simply publishing 3 books does not meet the criteria. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, weak and I hadn't had time to go through them. I think you've discounted your own nom statement. He's not "simply... a radio announcer." He did more than that. It still may not add up to notability but it's not as limited as you make it seem in the nom. I do agree that RS coverage of his radio work is a bit lacking. StarM 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like in any discussion, new claims of notablity may be found. Yes I subsequently verified that he co-authored some books. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 24 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 by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bajo la misma piel[edit]

    Bajo la misma piel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A previously speedied article, removed by Deskana. Put back in a different format, but still totally un-noteworthy, no external links, no references, poorly written, effectively unencyclopedic in present condition. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This AFD is WITHDRAWN - There is a Wikiproject on this Wikipedia relating specifically to all kinds of Soap Operas, which I believe a Telenovela would count as. I am going to pass this article to them for a full check over and to see if there is anything they can do with it. This follows discussion with other editors via IRC. I request any passing administrator to CLOSE this AfD as a Withdrawn/Kept. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't throw around the term notability, just because an article is badly written. All of these can be remedied. References and external links can be looked up and the formatting and writing can be cleaned. How is the show not notable, specifically? - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't non-notable, I think that's why the nom is focusing on present condition. A two-second google returns these results specifically talking about the telenovela. In other words, it's a keep. And before it comes up, no, the sourcs don't need to be in English. StarM 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I didn't say ANYTHING about it being non-notable, I said it was un-noteworthy. As in, never heard of, and be honest, how many people are gonna search an English language encyclopedia for information about a Mexican show which is in Spanish and I suspect, has probably never aired outside Mexico? I am focusing partly on the condition, but essentially, I don't believe the story/show/telenovela warrants an article here. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIAS, and did you see my link. Plenty are talking about it as I indicated in my link. English speakers who spent time in Mexico, saw it and want to know more? If it's in poor condition, fix it StarM 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he's being biased at all. On the same token, it's not very likely that someone would come to an English Wikipedia for something that's all but known outside of Mexico, but it's still possible. We have plenty of articles sourced only to foriegn language sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Things that are notable in Mexico are notable enough for an encyclopedia, even if it seems unlikely that the English encyclopedia would be the resource people will check. If its high profile there, and meets our notability requirements for television shows, then the article should be cleaned up - not deleted. WP:NOT#PAPER I think is the link. Avruch T 22:29, 24 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! 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Robbins[edit]

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

    I'm not sure about this one. First glance looks pretty notable, but on digging a little I'm not sure. Google news search found me 5 hits, 4 of which were mis-spellings of the footballer, but perhaps I'm not searching the right way (I used: ([56])) If he's notable, let's get the article properly referenced. But I do suspect he's not notable, hence this AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NB WP:COMP notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Mark_Robbins_at_AfD --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I first posted the original article since Mr. Robbins appears to meet the criteria as a Creative Professional. I have contacted him to ask about references and sources. He is retired now and has a large collection of print references to his work at the time. The companies he built and worked for have long since been merged and absorbed, and so their history is largely lost. Mr. Robbins' development work took place in the early and mid-80s, before the modern Internet, and that's why there are no references. It is problematical to scan and post some of the printed reviews and news of that day that he has in his collection. He hasn't figured out a good way to do that. Computing became a lot more fun and useful when the machines could be all connected together, and Mr. Robbins was a leading developer to that end in his day. That's why the article was posted. I hope a way can be figured out to add some of his print references so that verification can be more sure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's perfectly permissible to keep a copy of this article in your user space, and work to add references there--I'd recommend doing so before this AfD is scheduled to close. References don't have to be scanned and posted to be valid--If there's enough information for a reference that a good librarian can find a copy, it's fine in my book. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been updated with some external references, two of which mention Robbins by name. Also added a little more internal linking. There's been some pruning and minor cleanup. Mark has to dig to find the printed references in his ancient collection, but he initially provided these web links that might be helpful. Please see what you think. I looked through a sampling of other pages and saw that they indeed have a lot of print link references. Guess I haven't paid attention to that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant content updates have been made to the article with more references added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After all the recent article updates, I gather I'm supposed to make this formal request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, which of the references you've added include non-trivial mentions of Robbins in a reliable source? Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I couldn't find any. Happy for you to persuade me away from delete, but currently, you've not succeeded. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In summary as best I can tell - At the bottom line this is a biography of a businessman who is claimed to have a significant role in developing and marketing several technical products in the 1980s. At present dispute are not engineering principles nor the fact that the products existed, but that Mark Robbins played an important role in developing and marketing those products. In this instance, most likely third party sources would have to be print business and trade publications of the day. Technical product marketing such as in this case is a trailing ephemeral so the sources would likely need to be contemporary print. Most older technical products are not widely discussed for long. These specific products were significant in their day as they helped to democratize computer file sharing, so this article would appear to have some historical interest. In that sense, it would seem to be a shame to delete it pending some source research. We will need to find contemporary print business and trade references to Robbins' role in the development and marketing of the products ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. For articles to be kept, they need to fulfil WP:V. If he's not the subject of multiple, non trivial references in reliable sources, your opinion that he's important and it'd be a shame if the article were deleted, is interesting and noted, but not material to this discussion. You've improved the article no end, but sadly, not shown notability. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through the tutorials at this point. However, it turns out while the products Robbins created are novel, advanced for their time, technically influential, widely known, discussed and bought, Robbins is not directly notable as an individual stand-alone person apart from his technical creations. The creations are a literal extension of Robbins and in effect seem to speak for themselves given their widespread documented acceptance and review as significant technical developments. Magazines, editors, etc. widely wrote about the products but not so much their creator himself. In fact several of those product creations are described in Wikipedia articles, so that in itself naturally certifies notability of those technical works! - see internal linking. So to meet the notability requirement, all we evidently need to demonstrate is that Robbins himself was the one who actually developed and in some cases marketed the notable devices. This ostensibly should satisfy the notability requirement. The software and hardware devices as created, distributed, widely reviewed and bought - plus described in other Wikipedia articles - seem to conclusively define Mark Robbins' notability if he's their creator.

    There could be a case of an artist whose works are very well known. The works are widely bought, reviewed and possess widely acknowledged fine design and influence. However, that individual artist person produces and markets the works from their workshop without so much personal wide connection to the outside world. That artist is notable by the recognized works they have created. The fact that those works are widely acknowledged, discussed, and reviewed as notable objects thereby makes that artist a notable person. Robbins' technical products are his works, just as with that artist. Thus you can easily Google all of Robbins' works but not the individual man himself. In order to be fair, I think that has to be kept in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:44, 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, Black Kite 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More references added to help substantiate Mark Robbins' connection to products and companies described in this article. Further references will be added. Mark Robbins' physical condition has tended to slow down the research unfortunately, but he'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current TODO in progress:

    Another couple of specific references, which are on the way
    Prune References list
    Critically comb the article and again assure that the development roles as described are faithful to any documentation. An ongoing concern is if a contemporary co-worker or co-creator were to legitimately make an error claim. A true "credit hog" objection, say, would be unacceptable. There are serious online techie critics beyond the Wikipedia community itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Head Space[edit]

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

    Non-notable "recently launched online contest" that essentially fails WP:WEB, due to low coverage, lack of WP:RS that demonstrate notability, and only two external links - to the official site + school site that fail WP:V along with WP:PSTS. If the subject does carry potential in notability, it can easily be merged here. Flewis(talk) 13:59, 19 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, Black Kite 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This seems little more than an effort to advertise the subject contest, a violation of WP:SOAP. Even if appropriate sources beyond the contest site itself could be found, I think it would be difficult to make this topic conform to WP:N. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (and redirect) to be included in the university page, the fact needs to be verified (instead of fully independent notability being established). - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non notable event. Nuttah (talk) 12:26, 28 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Realism[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Article describes a neologism. The only source is from the person who invented the term and I am unable to find any other reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 12:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - The man who coined the term would be here. However, its utter lack of use elsewhere (only in four books in a Google Book Search). The only extensive coverage is based on the coining of this term, so therefore I would suggest a merge to Dave Hoffer. Unfortunately, since he doesn't have an article, this isn't a viable option, so I have no other option than to delete. This passes WP:V and has WP:RS, which is an issue brought up by the nom, but it fails WP:NEO. DARTH PANDAduel 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The term is used by reliable third party sources only when describing how the term was created. It is not widespread or in common use so it fails WP:NEO. Fails inclusion criteria for neologisms so must be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:12, 19 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 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Coined this year, not in common usage, not written about. WP:NEO all the way. gnfnrf (talk) 04:24, 24 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kensington & Chelsea Cricket Club[edit]

    Kensington & Chelsea Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    As per WP:CRIC, this is a non-notable local cricket team. The article has been recovered following prod deletion, since the club vice president sees it as an extension of their club website. bigissue (talk) 12:24, 19 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 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, possibly speedy A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability for the club. gnfnrf (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No notability claimed or offered. Nuttah (talk) 12:22, 28 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 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Fine (radio)[edit]

    Mark Fine (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    fails WP:CREATIVE. Trivial third party coverage as shown in Google search. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:00, 20 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 01:44, 24 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 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hurst[edit]

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

    Questionable notability for this politician who was not elected to the office he sought. Raven1977 (talk) 04:33, 20 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 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain/revise if needed to reduce emphasis on campaign. Notability outside the campaign was addressed in previous versions but deleted in response to comments to emphasize campaign more. Acham (talk) 22:50 26 November 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN. This WP:ONEEVENT "biography" is basically a 2006 campaign summary. No RS attention outside of running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Without question: he's not done anything to make him notable, and there's no evidence of coverage. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not meet politician notability guidelines: subject has not held office, does not have significant press coverage relative to any other person running FlyingToaster 07:23, 26 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 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Auslogics BoostSpeed[edit]

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

    This article is on a topic that may be non-notable. The article may exist primarily to advertise a particular product. The article has no sources other than the commercial website of the product being described. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I saw what you mean. I removed the advertising (the price and the fact it was shareware and that it had a trial) and replaced it with review information. If that is still too much advertising, I'll just do it the way the page for Auslogics Disk Defrag was created, by just saying what it does, if necessary. --Jesant13 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to add references and citations showing why this company is notable. Search "wp: notability" and "wp: references" in the search box for more information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I suppose the Auslogics Disk Defrag article should be considered for deletion as well then, because THAT is what I based it on format-wise. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome to submit that article for deletion. I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it's any good. But this article being discussed here needs to have citations to reputable references added to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Keep, needs to be improved, and added proper references. SF007 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody help me improve the page then? I'm not sure what to add, and I don't want to make the article worse by adding advertising. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:28, 20 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) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Looks like a WP:SOAP vio with no real potential for notability. Big reference problems verge (at least) on WP:PSTS violation; one of the three references is nothing more than a download link (possibly in violation of WP:EL, and another is the software's official page. Perhaps if this software is ever involved with a significant event of some sort, it will be notable, but lacking that, no. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete clearly non notable with only ~300k downloads. Maybe it could have a reference on another page, but it does not deserve its own.Mozzie (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, look. I created the article because I use the program and noticed it didn't have an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe someone should help me improve the article, it has potential. I can see your reasons for deletion, but I think it would be best if this article were improved with more information and third-party sources instead of just deleting it without giving it a chance. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM are not valid reasons for keeping it. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 26 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 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official joints[edit]

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

    Non-notable, unverified debut album. Fails WP:MUSIC CultureDrone (talk) 09:38, 19 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) 01:26, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Summers[edit]

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

    No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:36, 19 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) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the information provided by Morbidthoughts; I would encourage the information cited be added to the article to address the unsourced concerns. If by chance this article is deleted consideration should be given to making it a redirect to Jaime Sommers as a reasonable search variation for the fictional character. 23skidoo (talk) 07:06, 24 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 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Minu Barati[edit]

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

    Is not notable according to Notability_(people).

    Was deleted in German Wikipedia in April, since she is only wife of notable person but not notable itself (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/12. April 2008#Minu Barati (gelöscht)).

    --Abe Lincoln (talk) 20:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Archimedes Foundation[edit]

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

    Non notable foundation with massive npov concerns. Written as a resume, the article presents no WP:RS other than an official site. No incoming links from other wiki articles, and the bullet-point style prose only seeks to promote rather than present factual encyclopedic information. Flewis(talk) 13:51, 19 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) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already added a source. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notable enough.  --Lambiam 19:31, 27 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. Snow has been plowed. StarM 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Boybama[edit]

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

    Current internet fad. No substantial coverage in third party, reliable sources. No evidence of "lasting and historical interest and impact" per WP:NOTNEWS. Contested PROD. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:07, 19 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) 01:10, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Nalty[edit]

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

    Like the Nigahiga deletion, this guy has no notability outside YouTube and therefore, does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep - Based on significant notability. Jason (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Ceran, obviously you didn't read this article at all, and you are just a self-important jerkoff. This is wikipedia. It's not an ACTUAL encyclopedia. I mean, Fred has a page, for God Sake! I see no reason why Nalts shouldn't have a page. it should stay, end of story. --Paultheairplane (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm sorry that you feel this way but I don't really think that he has baseline notability. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there are several sources in reliable publications (such as this one which isn't in the article), most of them are pretty trivial but they probably do include enough descriptive information about the subject to support a verifiable stub. If it's deemed there is not enough coverage to establish notability for an individual article a merge somewhere might be appropriate. The subject seems to be discussed in terms of general "new media" and new advertising techniques rather than specifically because they use YouTube. Guest9999 (talk) 00:05, 24 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) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Merge & Redirect - I only found one other independent source mentioning Nalty, but the sources on that page appear to check out. However, all the independent sources say very little about Nalty other than mere mentions; most of it is taken from primary sources written by Nalty himself. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Mgm|(talk)'s suggestion about merging to List of YouTube celebrities would be consistent with what is usually done with content such as this until there is enough info or reliable sources to make him notable. --Macrowiz (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please note that the previous AFD listed appears to have been improperly formatted and not a proper AFD at all. 23skidoo (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The links in the references and external links section at the bottom of the article alone show he's been extensively interviewed in both online and regular media sources (which means he's received coverage by multiple reliable independendent sources per WP:N).
    • Delete The links at the bottom are all trivial or non-reliable third party sources (youtube, self published, blogs, etc.) The Adweek reference mentions him in one sentence in passing (trivial mention) the Wall Street Journal article has a passing mention in an article about searching on youtube in general (very trivial) and the LA Times article also mentions him in passing in an article about product placement (trivial). No indication of notability, either through the general notability guidelines, or by WP:ENTERTAINER. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some, but not all, the references go beyond the scope of "passing mention." --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Based on significant notability. Can be merged after AfD if consensus is reached. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The references do indicate passing WP:BIO. Some people might not like the fact people can be notable because of youtube, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Nalts is not only one of the most Stable and Popular Partners on YouTube he has a very active blog that receives thousands of hits each day. He has been a guest on ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC; both national and local. His opinion is sought from many Important and Popular Newspapers and Blogs. He has created commercials for Mentos, Readers Digest and other well known US products, all of this revolves around his background in the Marketing Industry and his extreme popularity on You Tube. Further, the wiki guidelines use the word notability: a person or celebrity who is an inspiration to others. Kevin Nalty fills that description; see all the videos of thanks for his inspiration and collaboration he has been asked to participated by many well known internet, political and MSM personalities. Nalts has had an important hand in helping sharp the past and present popularity of You Tube, Revver and the Marketing Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talk • contribs) 18:54, 29 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 Sally Spectra. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spectra Fashions[edit]

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

    No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete or weak merge Non-notable and lacks sources. Weak merge with either Sally Spectra or Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Sally Spectra. The nominator's reasoning does not explain why this information should not be included in an article relevant to the show in which it is notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Sally Spectra. An organization in a fictional story, not notable enough to have an article of its own. If this information is needed, it can be included in the article on its owner. Chamal talk 12:38, 24 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 08:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful[edit]

    Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Not even a real information about the locations in the B&B, just some lists of names and addresses. (Btw, the use of word "former" is against the way the things should be written according to WP:FICTION, but this is the least). Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete - No actual content, and it's listcruft. Perhaps merge to main article, but it shouldn't be used on its own. DavidWS (contribs) 01:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable and includes no sources. Suggest author submits this to [65] instead. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No need to keep an article for this, it's clearly non-notable and unsourced. I don't think anybody would be interested in finding out locations in a TV series (unless it's some hardcore fan). Anyway, Wikipedia is not a collection of facts to keep articles like this. Chamal talk 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is more geared towards Wikia Soaps but, LOL, not here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I cant see what useful information this gives. DGG (talk) 09:39, 25 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. Macrowiz (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Small Crew Productions[edit]

    Small Crew Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Questionably notable production company. I was unable to turn up any third-party sources in the usual fashion. This article was prodded by another editor, but, while I agree it should be deleted, I am uncertain enough about it that I thought I would take it to AfD. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 05:58, 19 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, kurykh 00:39, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Mineo[edit]

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

    No indication of notability under which the subject would pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:32, 24 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. Original research; singular source does not verify article seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Millennial era[edit]

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

    This page appears to be nothing but original research. The one source listed (which currently needs to be retrieved manually from the editing window) has does not even feature the word "millenial" or "era", or anything related to this article. Unschool (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a search on the internet. It appears that the term is quite loosely defined. Often it is used to refer to the periosd after the millenium while the article refers to the period leading up to the millenium. I suspect the content of this page is probably more opinion than fact.Mozzie (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - All original research and no links to sources. This user has a history of creating articles that were later deleted. May qualify for A7. --Macrowiz (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an aside, I don't think the creator's past history of article creation should be a factor here. Each article should be judged on its own. We should not label editors, with the policy-driven exception of vandals, lest we succumb to Becker's dilemma.Unschool (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Original research; reads like a personal essay and contains nothing factual not found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, an ambiguous and ill-defined term, where the interpretation given is not supported by reliable sources. Reads like an WP:OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article never defines what the "millennial era" is (1990-1999? 2000-2009? something else entirely?), and the focus on trends in popular music is just plain bizarre. We already have a bunch of articles on "2000 in X" and "X in the 2000s" (for example, 2000 in music and Music in the 2000s). While there's potential (given extensive SECONDARY sources) for an article on the cultural phenomenon of the third millennium (consider the prevalence of "in the year 2000" predictions in the late 20th century, for example), this article isn't it. It's not even close. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I concur with the OR concerns. There's no indication that a "Milennial era" has been formally defined in any way; it's just the 1990s and the 2000s. That's not to say such a term might not be coined in the future (though more likely it'll be something like "Pre-9/11 Era") but right now there's nothing to support what's here. 23skidoo (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this sort of article (especially) needs sources; otherwise, it shouldn't stay. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unsourced, original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-opened reverted my close and restored at the request of DGG, whose input I request. StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per SNOW. Research exists on the Milennial Era, and what's sourced is in and could potenitally be added to articles such as Generation Y. This is pure OR unencyclopedic essay. It could be said Millennial fever still exists in the 2000s decade as people still call the current year "two thousand eight" and not "twenty oh eight". StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Although I used to take sympathy for articles of this nature. I do believe that it must be sourced. (Tigerghost (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Speedy delete as (approximate) recreation of previously deleted article by the same person. Still unsourced, still no source for the name of the article presented (although I'm perfectly willing to believe that a source exists for different time periods.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete It is at the moment an essay; however, we have a variety of articles on generations and the like and, if the term is in fact used, & I think it is, there ought to be a possible redirect. I'll take a look. I asked for a day to two to do it. I don't thing there would be the least difficulty finding sources to support each of the statements, but the question is whether its worth looking. DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 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. As always, there's no problem with launching a merge discussion on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wendell Craig Williams[edit]

    Wendell Craig Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Failed 2008 candidate for Congress. Might have lots of election-related coverage, but fails notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. HoboJones (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment : that contradicts WP:POLITICIAN, any candidate from a major party in any election anywhere will have local coverage during that election, no matter what. Those who don't get elected usually have no accomplishments of significance to pass WP:N, and Wikipedia is not news, thus being in the papers during the election is not sufficient. Failed candidates also often fall within WP:BLP1E.--Boffob (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Major party candidate for national elected office in a protracted campaign. These are, or should be, notable, and recent AfDs have definitely been trending that way. There is always coverage for such things, and they almost always go beyond trivial coverage about electoral positions to serious coverage of a person's career and prior accomplishments (not always the case for lower level offices). RayAYang (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete/Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008: losing an election does not automatically make one notable. I'm not convinced he's had sufficient coverage from reliable, third-party sources to pass the notability test; particularly suspect is the fact that he doesn't seem to have received any attention outside of the election coverage, which suggests that he isn't really notable in his own right. There is the endorsement from The Bulletin (newspaper) - but most newspapers endorse plenty of candidates each election, many of whom will lose, and does that make them all notable? Terraxos (talk) 16:18, 29 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_24&oldid=1116722109"