Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 27 November 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. John254 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Evans Maude[edit]

Henry Evans Maude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm sure Harry was a good man, but I cannot see that he did a huge lot other than lived in the pacific and wrote a couple of books. If he was truly notable then the article is very short on citations. I was once a British civil servant, and I am not notable. Nor, indeed, am I dead. But Wikipedia is not a memorial, and, unless notability is proven and asserted, this article is not the stuff of encyclopaedias. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:52, 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Potion Collection 4[edit]

The Love Potion Collection 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed with a small addition of content. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:33, 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 redirect to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeekdober[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to have an article for every Zoid. All important information is already in List of Zoids so there is nothing really to merge. A google search for "Zeekdober -wiki" gives mainly fan forums. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Magioladitis. Eusebeus (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids . MBisanz talk 14:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guysak[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:25, 28 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) 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All important information is already in List of Zoids + a google search gives nothing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + Magioladitis. Eusebeus (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snipe Master[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:24, 28 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) 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Blazer[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:23, 28 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) 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as nn. Eusebeus (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to have an article for every Zoid. All important information is already in List of Zoids so there is nothing really to merge. A google search for ""Ice Blazer" -wiki" gives nothing relevant to Zoids. They are hundreds of Zoids, no redirects for every single of them is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Tiger[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:23, 28 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) 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 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 redirect to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadborder[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. (see WP:FICT) - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of Zoids has a reference. Do we need more? They are uncountable Zoids. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Flyer[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:21, 28 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) 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orudios[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:19, 28 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) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:52, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordos[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:19, 28 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) 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Establishing notability independent of Zoids is only neccesary for independent article, merging only requires verification it exists. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 15:06, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Gale[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge — (all articles that TTN has nominated) into one giant list. Also, it would be cooler if the nominations were merged into one large AfD, but apparently TTN feels that this isn't necessary. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:48, 28 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) 05:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Zoids (or a list of characters from that universe). Characters are notable within the fictional universe and the nominator does not address the merge possibility. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 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 Speedy Deletion under criteria A7; article does not indicate how this website is important in the slightest. Marasmusine (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kh-vids[edit]

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

I see no reason why an article on a website forum that doesn't establish notability should be included, especially when the article basically says what a forum is. Unencyclopedic, non-notable, Original Research, etc. (Editted) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm afraid your reasoning needs improvement, but this does need deleting. The references are not independent (crucial in determining website notability), and the claim the videos are legal is shaky at best and need to be supported. If they can be supported a link in the main Kingdom Hearts article might be worth considering. There's not enough information to support a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Speaks[edit]

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

Seems to be NN. "Jeremy Speaks" is very difficult to google, because lots of people called Jeremy speak about a lot of things. Even so, it only generates some 3000 ghits, and none of the first 50 are about this guy. What's more, "Jeremy Speaks" + "of the law" returns zero relevant ghits,the same number as "Jeremy Speaks" + "Salt Lake City". "Jeremy Speaks" + "The lives we live" return no ghits at all - not even irrelevant ones - so i don't think that EP's a big-seller. Worth noting also that the article was created by User:Speakerj. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 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. John254 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian British[edit]

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

    No assertion of notability of this very small group of people. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep rewritten on the basis of multiple non-trivial, reliable sources, including two 20-page think-tank papers, as well as a couple of short newspaper articles. I have also moved the article to Bolivians in the United Kingdom because I could not find any evidence for the neologism "Bolivian British"; at least, none of the sources I found called them by this name. cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Please endeavor to improve our project in a manner other than constantly attempting to delete (rather than improve or merge) articles on ethnic groups. Badagnani (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete gee, I was going to use WP:SNOW as a reason to delete, because of all the articles like this that have already been deleted...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. When I saw this earlier, it was nothing more than a definition. The current version is good enough to keep around. But I AM afraid it will set a bad precedent for writing about every migratory group of people in each country of the world...- Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's better now, but I still have doubts about notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, although I have the same reservations as MacGyverMagic. --Lockley (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I am extremely pleased that someone has found a large amount of sourceable material that has helped develop this into a perfectly acceptable article. I am astounded that after the improvements to this article representing a group of up to 25,000 people (yes Cordless Larry it is in the source) has been nominated for deletion. There were significant number of similar articles nominated for deletion a while ago, the concensus was to keep and improve. It now just seems that a select few users are going through them all individually and trying to get rid of them. Cape Verdean, Uruguayan and Dominican pages have already been deleted, fair enough as their hasn't been any improvement on these, but Bolivian British has certainly now earned the right to stay. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I nominated it before the improvements, not after. I realise that there was agreement to improve these articles, but as I mentioned here, none of the editors who promised to work on them as a result of the deletion discussions have done so. In fact, I've been doing more work on them than anyone who voted to keep them. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may have helped by removing unsourced materials, but all you have basically done is delete sentences from articles and left many in a pathetic looking state (take Grenadian British for instance, there has been no effort at all to make it at least fairly presentable), anyway with the article at hand, I understand, but after these great improvements which have even in my opinion made it better than the Bolivian American page which overall represents a larger population, this article should definately stay. Nobody except you who has commented on this page wants it deleting. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm happy to withdraw the nomination now that the article has undergone extensive revisions. I object to your comments about my editing though. I removed sentences, yes, but only unsourced ones or ones that you had attributed to sources that didn't back up the statements being made. Grenadian British is in a much better state now than it was before I removed a population estimate referenced to a source that stated nothing of the kind, amongst other things. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There were significant number of similar articles nominated for deletion a while ago, the concensus was to keep and improve" --- false, there was no consensus at all. Articles are not deleted because no one is putting effort into them (see WP:NOEFFORT); they are deleted because they do not assert notability. It is not possible to "improve not delete" an article about a topic which has never been previously written about at length by scholars, journalists, or other reliable sources. (The fact that you created all these articles under these made-up names does not help people to find sources, either). "It now just seems that a select few users are going through them all individually and trying to get rid of them" --- Yes, we are getting rid of them because there is no possibility at all to improve them. This is why I (the same guy who just saved this article) previously nominated another one of your/Freize1's creations, "Indonesian British", for deletion. cab (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott (ice hockey)[edit]

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

    Turn of last century hockey player. Played one game for a prominent amateur team...maybe. Hard to tell, because we don't even know his name. Without some basic information about the person, it is impossible to verify or expand this article. Meeting WP:ATHLETE is not a guarantee of notability, and if there were ever an exception, surely this is it. Prodded by me, removed by creator without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is highly unlikely that this is an autobiography. As the subject was playing ice hockey in 1904 they must be at least 104 years old (assuming they were playing straight out of the womb). ^_~
    I don't know anything about this subject, but I will see if I can dig up any online sources. Road Wizard (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; without a first name it would tend to imply that nothing much has been written about him and for that matter we can't even be sure if it isn't several people called Scott written about separately. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because there is so little information provided about the subject. It seems unlikely that he's notable given that we don't even know a first name. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I have trawled through a number of web pages in search of a biography or even a complete name, but all I can find is repeated reference to somebody named Scott playing on the team that won the Stanley Cup in 1904. There is no reference that I can find to him being in the team either before December 1903 or after 1904. I would normally suggest a merge with the most relevant article (which in this case appears to be 1904 CAHL season), however the single verifiable fact is already included there. Road Wizard (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete impossible to verify. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:ATHLETE and the comments above, expecially Road Wizard's abf /talk to me/ 10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What part of WP:ATHLETE as he was on a Stanley Cup winning team which is the highest level of hockey there is. -Djsasso (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Blackngold29 23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wait a minute here, even if this biography article is far from complete it meets WP:V and WP:ATHLETE. We have articles for non existing players but a player who played on a Stanley Cup winning team is not notable? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The key problem is not that it is unverifiable or not notable as the fact that "Somebody named Scott played for the team that won the Stanley cup in 1904" is easily verifiable. The problem is what can you add to that? The single fact is already covered by the 1904 CAHL season article. If you can provide a full name, a date of birth or even a favourite colour then this article will add value above the season article, but as it stands you will have a single line of text that cannot be expanded any further.
    Deletion is not a permanent state. If this article is deleted at the end of this discussion and you later stumble across some more substantial information then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Road Wizard (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia is not paper and a small article is better than no article. -Djsasso (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True to an extent, but a rule of thumb suggests that articles shorter than 1 KB should be merged with a related article. Road Wizard (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That hockey player is notable because he is imaginary. Also, being fictional, he has completely different notability standards (which he passes, because multiple reliable sources have written about the draft pick substantively.) gnfnrf (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I would have to agree with Krm500, playing on a Stanley Cup championship team is by far a great enough achievement to meet WP:N and by comments above he clearly meets WP:V even if we have a hard time finding decent sources because it happened so long ago it. The article clearly needs work but it should not be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If better sources can be provided (such as page numbers) and the article can be cleaned up (the blatant "Note" at the bottom needs removed to the talk page), as well as more specific info (like his last name perhaps) then I can see the rationale behind keeping the article and would be willing to change my delete, but these things need done first. Blackngold29 03:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree on most of this, that being said I think Scott is his last name, its his first name we are missing. -Djsasso (talk)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm sorry, but if a person's full name can't even be verified, then there is no way to pass WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. The sources are very clearly trivial mentions, nothing more, otherwise we would know more than the fact that someone named Scott played a hockey game in 1904. Resolute 06:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Won the Stanley Cup, which is the highest honor in all of ice hockey. The fact that his first name has been lost over the last 104 years is irrelevant. --Smashvilletalk 13:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ottowa defended the Stanley Cup four times that season (remember, back then, the Cup could change hands in challenge matches at any time), but I see no evidence that the one game Scott played in was in any of those series. So, while he was on a Stanley Cup winning team, I don't think he "won the Stanley Cup." gnfnrf (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete He was apparently an amateur player, which is non-notable, and no evidence exists that he played FOR the cup, just played one game during their season. If he played in one of winning series games, then that would be one thing, but there is no evidence that shows that. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too be fair, at the time, there were no professional leagues, and the Ottawa Senators were members of the highest amateur league. He doesn't fail WP:ATHLETE for this reason. Resolute 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure which way to go. I looked through a few books I own and have found Scott on the winning squad for Ottawa in 1904. One source doesn't list him (The Stanley Cup Story by Henry Roxborough). The question really comes down to this; did Scott actually appear in a game or not? I know when Total Hockey came out in the 1990's that they deleted a few players from the official record in the NHL because they never appeared in a game (they also added a few but more were deleted). If we can verify he appeared in a game, the article should be Kept because he would have played a game in the top level of hockey at the time. Patken4 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - There is a sub-stub with no hope for additional expansion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The breathing dead[edit]

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

    Contested prod of an unremarkable book. I can find no independent sources to establish notability. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless reliable sources are forthcoming; I concur with the nominator. the skomorokh 21:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. Lots of name dropping but zero evidence of notability. (I was born the year of Elvis Presley's death too, and there's no way I'd try to use that as a claim to importance.) Would go for speedy except A7 doesn't apply to books. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seems to be self-published (by Lulu), which isn't an absolute no-no, but very few self published books are notable, and this does not appear to be one of the exceptions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, article fails WP:BK, no reliable sources to establish notability. Note: the author of the article removed the AfD notice, it has been restored.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I've moved the article to The Breathing Dead to fix the caps problem.--Rockfang (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable; not a crystal ball. Brammarb (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a promotional and copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Awareness through the body[edit]

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

    Non-notable, original versions were copyvio (although hard to tell now), many issues, semi-promotive. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete: Blatant advertising. Appears to be an ad for the two websites that were originally part of the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete, for which I've re-nominated it. Article is still a direct copy from a blog site; this issue was never resolved when the user who created the article deleted the template. JNW (talk) 21:54, 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 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tammy Faye Sinclair[edit]

    Tammy Faye Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Performer with no indication of notability and no references for verifiability; the article text appears to be quoting the subjects own webpage. Ros0709 (talk) 21:33, 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 Speedily Deleted by User:Orangemike. (non-admin closure) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations[edit]

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



    This article is a external link repository it has no notable Messianic houses of worship on it, all its entires are external links to non-notable houses of worship, its goal is to list every single Messianic house of worship, this is a bad idea, as it will require every single messianic house of worship to be listed on it, even non-notable ones, as such I propose deletion.


    According to WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a repository of links.

    --Alpha166 (talk) 20:49, 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 Speedy redirect to Robert MacLean. NAC Tavix (talk)

    Robert mclean and related misspellings[edit]

    Robert mclean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Robert mcclean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It's a disamb. of misspelling, search should give you the right suggestion if misspelled anyway, Tried it with Robert Macean, and it gave me Robert Maclean so not needed. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I suppose. I was actually in the process of redirecting it to Robert MacLean when I has an edit conflict with this AfD. Don't see any harm either way though redirects are cheap and easy. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My view is that if every little name misspelling was allowed to redirect, it would be very hectic for certain similar spelled names.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Redirect. Just changed my mind. Redirect to the correct spelling.
    • Redirect to the correct spelling. Aleta Sing 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and redirected it. This one is pretty easy. Tavix (talk) 21:26, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 14:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Schedule chicken[edit]

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

    Unencyclopedic, links to a Dilbert Book (don't see how notable there), Originated from a Movie (WP:FIC) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Schedule Chicken" is a bona fide concept extensively used in the software development industry. I have conducted a search in Wikipedia but did not find a reference to it so I decided to create an entry for it. I have provided 4 scholarly citations (which are just few of many-you can confirm this by doing a search for this term on Google books). I also used the reference to the movie because this was one of the first documented instances for the usage of "chicken" in this context. Finally, I added the Dilbert entry to show just how common this practice is.--Apelbaum (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Non-notable. Poorly written. TopGearFreak 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole idea of chicken as described is quite notable. I've heard about it with kids biking towards a cliff face or two cars racing towards each other. If someone can confirm the IT equivalent, it should be merged (I have no access to the book). Otherwise the axe is the only way. - Mgm|(talk) 20:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't Wikitionary the place for definitions? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schedule Chicken is a form a management practice. It is driven by strong cultural and psychological factors. I think that a simple definition would not do properly capture its essence--Apelbaum (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:DICDEF. Poorly written as well. Tavix (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep More of a cultural phenomenon than a dictionary definition. Evidence of notability. Good to include this article in encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment then if it is, we need to review WP:NEOLOGISM. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NEOLOGISM clearly states that Neologisms in wide use are acceptable if "...results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet..." One of the many sources I cited that refers to the concept of "Schedule Chicken" is Kent Beck (the man who invented Extreme Programming). Clearly, one of the most notable individuals in this field. Also, this term has been around for over 50 years.--Apelbaum (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:N and WP:V. With a very quick search, I found five books discussing the term in a non-trivial way. The article needs work, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Here are the books I found if anyone wants to use them in the article: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deletion per WP:A7 by Ohnoitsjamie. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard myerson[edit]

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

    Probable non-notable person. External links cited for notability appear to me to be advertising rather than WP:RS. Suspect article is just advertising. Aleta Sing 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I agree. This article is nothing but an advertisement, particularly those external links. TopGearFreak 19:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete The author of the article is Rich444. It's obviously written about himself. Not accpetable on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After Hours Poetry[edit]

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

    This article is entirely self-promotional. The sources used to support this alleged genre are all under the control of its authors. Rklawton (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There is a book citation in the article and here's a news story from a regional paper [13] on Ater Hours Poetry. Doesn't seem to be enough, but perhaps someone can come up with stronger evidence of notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply what we need is an article about the genre. The article cited isn't about the genre - it's about a reading and only uses "After Hours Poetry" in the article's title. One can well suppose that the reporters were simply writing what they were told by the poets. It could have been "Smelly Feet" poetry for they could care. Lastly, the article is about a reading by the very poets responsible for creating this and related notability-challenged articles. As a result, it lends nothing to the our article's notability. As for the book citation, that's worth looking into, but given the citation context, the author could be referring only to "meat poetry." Even so, if this genre had any notability at all, we'd see a lot more references. Rklawton (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From the Author[edit]

    11/28/2008

    We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring it into conformance. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give is forever appreciated.

    The current list of references was chosen as follows:

    1) Wagner, D.R., to show the history of After Hours Poetry 2) Access San Francisco, to show that After Hours Poetry is and has been in the public arena. 3) Six Foot Swells, to show that other publishers have and continue to work in the genre of After Hours Poetry.

    Yes one of our authors was used as a reference here. It needs to be noted that one of our editors mistakenly used his personal information to open an account here. The error has been corrected.

    Please review recent changes ion the article, as we believe we have met the spirit of Wikipedia’s needs.

    We respectfully ask you to please remove this article from you delete list.

    Thank you, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow Publications

    We can be contacted here or by email at [email protected]. Editor395 (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this discussion at WP:COIN which is relevant here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addition Author Comment: In reference to the news article mentioned above. The article was not included as a reference to After Hours Poetry. However, it does demonstrate that the genre has been recognized in the media for a long time. Also, it should be noted that there are well over one hundred such article posted on the internet, all in reference to After Hours Poetry and the writers who work in the genre. We have intentionally stayed away from using these article for references, as we feel they do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria. After Hours Poetry is a relatively young genre of poetry that continues grow at a rapid pace. We feel comfortable that in a short time frame others will be enhancing the article, adding additional references and strengthening its content. We trust the Wikipedia editors will allow the After Hours Poetry article to continue to be part of the Wikipedia world. Again, thank you.

    We can be contacted here or by email at [email protected].

    Sincerely, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow PublicationsEditor395 (talk) 03:22, 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. MBisanz talk 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmy van Deurzen[edit]

    Emmy van Deurzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No third-party references indicating notability; self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Someone near the top of her field. EvD would appear to have worked on this article herself, but that is not uncommon on WP. (Her spouse diagnosed me as suffering from AS, which might be my own COI.) Philip Cross (talk) 19:27, 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.  Sandstein  08:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Legion of Dynamic Discord[edit]

    Legion of Dynamic Discord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    In-universe presentation of an aspect of this obscure religion. No outside references to establish notability. Pcap ping 20:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. My hunch is that this is unsalvageable, and, as currently written, it is entirely to in-universe and POV to be understandable by an outsider. In other words, not encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Discordianism. The "in-universe" criticism seems out of place, as, strange as it may be, Discordianism is a phenomenon in the real world, not a fictional universe. However, the article does not demonstrate that this sect has independent notability from the mother religion, so an independent article is probably not warranted. gnfnrf (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment without respect to the article's suitability, "in-universe" seems misapplied here. To say that items of religious mythology/movements should be presented "out of universe" seems to imply you have to take an antagonistic POV: assuming it's pure myth first and addressing things from that framework. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:16, 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, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Trivial aspect of an already somewhat fringy subject. DGG (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per Nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom; could have been a A7(group) speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Donna Kossy[edit]

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

    Non-notable book author. Only a primary source is used for the article. She wrote two books worldcat.org, both of which seem to fail WP:BK. I couldn't find a biography of her in a third party source. Pcap ping 08:22, 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,  Sandstein  18:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Reviews in major sources are enough for notability. Besides the two mentioned by Phil, there are reviews of various publications of hers in the chicago sun-Times, Dallas Morning News. On Google Scholar I find her cited as a popular expert in "Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics" by Jeffrey M. Bale Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 41, Issue 1 February 2007 , pages 45 - 60 On the basis of the material in all these, the article can be expanded--she seems to be regarded as an expert of UFO mythology. DGG (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - author of a book or two that do not pass the WP:BK guidelines (despite two reviews in notable publications). Does not meet WP:CREATIVE either, due to lack of reliable sources on the person. Not even close to passing WP:ACADEMIC...--Boffob (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." How do the reviews referenced above not get the subject through this guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 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.

    (This stub is now entirely rewritten and sourced as a C-class article.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (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 delete. The "keep" arguments have been refuted in the light of WP:N.  Sandstein  08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ShowMyPC[edit]

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

    Reads like an advert, no claims of notability, no notable reviews found. Blowdart | talk 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep:I am not sure how to include this service, on Wiki.
    • I would give similar references like
    • What is the justification of keep similar entries as above. This services is build on notable Open source tools like TightVNC and SSH, it has been made very clear.

      Please update to let me know what exactly needs to be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovmywiki (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've explained this to someone else who wanted to create this particular article, but I will do so again. Apparently GotoMyPC is actually located at GoToMyPC (capitalization matters). Companies that have entries here tend to be ones that are already well-known, have lots of users and are written about in the press (books, magazines, papers and reliable websites). A few of the entries you mentioned should go as well. But that's basically why this entry is up for deletion. It doesn't indicate why it is notable and it doesn't offer any reliable sources.- Mgm|(talk) 21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Avertising as per G11, non-notable as per WP:N (same reasons as indicated by Blowdart) - DustyRain (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment I would confess I am not am expert in Wiki processes. But it seems like, if a company with multi million dollar budget creates self references itself it is considered valid. You are not giving any chance to content and tools that are built with day to day Open source material that are really well known. I would still strongly recommend, rather than, giving a blanket cover as Avertising, provide some concrete examples (Once in samples are still too vague) Users like me, are still not clear on what can you put here, since everything subjectively can be classified as an ad. Looks like I sure need help with writing anything here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovmywiki (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly please don't vote multiple times. Secondly please sign your comments. Wikipedia is not here to give a change to open source, or indeed closed source material, it's here to be an encyclopaedia. As such there are guidelines for what is considered for inclusion, which are available for anyone to read. Have a read of the notability guidelines. --Blowdart | talk 07:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong keep. You have entries for GoToMyPC and Logmein and other similar products. ShowMyPC is just as notable. If the entry reads too much like an advertising, perhaps it could be rewritten slightly by someone. Deleting it would be unnecessary as it's a fairly well-known product. I've seen it advertised on the London Underground, for instance. Tris2000 (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without proof from reliable sources though it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. I found one mention in a blog and the rest of the google hits I got were various download sites. And yet again Other stuff exists is not a valid reason. --Blowdart | talk 12:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    Ok based on what you said, I just looking for articles and news for ShowMyPC, do these count as reliable sources, other people talking about them, I kept finding more and more, but here is a quick list. I was planning to add these in the resources sections on the Wiki.

    http://mattpenner.info/2008/06/10/showmypccom-instant-desktop-sharing-and-access-remote-pc-free/

    http://www.auctioneertech.com/2008/10/showmypc-provides-free-and-easy-remote-support-and-collaboration/

    http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/06/21/another-easy-to-use-remote-access-software-showmypc/

    http://wordpress.com/tag/showmypc/

    http://www.techwithoutwires.com/50226711/showmypc_control_your_homeoffice_computer_anywhere.php

    http://www.computerrepairmaintenance.com/tag/showmypc

    http://www.taodomichi.org/eng/gratis/257/condividi-il-desktop-del-tuo-pc-con-showmypc/

    http://www.siteadvisor.de/sites/showmypc.com
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.97.255 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable example of a common type of software. Sources provided above are nearly all blogs, and the rest are trivial mentions. Not one of them is a reliable source with substantive coverage that demonstrates notability. gnfnrf (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per Gnfnrf unless someone can demonstrate why these sources are more than blog entries that anyone could have posted. (Coverage in a computer magazine would count as notability.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:44, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Once a Ranger[edit]

    Once a Ranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable TV episode. ApprenticeFan (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Text and third party references suggest otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close nomination. Nominator did not state a valid case for deletion. Merely claiming something is not notable does not make it so. Such a claim must be accompanied by a reason why they believe notability guidelines are not met. Can anyone read the Japanese source mentioned? - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is actually a description of the episode in a Japanese television magazine that featured this particular Power Rangers episode. It discusses various aspects of the episode and the series in Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:AFD, nonnotability is in fact a common reason to ask for deletion. Independent of what the Japanese source says, it's really short and hence doesn't look significant. – sgeureka t•c 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect or delete There is nothing in the article (other than excessive plot summary per WP:UNDUE) that can't and isn't already covered in List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive episodes. No prejudice against recreation if someone digs up and adds significant amounts of real-world information to the article. – sgeureka t•c 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: There are plenty of other pages about special episodes for tv shows. And this is noteworthy in the history of Power Rangers. Rick lay95 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
    • keep This seems to be a significant event in the show, but the article should emphasize this aspect of it a little more clearly. If it does, the amount of plot is not disproportionate. such problems are editing problems, not deletion questions. DGG (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect or delete - The sources only seem to confirm that it exists, which is not enough for an article. Without any development or reception information, the episode list should be enough. TTN (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive episodes. This currently is little more than a plot summary. Nuttah (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - with no prejudice to re-creation should information attesting to real-world notability be found. The existence of other articles for other TV episodes is not relevant, as they like this article must abide by our content guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep This is a Power Rangers crossover episode, and like all other episodes overall in PR,it is notable. Dalekusa (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this is not eligible for a speedy keep. Second, all episodes of Power Rangers are not inherently notable. Notability is established through reliable independent sources that substantively discuss the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Soldier's Poem (song)[edit]

    Soldier's Poem (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced; non-notable; extremely badly written and set out. Andre666 (talk) 19:38, 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,  Sandstein  18:27, 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. MBisanz talk 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Mindfuck[edit]

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

    An seemingly important aspect of a very obscure religion. Practically in-universe stuff, with no outside references to establish notability. Pcap ping 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I started this article way back when, thanks for notifying me. I don't know yet whether or not Operation Mindfuck should have its own article, but as the nominator pointed out this is a seemingly important aspect, so it should be covered in some fashion (which makes having an AfD odd -- there are other editing measures in addition to the extreme one. But whatever). The "in-universe" argument is weird: the article explicitly states that it's talking about the real world. Focus on the book is an editing matter, if it's a problem. --Kizor 20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Extreme over-emphasis on very specific aspect of extremely borderline subject. One article for this group is enough. DGG (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep an important real world aspect of Discordianism that is certainly notable enough for a stand alone article. RMHED (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge&Redir to Discordianism. Without any Cites, it cant stand as a self supporting Article. If it is such a "important practice in the religion" then let it be mentioned there (which it currently isn't as far as I can see). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Operation Mindfuck seems the earliest use of the word Mindfuck. This article is terrible (I shall tell my Discordian friends to get over here and improve it), but the topic itself is important enough to merit an article. YhnMzw (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is a lot of activity going on right now in Operation Mindfuck. This article may not be supplied with up-to-date links, but I believe it deserves its own article. I will do my best to round up some citations. Cramulus (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above two Keep voters haven't made any other contributions anywhere on Wikipedia in years and months, respectively. I suspect some canvassing is going on. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in the process of supplying links which show that Operation Mindfuck is a type of activity still in progress, and not just a fictional activity described in Illuminatus. I still have a few more articles to go, but admittedly my posts need some help with wiki-style. Please advise me, as I'm unfamilliar with wikipedia's internal protocols - should I not be participating because I have not participated in the recent past?Cramulus (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While I'm dubious about some of the "religious" uses, this is a term coined in a noted literary work which in turn was adopted not only by Discordianism, but as noted was the origin of the term "mindfuck" which has been widely referenced. Needs work, no doubt about it, but I feel this is a viable topic. 23skidoo (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability established by wide usage and discussion of subject in sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While there may be a claim to notability, there are no reliable sources that verify such claims to notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Operation:Mindfuck is pretty much what Discordians do. At least, some of them. The Activitist bunch of them. Anyway, you all want references, so I'm putting in some effort to dig em out. One problem is, because O:MF are generally covert pranks, designed to "subvert the dominant paradigm" or "fuck with people's minds", attributing the pranks to O:MF afterwards would kind of spoil that effect. Still, there are some references I got from just a simple 5 minute google search (come on people, doesn't Wikipedia have a guideline to "assume good faith" or something?? i spent longer figuring out the proper wiki formatting than finding these references):

    "It's hard to nail down Discordians - which figures, since they're dedicated to the sowing of Discord, generally of the mental kind. They don't damage the physical world much in worship of sexy ol' Eris, Goddess of Chaos. Discordians all work, I mean play, in their spare time, on Operation Mindfuck - an insidious yet disorganized attempt to tear down your old mental paradigms without offering anything with which to replace them. Techniques include everything from elaborate pranks, to . . .well, simple pranks. Sort of a Zen version of the Merry Pranksters. -- Reverend Ivan Stang, High Weirdness By Mail (Fireside Books, 1988).

    The KLF are famous Discordians and did a lot of big Mindfucks:

    "The KLF video Stadium House: The Trilogy is allegedly recorded live at Woodstock Europe, the location of the Illuminati’s attempt to Immanentize the Eschaton — even the stage is in the form of a pyramid. There’s the submarine. Last Train to Transcentral has a “Live from the Lost Continent” mix — one version of the Illuminati story says they were really founded on the Lost Continent of Mu.

    On top of everything else, there’s ELF’s Operation Mindfuck (OM), The guiding philosophy is that the only strategy your opponent can’t predict is a random strategy. The KLF’s efforts at OM include playing heavy metal music at a Dutch house rave. Art historians call it Situationalism: using symbols and objects in unusual situations to subvert the established order.

    Call it Situationalism, call it Operation Mindfuck, Bill and Jimmy have taken on the music industry in a series of guerilla strikes." from http://stilgherrian.com/personal/the_core_the_klf/ (FYI, the ELF is the Erisian Liberation Front, an Activitist section of Discordianism)

    87.208.17.173 (talk) 15:54, 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 delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malta–Norway relations[edit]

    Malta–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not close to being a notable or important bilateral tie, is not commented on often. Norway doesn't even have an embassy in Malta, or vice versa. Punkmorten (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also listing:

    Cyprus-Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete - no assertion of notability. Given the number of states in the world, the potential number of combinations is huge so any article needs to clearly establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There's not enough information about the tie to write an article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - part of a set of similar pages. Tabletop (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - part of a set of similar pages: no proof that this is anything more significant than, say, Kosovo and Nauru. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep this is one of thousands of such articles that state the relationships between any two countries, even when the countries are too poor to afford embassies. There is nowhere else for such foreign relations info in WP and no reason to eliminate it. Hmains (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Norway is rich, they don't have an embassy because having such a relation is not important in the country. The same probably goes for Malta. Punkmorten (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability. There is simply not enough going on between Malta and Norway to have anything to write about.--Boffob (talk) 18:39, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Maupin[edit]

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

    I realise that I am going to come under fire for the nomination of a young gentleman killed going about his daily employment in the service of his country. I would like to set emotion on one side, however, and consider whether he was notable by all of our usual criteria for notability. That he is dead does not, per se, make him notable. The reports of his death do not, per se, make him notable. That he died in the service of his nation does not, per se, make him notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial, and I perceive this article as a very reasonable emotional reaction to a deeply unpleasant circumstance, but not as an encyclopaedic article. No disrespect to his memory or family is intended by this nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep — This seems to meet the requirements put foward in WP:NOTABILITY, particularly in basic criteria and additional criteria. For example, it states:

    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.

    • I'm inclined to think he is notable by these standards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per WP:BIO1E. Thousands of troops have died in Iraq, and many of them were decorated. Some deaths made the news more than others, but here I don't really see how this particular one had an impact that would be notable under the guidelines. Some of the info could be merged into an appropriate Iraq war article.--Boffob (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Many thousands have died, comparatively not many were featured major news and hardly any have been featured because they were killed on camera. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There's plenty of news coverage, but, on the other hand, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. On balance, I think, this particular death - capture and videotaped execution - combined with the award of the moderately important Bronze Star Medal is sufficiently distinct from "routine" war deaths that it warrants coverage in an article. Alternatively, merge in parts to an appropriate article, such as about the military operation.  Sandstein  08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - I understand the nominator's concerns, but I think this article passes our notability criteria - he's not notable solely because he died in Iraq, but because of the coverage of his capture, the disputed tape apparently showing his death, and the subsequent search and discovery of his body, which adds up to notability in my view. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge in theory, but I don't think there's an appropriate target. Terraxos (talk) 16:09, 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 speedy delete. per CSD G3, was a blatant and obvious hoax J.delanoygabsadds 18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Knowlsbury's Day[edit]

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

    This article is a total hoax. I have verified on Google, only 2 hits and both of them are here at wikipedia. Nothing on calendars, almanacs, nada. This article requires deletion. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither the article nor the feast holiday is a hoax. Knowlsbury's Day has been celebrated in my family for generations and so has it been in many parts of Canada and many parts of England. I've just completed research into the origins of the holiday and have shared some cursory information on Wikipedia. They will be more completely reported in the European Journal of Cultural Studies where the article that I have prepared with my co-authors is currently in peer-review. It is a sad day when new and culturally insightful information is discarded because it receives an unsatisfactory number of "hits" on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsalusb (talk • contribs)

    I quote - "Knowlsbury's Day is an annual feast holiday celebrated on 27 November." If this is such a well known holiday, surely someone else on the internet would have written about it besides you; it would also appear in almanacs, datebooks, diaries, Ordos, and there would be listings about it in other places. You appear to be the only person worldwide who has written about this "holiday" - 2 hits, both of which point to wikipedia. Such a well known holiday would not only be covered here, and by you. Sorry - I declare it a hoax. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:33, 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 no consensus. and none likely to emerge in the next few days. To be honest, the topic is too close to the surface of many emotions right now to have a fair neutral evaluation of notability. Whether or not he should be merged can be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and this article can be re nominated at some time in the future if necessary. StarM 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandeep Unnikrishnan[edit]

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

    The reason I am bringing this to AfD rather than flagging it as a speedy deletion is that we are getting many of these pages created at present after the Mumbai atrocities. My feeling is that one must do more to be notable than die, however unfortunately, in a terrorist attack. However this may be seen as a churlish view if expressed simply by multiple speedy deletion nominations. I am open to this AfD being extended to include all such articles as they are created unless the person is otherwise notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for ease of editing 0[edit]

    Keep: I would like to know more about him and deleting this is not a good idea.

    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. We do not have articles for each person killed by terrorists, or while fighting terrorists. This is an encyclopedia and not a memorial site or a newspaper. Edison (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issue has been addressed by me in the discussion. If there are any other problems with the article, please state them and be precise. --Sainik1 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am back as requested by Uncle G to rethink my vote of Redirect up. Though unlike people like Vijay Salaskar (Afd above), who have had notability before the event, Sandeep Unnikrishnan is notable only for one event ( But isn't it only for living people Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ??? confused?), an event which is described as India's 9/11, which may assure his notability. The Indian media has discussed the story of every other victim of the attacks from Vijay Salaskar to Sandeep Unnikrishnan to a havaldar policeman to a Muslim family from Bihar, who died at the CST. After a few months, the media will forget these heros or victims, the references will dry out. Lets wait 2-3 months, then decide. At the moment, all clauses of General notability guideline are satisfied. Keep for now --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand: The article should be expanded as a biography of a person who has received notable attention("Significant coverage") by the public for making what is considered 'supreme sacrifice' in the line of duty. His contribution is certainly more than that of Pornographic actors whose bios are accepted. Given the contribution of this officer in an event of significant importance for the world many people would be interested in knowing about his life and achievements. Wikipedia should certainly contain his bio since this is the source many people would be looking at first. As per my interpretation the individual meets the criterion of notablility Indoresearch (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you'll be able to cite sources that document this person's life and achievements, from which such an article can be built. Please do so. Show that this person satisfies the primary notability criterion, don't just baldly assert it and expect people to take the word of a pseudonym on trust. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources [14] [15] [16] [17] I have seen many a bold rejections by people who have clearly not done a google search about the Major. Trust works both ways.Indoresearch (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of us are trusted. But by citing sources of appropriate depths and provenances you will convincingly refute their bald assertions. As I've repeatedly said, sources are your arguments. They are your best and most effective arguments, and they will work. Bald assertions, irrelevances about how heroic or famous someone is, ad hominem attacks, and waving fingers at other articles will not. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sandeep was a major in NSG. Not an ordinary victim to the terrorist attack (no offence meant to other victims). He was killed while defending his country. Salih (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Expand. Sandeep was a TRUE HERO, who sacrificed his life trying to save the lives of hundreds of hostages in Taj, who were nationals of US, UK,Greece, Israel, Japan ,Italy and other countries including Indians.He is a true national hero for us.I wonder when you guys can put up articles of Pamela Anderson and Jade Goody, I cant understand why you cant keep an article about Sandeep here. 12:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) — Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep and expand . If anyone thinks this article should be put in some memorial sites, then articles about Pamela Anderson and Jade Goody should be put only in Porn Sites and other entertainment or Gossip sites and not in wikipedia!!!.12:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) — Duplicate !vote: Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
    • A more structured article is created on the same personality at Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. A Military person has to be always addressed by his Rank. Major Unnikrishnan has led lot of missions in the border areas of Jammu & Kashmir before he was deputed to NSG. Data about most of these missions are classified by the Indian Army. But we hope to expand his biography in a few weeks or so, as and when new credible information arrives which can be reffered to. Users User:Sidharthan and User:Salih Abdusamad are welcome to update the new article with whatever credible information they have. User:ullascantony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ullascantony (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect, possibly merge to Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, obviously, which is about the same person, then rename the article to Sandeep Unnikrishnan per WP:MOS. I suggest that the notability issue is reevaluated after a month or so, after media coverage of the event is largely over, when the lasting significance of the people involved in the event can be better evaluated.  Sandstein  08:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that we can consider the one whole article here. I have merged Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan to this article. This is not a substantive change that would, in my view, warrant a relisting and regathering of consensus. If others disagree with that assessment please feel at liberty to relist. It still looks like WP:BIO1E to me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the merger as it is in accordance with MOS. In any case we are discussing the notability of the topic and not title. As far as I can see, the notability is still unchanged and it does not warrant a separate article. LeaveSleaves talk 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being an anon, I realize that my vote won't be counted here. But I would still like to scream Keep and tell Wikipedians to stop their bias based to nationality. Wikipedia is full of articles on US troops killed in Iraq. And to put matters straight, this Wikipedia entry is legitimate because 1) The person concerned has been extensively covered by the media 2) If one of the only two National Security Guards commandos killed while combating the terrorists and the only of a Major rank. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your vote won't be counted if you give a rationale that has zero basis in our policies and guidelines, which "you are all biased against me" is. In contrast, your vote would be counted if you made a strong argument based soundly upon our policies and guidelines, as citing some of these purported sources, extensively covering this person's life and works, would be. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Pevernagie (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: to which article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey! The man fought with so many terrorists. Should he be Bill Gates? Let the article remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.35.31 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have got one thing to say to people who are arguing that this page doesn't meet Wikipedia policies. If this guy doesn't deserve a encyclopedia page inspite of being a true hero and saving hundreds of lives due to "Wikipedia policies", then I gotta say Wikipedia sure needs a relook at and revamp its polcies.Crackjack (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP AND EXPAND When the 9/11 attack article was put on wiki it came with articles of firefighters who died in the incident trying to save people like Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Major Sandeep has of course done something even better. Then I ask Uncle G why is there an article on Peter J. Ganci, Jr. or 9/11 heroes??? People are asking for sources to build up is articles so: [18] johnxxx9 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can give you the answer. It is in WP:WAX. Dekisugi (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your question is irrelevant here. The discussion here is about this article. The only relevant part of your argument is the source citation. At last one person has started to make a proper argument for keeping the article, that will actually hold water. Even then, you aren't quite getting it right. Keep citing sources. The other editors here making completely specious arguments, as the first part of your rationale here also is, should learn from this. Citing sources is the way. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep and expand The person has dona brilliant job and a national hero and every deserve his place anywhere whether its a encyclopedia or our daily life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonukhanna2009 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: I am hearing a lot of 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' thing! We are not trying to create this article in memory of some dead relative or friend. This man is a national hero. And this is accepted by all Indians. This article is allowed under "People notable only for one event"! So I request the administrator to let the article be created and expanded.It says that if you can provide citations on his life and achievements in his respective fields then you can post the article.johnxxx9 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy you are referring to, WP:BLP1E, actually is the primary reason to delete this article. Please read it carefully. LeaveSleaves talk 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Memorials of national heroes are just as much memorials as any other. Sources are your arguments, not claims to fame, importance, good works, or anything else. All such arguments will be discounted by the closing administrator. This is an encyclopaedia. It is intended to be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research. You must show that multiple sources of sufficient depths and adequate provenances exist to write a biographical article about this person, documenting xyr life and works. No other arguments will work. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources [19] [20] [21] [22] More should come in news soon. We need to research his other missions in Kashmir and as NSG since last year. My point was always that we know this guy is getting coverage. We can see on TV and else where. We need to give it some time. On many other articles with much less importance Afd has not been brought for more than a year.Indoresearch (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources[23][24][25]. See the responses in this website[26] [27][28] [29][30]. [31][32][33] See these sources have information on his childhood, education, works, military career, interests and also his fan following. I'll be citing more sources later! johnxxx9 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take some more:[34][35]
        • This is important:[36]And some more:[37][38]
        • THIS ALSO IMPORTANT:[39] These must be more than enough to 'fill water'. I think by now the 'water' is overflowing!!!!!!!johnxxx9 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for ease of editing 1[edit]

    • KEEP AND EXPAND. the man is a national hero involved in a major international terrorist event. it is a shame that an article on a terrorist -Azam Amir Kasav - is present and deletion of the man who saved hundreds of lives is being requested! there are biographies on wikepedia of far more insignificant people as mentioned above. what is the relevance of an article on Todd Beamer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorpt (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • — Doctorpt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Comment The article cited above about Todd Beamer etc have stayed on Wikipedia for well over 1.5 years and not made Afd. My point is lets give this article due time and consideration. Anyways I have expanded the article a bit and split it in more sections. I request people to contribute both in the discussion(Afd) and the expansion. The significant coverage that Major Unnikrishnan is receiving in media and blogging circles is indisputable. Indoresearch (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Redirect, possibly merge to Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. I think its a bio of army person and it should be allowed. Keeping in mind the fame and fan following he got after Mumbai terrorist attack. I guess lot of people will be interested in knowing more about him and no better place than wikipedia. Thejesh GN (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has none. That people want to know about something does not automatically mean that Wikipedia, whose goal is to be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research, can tell them. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP AND EXPAND ..He is a brave NSG soldier, who sacrificed his life. I pity the man who put a speedy deletion tag on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.97 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP AND EXPAND ..give it some time and then review in a few months —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.4.218 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now - wait and watch for some time He was a Major with Indian Army and led the team fighting terrorists and he was killed during the operation. He is a national hero. I think we should keep it for sometime and see its significance. If in next 2-3 months we see no activity, it can be reconsidered for deletion. Veetrag (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP AND EXPAND-- He was the only National Security Guard who had the courage to meet the extremists one on one. NSG sources say he literally ordered his fellow commandos not to come the floor above, as he will finish the terrorist on his own at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, Mumbai. I believe not everyone has such courage and dedication that can go to such an extent without fearing about ones own life. I am not being emotional at the moment and would like to point out that the incident was not any Hollywood movie shooting but was real life terrifying siege. Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not enough said. That argument has zero basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. What you should be giving is an argument that is. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, you think I am writing/spreading false/untrue information? I would request you to watch Indian news channels. Ref: Tele-converstaion with NSG DG J.K.Dutt, 29/11/2008 approx. 23:45 IST channel NDTV24x7. I was talking his words. He said same earlier as well. Please don't spread hatred and annoyance. Don't! Don't! Don't! (talking like you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-29 18:25:43
          • I'm saying that you are not citing sources, and so your argument will carry no weight at all. Nor will absurd ad hominem arguments. You know how to make a proper argument. It's been repeated several times in this discussion. Do it! They are your only valid argument, and they will hold water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have already unfolded the source, still you would fancy a text source - CLICK HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Another one- CLICK HERE
                • Now you are approaching this the right way. But you're not quite there, yet. We need reliable sources. A web diary entry by someone going by the pseudonym "jaggy" no more cuts it than a statement by someone at Wikipedia known only by their IP address. Wikipedia needs sources where the author is identifiable and has a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Find and cite sources such as those.

                  Similarly, we need in-depth sources, documenting this person's life and works. Your second source gives no biographical information about this person at all. There's not a single mention of this person's life and works anywhere in it. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                  • As far as false name/pseudonym is concerned, I hope you do understand that people search wiki for information. Should there is no info(on Wiki) on the subject, how can you expect some random user to cite sources? Still I will try - CLICK HERE. I can provide press releases at the moment, should they be apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is a great national hero. This article must remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.200.63 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • deletion of this article has no basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorpt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you have an article on Maulana Masood Azhar? Has he done something very significant to get a place on Wikipedia? Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan fought for saving the largest democracy in the world. If we consider democracy important for the world then Major Sandeep is the biggest hero of the hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellboy77 (talk • contribs) — Hellboy77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • The existence of other articles is irrelevant. This discussion is about this article. Stop making irrelevant arguments and start citing sources. If you continue making arguments to avoid in deletion discussions they will be ignored by the closing administrator. ("If we consider democracy important to the world then […]" is the Chewbacca Defence, by the way.) Citing sources will not be ignored. Stop wasting effort with futile arguments and start making the arguments that will hold water. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for ease of editing 2[edit]

    • Redirect. Trivial mention in some newspapers. IF we have an article on this, it creates a precedent for every soldier who died in the line of duty. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the mentions are not trivial. Please read the sources that are (finally, after extensive pushing) being cited. The Times of India, The Hindu, and the Calcutta Telegraph all have article-length biographies of this person going back to xyr childhood. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A tragedy but not an encyclopedic article. There is no Wikipedia grounds I am aware of where this individual could support an article. I think redirect is somewhat acceptable too. JodyB talk 18:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Use the news articles to mention his name in the main article: the terrorist attack incident. There is no need to have a separate article. Not this time, when there is no notability proofs of the subject outside the accident topic. Dekisugi (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The topic is not an accident it is a major event of historical significance. Major Unnikrishnan has played an important role in it. We need to keep the article going to research his life and achievements. Afd notice was brought up too soon. There are many articles where it has not been brought for years. If you follow news then you will understand the coverage his is getting. People need to know about his life and times. Indoresearch (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - that is exactly what Wikipedia is not for. The entire article shows only one specific event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is one place very suitable for this article: wikinews. The event itself is notable, and yes we have the article, but we don't need each article for every specific details. Dekisugi (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Show where that has already been documented, outside of Wikipedia. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not the place to do it directly. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for being a help. You are actually steering the discussion in correct direction. My meaning of research is to cite from other sources. I never meant my own phone conversation with his family when I said research. We just need to give it time to let the sources come up.Indoresearch (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Steering the discussion in the correct direction, the citing, reading, and evaluation of sources, is why I'm here. That's what AFD discussions should be about. A lot of novice editors coming to Wikipedia to make irrelevant arguments won't help AFD one whit. All such arguments get ignored in practice. I've been crying "Sources! Sources! Sources!" precisely so that a proper discussion, with arguments that are firmly based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is had. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Expand per Wikipedia:Notability. This person is now known to millions of Indians. You can see the photographs of Total number of Indians who want to know about this person is possiblly more than size of most of countries in Europe. These people consider him as a hero. Also he died trying to save his colleague's life while fighting miliatans. (This itself is a hallmark of a great man) Possibly he'll be awared some medal by a government also in near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivasrrahul (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC) — Srivasrrahul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Strong Keep. According to notability, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
      1. Significant coverage: DONE (In fact, cant be any more widely covered!)
      2. Reliable: DONE ("Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process").
      3. Sources: DONE. Rediff, CNN, BBC, Fox news and of course Indian sources. Sources couldn't be more diverse and from more "different geographic regions" than that.
      4. Independent of the subject: DONE. Author has no previous affiliation.
      5. Presumed: DONE. Reading the above comments, I think that the consensus part was over a long time back.
    • Please provide BASIS on which the article should be deleted. I'm confident of defending it on each of the criteria. Do NOT be vague just stating a word "delete". Please follow Wiki GUIDELINES and post the rule.

      P.S.: Although I do not generally include personal comments in AfD discussions, however if there can be an article on Daniel Pearl, Afzal Ansari, then this shouldn't be a problem.--Sainik1 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The article violates WP:BLP1E. LeaveSleaves talk 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BLP1E is applicable only for a living person I suppose. Salih (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry for providing the wrong shortcut, but the policy applies to living and dead people alike. LeaveSleaves talk 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim that this has been "done" is not borne out either by the article or by this discussion. There has been no citation anywhere of a BBC or a FOX news source, for example. Vaguely claiming that there is a source, somewhere, is not citing it. Cite sources! Even raw hyperlinks, as below, will do. (And they don't have to be the BBC or FOX. I've cited The Hindu, the Times of India, Dawn, and several others before now to show that articles should be kept.) Vague "It's done." claims that are clearly false will not show that the primary notability criterion is satisfied. Proper citations of multiple in-depth sources, by independent and reliable people, will. Make arguments that will work, not vague insubstantial claims that will not. It's not as if I haven't told you eight times what to do. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • observe article for a while. insufficient reasons for deleting. 14,000 articles open with his name search. mr administrator, can you please put forward for deleting the article on terrorist Azam Amir Kasavi on the same basis. half of wikipedia biographies violate WP:BLP1E.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadambaking (talk ) -- — Kadambaking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment. I have something to say about Uncle G's comments. The link hidden in his often repeated statement "That argument has zero basis" is Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL. This argument holds only when somebody creates an article to honor departed friends and relatives. I don't think any of the contributors to the article is a relative or friend of Sandeep.

      As for the notability requirements, the most relevant guide line applicable here is WP:BIO1E and hence we will have to see whether the person passes WP:BIO1E. It says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person." Clearly the event associated with the person is not unimportant by any measures. Then it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." That is, it does not say it is unwarranted.

      Further, it says "Information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." There are reliable sources which are primarily written about the person, like [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] Salih (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • At last a second person is citing sources! And it only took three sections and eight requests for sources for you to start doing it. This is what everyone wanting to keep this article should have been doing from the start, instead of arguing about how heroic someone is (irrelevant to Wikipedia) or that our policies of being a verifiable, neutral, encyclopaedia free from original research, and not a memorial (which can be for honouring any person — be it friend, relative, or national hero — and which was created as a direct result of Americans wanting to memorialize people who had died) web site, are somehow faulty. As an editor who has been here two years, you should know full well how such arguments will fare. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks or List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks per WP:BIO1E. Right now Major Sandeep is best known and primarily covered for getting killed. One burst of news coverage is not enough for WP:N general notability. Enduring interest should be proven over time. We're still in the news cycle. Alternately, if his heroics are formally reconized, such as by a Param Vir Chakra or Ashoka Chakra Award, notability can be established that way. Until then, a biography for an officer killed in battle is premature at best. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is mass coverage at present. News about his childhood is coming out. [48]. 1000+ people were at his funeral. The point many are making here about other articles is valid. There were articles cited where a single even has made a person famous and such articles are not Afd. Major Unnikrishnan deserves a Bio. You need not live a long life and be rich to deserve this. Short meaningful life is good enough. I don't think the WP policy is meant to reject articles like this. The real intent is to prevent me writing an article about myself when I broke a traffic signal. Nov 20008 is not a trivial event. If WP policies say that one significant event is not enough then some policy rethink is my suggestion. Anyways my interpretation of the notability does not exclude this article.Indoresearch (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point about other articles is not valid. It's entirely irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, already mentioned several times. Stick to citing sources. Wikipedia policy, from Wikipedia:Deletion policy through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Wikipedia:Notability, is geared towards keeping articles on the basis of in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources published by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Straying from that, as you are here, will not wash as an argument. You know what argument works. It's citing reliable and independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Stick to it! It will make your best case, with the full backing of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines behind it. Other arguments will not work.

          The only part of your counterargument that is thus relevant is the second sentence, which points to a reliable source, the Times of India, that documents this person's life and works. Ironically, I just edit conflicted with you in asking Gene93k the exact same thing. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for ease of editing 3[edit]

    • STRONG KEEP and EXPAND - The person is a major of the elite NSG Commandos... Not much has been known about this person because he was a commando and such people are not allowed to expose their identity... Their is a major media attention on this person and much more on his life journey will come out soon enough... If Kevin Cosgrove can have an article on Wikipedia, I don't think there should be any problems at all of having this Article. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that there is the start of a discussion on WP:BIO1E on the relevant talk page, and any interested parties might wish to determine whether any redrafting is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PLEASE KEEP AND EXPAND - Wikipedia is a source of information on everything from shoes to political leaders to little known soldiers in Iraq. I think it is important for someone with insight and knowledge about his life to add information to this site. Yes, this does not want to become a memoir for our heroes and dying soldiers but then maybe wikipedia can start a little diary for our heroes of war.
    The internet will have to find a place for memorials ...after all we all live in this virtual world now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.137.226 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please assist the article by citing reliable sources, not here, but within it. This is how Wikipedia works. Your argument based upon emotion has no value in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG KEEP and EXPAND - I think this discussion about deletion is premature. The person who has flagged this article should have waited for more few days. This incident happened this week only. The weekly publications will cover this topic in next week and then there will more sources to cite. There are accusitions in the discussion about not giving importance to non western people which seems to be justified. The damage is already done by flagging it too early even though it is conceled by saying "cite sources". Notability can be gauged by monitoring traffic to this article or google search. ~~Varun~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Because Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, the reverse is true. The article has been created far too early. Articles only have a place here when they are within those policies and guidelines. If we have a "wait and see" policy then we may as well have an article about every single member of the global population "in case something ever becomes notable." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, now whats the point of deleting this article when it is going to be made in a couple of days anyways... It seems like you are determined to somehow delete this page. Our comments and opinions seem like we have no say at all or would change any opinion... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please try to understand to concept of consensus. What I say matters as much or as little as what you say. We have equal weight. However, if you argue from emotion alone without a basis within policies, your argument is likely to fail. The best service you can do this article is to show citable sources that assert notability and place them within it. With them it may be kept. Without them it is likely but not certain to fail. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Agreed that this article may have been created early before it can be evaluated properly as per guidelines. But this article has helped people looking for more informartion on this person in last few days. Now it is created and we should wait for some time before evaluating it. This article is not as irrelevant as any other article about "every single member of the global population". No one reads or flags such articles and no one protests about deletion of such articles. ~~Varun~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • An article may be evaluated at any time. There is no scope in the policies and guidelines for "waiting for a while." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I assume this scope was left to be decided by common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk • contribs)
              • Please think more carefully. Common sense dictates that an article may be edited as soon as it is placed here. Such edits include nomination for deletion. Waiting is not a notion that ever has a place here. If you wish to change policies please go to the relevant pages and propose changes. Arguing for the here is interesting but useless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Proposing to wait for some more time here is not useless. I am sure contributors will appreciate that the events are recent and the information is still comming in. Weekly publications next week will surely publish more about this person. Change is policies can only come when we feel the need for changes. This nomination will be one example for such need for change in the policies. ~~Varun~~
                  • First please sign your comments by using ~~~~ which translates into your signature. Second, there is no concept of "Waiting a while in case stuff changes." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have made my point saying "wait till weekly publications are out" and that is just two days away. Weekly publication in general are creditable and do their story after proper research. It is not as if there are not even a signle references for this article. There are at least 10 listed at this point. ~~Varun~~
    • mr fiddle faddle, can you please put forward for deleting the article on terrorist Azam Amir Kasavi on the same basis. half of wikipedia biographies violate WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadambaking (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment please feel at perfect liberty, if that article fails to meet guidelines and policies, to nominate it yourself. But do not bring this canvassing for deletion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment "My feeling is that one must do more to be notable than die, however unfortunately, in a terrorist attack." This person did not simply unfortunately died in the terrorist attack. He died fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rhetoric here is pointless, though interesting. Doing substantive work in the article has a point. Go and find and insert some reliable sources in it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Let's think this through. Hundreds of police and firemen died on September 11, 2001. We do not have articles on each. Thousands have died fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we do not have articles on them. Hundreds died fighting the fascists of WWII but we do not have articles on them. It is no reflection on this man's honor or memory that there is no article. And let me add that this is not only about consensus but also about the policies that make our system function. JodyB talk 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Stated with clarity and precision. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In light of which, how do you respond to the sources now cited? Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My own view is that, unless there is a change in policies and guidelines, these sources, while generally reliable (I have not checked them all, hence the word "generally") and thus suitable for inclusion in the article where meeting WP:RS do not, of themselves, save the article, since they stem from the fact of the one event. No event would have meant no notability. This is why I have placed a proposal for change at the relevant policy talk page to consider rewording to make a single event such as the attack a "qualifying event". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to bring to your notice that this was not just a normal death in terrorist attack. The brave Sandeep was fighting terrorist and above all trying to save his fellow injured commando. He fearlessly fought the terrorist without considering his personal safety. Please do not consider his martyrdom as a normal death by terrotist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.143.152 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Uncle G. In this country, when I die, my obituary will be published in at least 2 newspapers which are reliable sources. That does not make me notable. Reliable sources often carry lists of victims but again, that does not make them all reliable. As to the comment that his not a "normal death" I would suggest that at the point he receives some significant award (such as the US equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, then perhaps you have a case. At this point all you have is a great swelling of pride in your countryman. Such is admirable and wonderful but I just don't see the notability. Notability is not based on pride. JodyB talk 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is too early to delete the article on the basis of lack of notabilty or reliable sources. Not everyone in the country where the brave man died have time like us to hastily conjure up articles on reliable defence sites or give away medals of honor overnight. Please allow some time before deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldendeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is never to early to delete an article through lack of notability. Bravery and heroism are not the same as notability. Any hasitily conjured up articles should also go. Please note that Wikipedia does not use itself as a source. No articles about the gentleman in WP:RS and the article does not qualify. WP:BIO1E and the article does not qualify. Also see, yet again WP:NOTMEMORIAL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PLEASE KEEP and improve quality so it's not quite so gushing. Wiki finds "room" for articles on every Z-grade US actor and tenth string NFL player, even those who managed to get on the field for one play in their entire lives. A military leader who dies leading troops in a notorious incident and is mourned as a national hero by hundreds of millions should not have to be an American to qualify as notable. I note that there are Wiki articles on minor 9/11 personalities, for example several of the passengers on Flight 93 and even the telephone operator who took calls from the passengers. This person was an active participant in an important historical event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.68.25 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do try to keep perceived national bias out of this. Articles on non notable people from all places should go. please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • cComment actually national bias is a very serious argument here which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for ease of editing 4[edit]

    • Keep for now maybe re-evaluate article in a year. The information is referenced and correct, nobody is hurt if the info is here. If Indians would put a monument to him or name a school after him, etc. we would certainly need the article. If he would be completely forgotten we can merge the article elsewhere. Been a high ranked security chief killed in action makes him much more notable then the other terrorist's victims Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you would think about what you have said for a moment the logical extension is that any editor may put anything whatsoever in an article. They may then argue "Let's keep this for a year and see what sources turn up to verify it". No. Not now, not ever. Never. Your argument argues for chaos and a very bad end product indeed. Far better to delay the creation of an article than to have unmitigated trash here. Now to those who will read what I have said as "this particular article is unmitigated trash" I suppose I ought to address some words, but I realise that whatever I say will be ignored in a fervour of emotion, and patriotism. So I will just say "this article is not unmitigated trash, but it is not notable past this one event, and it fails as a memorial. The man was undoubtedly heroic. We are not here to create memorials, even to heroes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also incline towards keep and re-evaluate in some months' time. Yes, you are right that it would have been better if people had held off creating this article until things had settled down, but that didn't happen and it seems likely that he will get honours in the future. He is certainly not a common-or-garden victim of terrorism. There are times when WP:IAR is appropriate - it is certainly arguable that Lee Harvey Oswald is notable for only one event in his life, but I don't think anyone would seriously nominate him for deletion. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Although WP:WAX applies here, but Lee Harvey Oswald is not only notable for one particular event. Please read the article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fork and Redirect to separate article: Nearly a dozen security personnel were killed in the operation, and right now, the media is just ablaze with reports of these brave ones. Some two months later, they will be forgotten by the vast majority, except for some of their close relatives/colleagues. Does anybody here fired up by nationalistic fervour remember any of the security personnel killed in the December 13 attacks?
    I'll say, instead of having a separate article for each and every one of them, let's maintain a single article titled something like "Security personnel killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks", so speaks rohith. 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Fork? Please explain with precision what you mean here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article must stay. Also, article on Vijay Salaskar should also stay. I will tell you how these persons become notable. 2008 November attacks was the biggest terrorist act India ever faced. These were the few people who fought for and saved the country. They shed their lives in the process. Also remember that other commandos and police officers were also involved in this war. They were not considered for Wiki articles. They are also heroes. But their names were not considered for wiki articles because they would have sufficed the deletion criteria. But Sandeep and Salaskar are persons who laid down their lives in the process of liberating hostages and retaining the country's pride. So, these articles must stay. May I request you people to have your say on the Vijay Salaskar article deletion page too? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep due to notability in India, where we need to improve our coveraghe. Clearly there are tens of thousands of bios more suitable for afd than this one. He may not have been notable till the end of his life but he then became notable, like 'H'. Jones amongst others. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    finding, citing, reading, and evaluating sources[edit]

    For the benefit of the established Wikipedia editors who are having difficulty navigating the reams of irrelevancies above, here are the major sources cited here, after an inordinate amount of pushing to do so:

    • "Unnikrishnan waged a valiant battle against terrorists". The Hindu. 2008-11-29.
    • "Boy who had a crew cut in school". The Telegraph. Kolkata. 2008-11-29.
    • "Maj Sandeep UnniKrishnan — A school remembers". The Times of India. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 2008-11-29.
    • "Thousands bid adieu to brave hearts". The Hindu. 2008-11-30.
    • "Bihar Regiment fondly remembers Major Unnikrishnan". The Times of India. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 2008-11-29.

    Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree to comments made by the other contributors and wish to add I am positively sure Major Unni will be awarded the Kirti Chakra, the highest award for peacetime battle honors. In such a sense, this definetly is an topic to retain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram1978 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment He may. He may not. WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies to future speculation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets give time WP guideline on notability states "..the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Citing sources is the thing to do. Everyone please focus effort on improving the article and accumulating sources for that. Arguments will go on. Indoresearch (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Thank you for UncleG's refreshment. I read those sources, but they are still only covering the attack event. The side-story of his childhood cannot hold the notability to have a separate article here. I would like also to comment Indoresearch's comment above. I'd incline to WP:CHANCE for a new article; there new reliable sources can be added to support the notability. However, we cannot establish notability based on the probability of being notable (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL). For the subject of this debate, all sources are in the WP:NOTNEWS cycle, and at best at this moment that the subject can only be mentioned in the main article. When he receives an award, say an Indian national hero award, then the notability is established automatically. Dekisugi (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read the sources, but I'm afraid that the article still doesn't pass WP:BIO1E from what I can see. The sources are, however, useful, but the gentleman in question is only discussed in relation to this one event. Until he becomes notable in some other way - perhaps he has a building named after him, or the like - I still think a whole article for one man and one event is a bit much. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Letter/Spirit The guideline says 'When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.' The keyword here is the 'importance' of the event. The WP:BIO1E should be read in spirit of what is being said not just the letter. if the event is important enough. I see it is valid to have a bio. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you didn't continue citing WP:BIO1E. "... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.". Right now, sources referred here are only in the context of that event, so it is unwarranted to have a separate bio. Next time you cite a policy, please don't cut. Dekisugi (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is for Uncle G, his mention in a few more articles, "Sources! Sources!" as he calls them:
    (1) Fox news: [49]
    (2) BBC: [50]
    (3) CNN: [51]
    (4) MSNBC: [52]
    (5) CBS News: [53]
    If any more NON-Indian sources needed, I can dig up such sources for ever.
    And regarding WP:BIO1E, as someone just said, half (personally I think more than half) the articles on Wikipedia do NOT pass that criteria. I think that someone gave the example of Daniel Pearl also. Does getting killed by some crazy lunatics and getting your name in a few newspapers count as being "notable for more than one event" (Apologies for the quotes)?? Its 1 of the very few :times that I've seen deleters raising this rule!!
    I personally think that the quality of an article is an issue here. WP:CHANCE should be used rather than a deletion.--Sainik1 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read all of the sources you mentioned above (Fox, BBC, CNN, MSNBC and CBS). All of them, I repeat, all of them, do not tell anything more about the subject but as one of the victims. It's a trivial mentioning and does not give enough coverage about the subject (see WP:N). Dekisugi (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's clear that the AfD for Sandeep Unnikrishnan is what has triggered this one. Major Unnikrishnan's defenders are quite correct that Todd Beamer is no more notable than Maj. Unnikrishnan, both owing their fame to WP:BLP1E. Either both articles should be deleted or both kept. It would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to come to different decisions simply because one subject is American and has more online defenders than the Indian subject." I thought it's relevant here. Salih (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • let us begin a campaign to delete the thousands of biographies that violate wikipedia's guidelines mentioned above WP:BLP1E. most are probably american. but an encyclopedia is about creation and spread of knowledge. not deletion.


    I am unable to understand wiki policy. terrorist is more notable than a martyr. see example terrorist Hafiz Muhammad Saeed.

    Aminami (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. That would violate WP:POINT, let us instead improve our coverage of India and all those countries who we cover poorly on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Number of refs and public info suggests he is at least notable on the local level. Obviously most of his notability stems from one event, but the amount of info would be too unwieldy to include in the main Mumbai attacks article, so only proper to have a separate article. Joshdboz (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Rules, be it constitutional ones or wiki's, have to be qualified by human judgement. Can you not understand the significance of the events that have unfolded over the past few days and why these men are so important? The existence of other articles on people who have risen to fame for far more frivolous reasons clearly suggests that chaps vying for speedy deletion are patently insular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.58.8 (talk • contribs) -- — 59.92.58.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. A section of this AfD discussion has been removed. See here. I don't think it is proper to arbitrarily remove a section while discussion is in progress. Salih (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its at the talk page, which is where discussions should be. It was messing up the format with people voting in 2 different plasces and that is what was clearly unhealthy in such a charged debate. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, I thought that is also an integral part of the debate. Is there any precedence in doing so? Salih (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, masses, this is a perfectly good use of the talk page to continue the debate. Nobody is suppressing anything, its a janitorial move. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - what part of WP:GNG is difficult to understand? Notability does not degrade over time, nor is it mitigated by being suddenly bestowed. The only consideration here is "is this a topic about which we can write an article whose contents are verifiable to reliable sources?" And the answer is "yes". Adios, the skomorokh 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - BLP1E is not relevant in this case in my opinion (and indeed I think this discussion underlines the fact that the BLP1E rule needs serious work, "a single event" is far too vague a construct). The event was major, the person in question was unique within that event, and there are verifiable sources on this individual. And on a more personal subjective note, I am white British but I seriously doubt such feverish discussion occurred about articles pertaining to notable people involved in incidents such as 9/11. Irrelevant to the discussion I know, but there is blatant national bias. I'm not saying this dicussion for deletion shouldn't be happening, but the fact it is, and hasn't happened elsewhere, is noteworthy (irrelevant, but interesting ;)) Kauzio (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment err see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination) for why this statement is not quite accurate. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment True, but Todd had two votes for Delete. Look how many Sandeep Unnikrishnan has. Just saying :P Kauzio (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The irony I see here is that the same users who are supporting the deletion are supporting the Keep there. Isn't this plain cheap nationalism? And please note, the last line in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination) nails it all. And I quote, "his notability is lasting, he is still well known for the event, and most people would consider him "worth noting", so the logic of the "1 event" rule does not apply here." K.O.! Please Refrain from deleting comments off AfD discussions (this goes for users like User:SqueakBox), especially if you're not an administrator. Please do not try especially acting like one. And regarding WP:BIO1E, as someone just said, half (personally I think more than half) the articles on Wikipedia do NOT pass that criteria. I think that someone gave the example of Daniel Pearl also. Does getting killed by some crazy lunatics and getting your name in a few newspapers count as being "notable for more than one event" (Apologies for the quotes)?? I personally think that if the quality of an article is an issue here, WP:CHANCE should be used rather than a deletion.--Sainik1 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Whatever the article may have looked like in the past, it certainly supports a (strong) keep now. Under even a strong interpretation of BIO1E, I direct attention to: "unless ... sources have written primarily about the person" There are articles specifically about him, with his name in the title, in the refs now. (Without that clause of BIO1E, BIO1E would be too inconsistent with the GNG). So my meteorological forecast is "snowing keeps".John Z (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep If a terrorist is more notable than a martyr. You can delete otherwise Keep this page. Aminami (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previous AFD was before the reliable source Ecoleetage found was published. SoWhy 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Suburbs (web series)[edit]

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

    This page seems awfully similar to The Suburbs (online series) which was previously deleted. It also seems to fail WP:NOTE. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. This article would fall under CSD4, however, the last time it was deleted, it was under WP:PROD, so it is ineligible. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak KeepKeep Unlike most YouTube-based happenings, this one actually generated one substantial article, in the September 16, 2008 edition of The Journal News, which is the Gannett newspaper for Westchester County, New York. The actual link is not working, but there is a cached page on Google of the article: [54]. The assertion regarding WP:MADEUP is inappropriate (and it was subsequently removed by the nominator). More media coverage would be welcome, but at this point I think it is marginal enough to warrant continued inclusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per above. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. View this AFD for more information as to why this article should be deleted. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment back That took place before the Journal News ran a feature article on the series and its creator, which secured some degree of notability. Your claim that the subject violates WP:MADEUP suggests very little effort went into properly researching this subject before it was submitted for AfD consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In the past I requested deletion (inlcuding the AfD noted by Jonathan321) of earlier versions of this article and forks from this article (the article has been created and recreated with multiple titles, and at one time there were separate articles for episode lists and the cast list). Unlike those earlier articles, this one actually has a citation to 3rd-party coverage of the series, as noted by Ecloeetage. Accordingly, when this one appeared I did not nominate it for deletion. The topic doesn't seem particularly notable to me, but because I know almost nothing about online video series, I will stay neutral on the question of whether the topic meets WP criteria for notability. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wow, a subscrption of 70 followers on YouTube. Real impressive. There must be thousands of webshows on YouTube that have more than that, and they would be speedied. Jonathan321 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment back Please refrain from making sarcastic comments that are not relevant to the points raised by your nomination. The fact remains that this subject has been the focus of non-trivial coverage by a major media resource, and that the points raised in your nomination appear to be incorrect. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Back. Not relevant? The fact that the show only has 70 subscribers is completely relevant. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Number of subscribers on YouTube is not a determinant of notability. However, it is also true that being the subject of an article in a local newspaper is not by itself sufficient to make a topic notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. True, Orlady, but the point I was trying to make is that just because it has one article in a not-so-huge newspaper doesn't establish notability. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that's what I was saying, too. Whatever. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A not-so-huge newspaper? The Journal News is sold in three New York counties and has a circulation of over 122,000. For a daily U.S newspaper that is not centrally located in a single municipality, that's a large circulation. (It is a "local" newspaper the way the New York Times is a "local" newspaper for New York City.) The newspaper is also part of the Gannett company, which is one of the largest media companies in the U.S. Separately, the number of subscribers on YouTube is irrelevant because people watch videos without subscribing to a YouTube channel. Again, I have to ask if any research was conducted in determining the notability of the subject before this AfD was filed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the responsibility of the article writers and proponents to demonstrate the notability of their topics -- by providing information about notable aspects of the topic and by providing citations to reliable sources that have provided nontrivial independent coverage of the topic. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. On a random episode[1], under 1,000 people have watched it. If we had an article for every webshow that had 800 views per episode, then we would be cluttered. Jonathan321 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my !vote to Keep. The poverty of the nominator's arguments for deleting this article is difficult to appreciate, and using concerns about Wikipedia's bandwidth as an excuse to delete an article is inane. This web series clearly exists (it doesn't fail WP:MADEUP) and has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in a major media outlet (it passes WP:V). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What? When did I ever say anything about bandwith? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. OK, I said I wouldn't take a position, but this discussion is getting nowhere. The article topic is not notable according to the relevant WP guideline at Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (one article is not "multiple" works), it has not "won a well-known and independent award," and it is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." When in doubt, apply WP policies and guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the number of subscribers to this show are not relevant. What is relevant is the amount and quality of coverage in independent reliable sources, and a single newspaper item is not sufficient to clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I looked on Google News and Google books and could not find any references for this one; however, owing to the one article Ecoleetage found in the Journal News, which is a major regional daily in suburban New York, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Our standards for notability require multiple non-trivial references from reliable sources. One article in a regional paper, no matter how in-depth, doesn't cut it. No prejudice on eventual recreation if this gets further coverage in future, but Wikipedia is not an incubator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Keep. I created the suburbs, im Charles Plummer, and i think the dramatic jump from "almost 70" to 90 subscribers in not even a month is extremely well and i dont think deleting this page is such a big problem..if it helps some loser sleep a night then do it, take it from ME the creator of the series & page, delete it if you must. Word will get around even more(locally), and its going to be back up here soon with more than one reference and guarantee i wont have anything to do with the creation of the page. And whoever took the time to recognize this i hope you watch the series and enjoy it, a lot of hard work and timing goes into it. A self made series by teens might have been another big reasoning for the little bit of "exposure". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsking (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for the message, Charles! It's nice to see a teenager creating something -- rather than deleting something! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! Hope you enjoy the series.Starsking (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Weak Keep Good arguments on both sides. It has been covered by a third-party source, but not many. Assuming good faithm, I've defaulted to keep. Sam Blab 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per in-depth coverage in Reliable independent source. Trusting that more will be added as they become available. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fr. Chico Monteiro[edit]

    Fr. Chico Monteiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability not established. Rklawton (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - per WP:BIO1E, cover the event (if notable), not the person. Alternatively, rename, take out the unnecessary biographical info and expand the Rev. Msgr. Chico Monteiro v. The State of Goa section into an article if that case passes the notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable for his involvement in historic events. A move of the page with a retitle and refocus of article would be fine with me. The article could use some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question what evidence do we have that this event was "historical" in a notable sort of way? Rklawton (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - At first I wasn't sure, but after reading the article thoroughly, the case doesn't appear notable. I don't know what ChildofMidnight find particularly historic about it.--Boffob (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'QUESTIONS' to Rklawton (talk) : How often in history has the Holy See intervened on behalf of a citizen of another country and successfully prevail in a quid pro quo scenario? How often has one country appointed the Queen’s counsel to represent a citizen of another country? Does deleting all relevant links to the article prior to putting it up for 'deletion' debate reflect fair representation of Wikipedia’s code of conduct and editing policies? As I understand, the case got coverage in TIME magazine. What more is needed to define “notability”?

    Why go after a notable entry worthy of public knowledge (which was previously lacking in Wikipedia's encylopedic vault) merely because I happen to be its author -- and as a backlash to an article on me which has been placed in the line of fire! Similarly, also taking the lead initiative in placing another article for deletion that I had originated and compiled -- Fr. Lourdino Barretto.

    --Dommartin99 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply given the self-serving nature of your own article, I thought it might be worth checking your other contributions. I found a lot of link-spam and a few more self-serving articles. Seriously - you think an award you made up yourself is worthy of an article? The piont here is that it appears you don't understand our policies regarding a subject's notability. As for removing links, when the relevant links are all from your website, then yes, they fail our reliable sources test and I removed them as I would remove any link-spam. If Time magazine has an article on this fellow, then by all means, add a reference to this article. Keep in mind, however, that we don't write articles on a subject just because Time magazine did. When a subject is notable, it isn't difficult for experts on that subject to find some really great sources. You, the expert, appear to have primarily yourself as a source. This gives us a strong indication that the subject isn't notable according to our standards. If this should change in the future, that's great. We'll still be here, and if necessary, we have a deletion review process. Rklawton (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for directing me to Wikipedia’s reliable sources. The links to the majority of the articles which you have deleted prior to putting my article for deletion discussion are “credible published materials with a reliable publication process”. The printed copies were transcribed and posted on my website to provide a reference link. Online versions of the articles were not in existence at the material time. Of the 14 articles that appeared in print, two are from my pen. Help me comprehend if this constitutes "self-serving" interest or “link-spam? And in the event they do, by all means delink them but not at the price of depriving the subject of his place in Wikipedia. Additionally, I’ll be glad to forward copies of the printed articles for verification upon request. --Dommartin99 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional References Fr. Chico Monteiro Scholarships http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2006feb/03feb06.htm


    "Fr. Chico known for his zeal and enthusiasm is considered to be the moving force and the father of modern football" http://www.goa-fa.com/index.php?q=node/16

    http://osdir.com/ml/culture.region.india.goa/2003-07/msg00263.html --Dommartin99 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fr. Chico was a great man. How often does one find a priest (Monsignor) holdign important postitons in the church heirarchy takeon the Government. He was imprisoned for so many years. this page should not be deleted at any cost--Alfredpinto (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA Alfredpinto's account was created solely for the purpose of voting against this AfD. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely. i never felt the need to create an account earlier. But when i saw that rklawton was interested only in deleting this page about Fr. Chico, i couldn't keep quite and therefore was forced to make an account. Fr. Chico was a great man - greater than you, dommartin and me. And therefore, it irritates me when someone who did not know fr. chico even attempts to delete his page. before deleting this page, why dotn u try to google fr. chico's name. you will find pages and pages of anectodes, messages etc written by his admirers all over the world. --Alfredpinto (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    these are a few of the links that i could find on the net. over the days i shall check for more. a man who has so many pages dedicated to him should be treated with respect http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02009.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30949.html http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=137522 http://www.goa-fa.com/index.php?q=node/16 http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01717.html http://goancauses.com/Fr.%20Monteiro.htm http://goa-kranti.blogspot.com/2007_07_14_archive.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/AXEGomes.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/DrCarmo%20Azavedo.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Remembering%20that%20Gentle%20Smile.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Hypnotizer%20of%20Youth.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Understanding%20Life%20.%20.%20..html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Fr.ChicoMonteiro.htm http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/A%20Great%20Soul.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Open%20Letter%20to%20God.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/A%20Good%20Man%20Passes%20away.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Tribute%20to%20Fr.%20Chico.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Pe.%20Chico%20-%20Tribute%20to%20a%20Friend.html--Alfredpinto (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - Blogs and self-published websites do not qualify as reliable sources for our purposes. Rklawton (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Galatea, the magazine for doll lovers[edit]

    Galatea, the magazine for doll lovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Obscure magazine that releases less than a issue each 3 months. Unclear who reads this. Seems like a long standing pet project for barbie-writers. Damiens.rf 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per lack of verifiability; at the least I could not find any verifiable material about this magazine in a quick search. MuZemike (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Agree, could find no information on either the magazine or editor. In addition I looked for anything dealing with "Lytham Dolls House & Miniatures Club" , sorry, nothing other than Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites. ShoesssS Talk 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. abf /talk to me/ 10:42, 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 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This short-lived radio show seems to fail WP:N; no substantial independent sources abut it have been found, the link given is just a list of episodes. Note: The article has survived a mass nomination last year, which was closed for procedural reasons. The article has not been changed since then. I'm relisting it individually now. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability of this program. It probably isn't.--Boffob (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. To repeat some of my points in the previous AFD, series aired by a national network, regardless of length, are inherently notable. This is a BBC Radio series. That alone establishes notability. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Forgive my skepticism, but which notability guidelines says such things as nationally aired series are inherently notable?--Boffob (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I said in the first case. A radio show that ran for one month, no evidence of notability. We're not a directory of every BBC radio program. See also, this AfD for other similarly short-lived programs. Simply airing on the BBC is not inherent notability. StarM 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Chan[edit]

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

    The question is, when has protesting at the Olympic torch relay made a person notable, that is after googling the name, therefore fails on WP:notability guidelines as well as this that there will be too much work to do to make the article readable

    Also I would suggest the Chinese wikipedia article that this one is linked to be going the same way as well since the talk page, after reading it through Google translate, a user questoned its notability Jay Pegg (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - This thing is one excruciatingly non-notable event away from being a vanity page. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Trusilver 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It isnt fair to say that this article shud get deleted when the Chinese one isn't, shouldnt anything that been on news news bulletin be notable enough to get an article, like one of mine which got deleted, plus I never got to have a say on that metter. I only created this one because the chinese article exist and nobody questiones it for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana Jim (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think she deserves a mention there either as she is no different to any other protestors, whether the Olympics or not. Jay Pegg (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Willis Fleming (disambiguation)[edit]

    John Willis Fleming (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete. Per WP:MOSDAB, a dab cannot exist with only one entry with a blue link. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Relax. It isn't doing any harm, and somebody will just have to recreate it when others eventually do create some more pages. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We also have John Fleming (disambiguation), which lists all four of the people on this page, and a number of other John Flemings. Perhaps, instead of the more specific dab page, John Willis Fleming could just point to the basic John Fleming dab page and this could be gotten rid of. (If we do that, we should be sure to add the full names from this one to the basic John Fleming dab page.)--ragesoss (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You seem to have missed the point. ALL of the people are now listed on JF(d); hence redirect from JWF(d) to JF(d). Pdfpdf (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know. That isn't a reason to redirect though.Tavix (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. Obviously it is a reason to redirect - presumably, you don't think it is a good enough reason? Could I bother you to explain please? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There won't be a need to redirect it if we replace the link on John Willis Fleming, since there will be no pages left linking to John Willis Fleming (disambiguation) and no one is likely to search explicitly for a page called "John_Willis_Fleming_(disambiguation)". In fact, since the John Fleming one is already more useful even for people only interested in people named John Willis Fleming, I'm replacing the link now.--ragesoss (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: How long do we wait before it can be deleted? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the article on patience. After you have done that, I'll let you know that it usually takes 5 days for an article to reach a consensus, sometimes less due to WP:SNOW, and sometimes more if there is a split consensus. Tavix (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you make a habit of responding to requests for information with insults? If so, I suggest that you may wish to change your modus operandi. Thank you for eventually supplying the requested information, but a link to the relevant section of the MoS, (which, by the way, I still haven't identified), would be considerably more useful than the link supplied. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I made a request for information. You assumed I was being impatient. That doesn't sound like AGF to me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Treadmill Desk[edit]

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

    Promotion. Templatehater (talk) 21:41, 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Call in Europe[edit]

    Call in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Declined speedy. Non-notable company and product; borderline advertising. 9Nak (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep Currently, the article does not meet notability for companies, as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Press Releases do not count. However, a google search shows that there is coverage out there. 1, 2 3--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:CORP; when it does pass, then allow an article. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Josh Parris 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems worth observing that the Mark Brophy mentioned as the author of two of the references appears to be an employee of the subject of the article [55]. NPOV problems? Not much notability when those articles are taken out of play (as they should be). Brammarb (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. No consensus, default to keep. Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Axiom Engine[edit]

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

    Subject has not been the subject of significant, reliable, independent coverage (WP:GNG). Article does not cite any reliable, independent sources (WP:V) - the Nuclex link provided seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill blog, unsuitable per WP:SPS. Previously deleted through a prod on these grounds. {primarysources} request repeatedly removed by original contributor, who believes that the engine's source code itself satisfies it. My own search for references (admittedly only a web search) only turns up directory entries with the developer's description. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per lack of verifiability. I, too, came up empty on a quick Google search (among the tons of false positives lying around). MuZemike (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it. Just because YOU are not able to verify my claims by reading the source code, doesn't mean they are invalid. It's the same as me saying the article about Human anatomy should be deleted, because I don't get Gray's Anatomy... The article only states facts that can be verified by looking at the project/source - same way I can say google.com is a web-search-engine and it can be confirmed by going on the site and trying it out. Just leave the article alone. --zeroflag (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Without even needing to look at the article it is clear that you do not understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources from independent, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. I'd also advise you to read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Without even bothering to read more than the first sentence of your comment, I can see that the problem goes much deeper than "too tight guidelines". You people don't understand how FOSS works. We do not write books about it. It already IS open, so everyone can READ it, VERIFY it and CONFIRM it. Why the hell do we need books/articles/whatever about obvious things? Do whatever you want, but you people are turning a nice collection of stub-link-collections in one useless pile of boring copy&paste data - yes, I'm referring to wikipedia as a whole. --zeroflag (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I am sorry you feel that way. But it is important that we uphold degrees of standards of notability for the sake of the validity of the encyclopedia. You mention (in CAPSLOCK to no greater importance) the verifiability of the project. What is needed is sources to establish notability. I'll ask you again to refrain from suggesting other editors are "not intelligent life-forms". That way does not lead to productive discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Having had a look for independent, third-party reliable sources I couldn't find any. I should point out that the issue with the article is not necessarily verifiability (if the code exists and can be pointed to, it clearly exists) but one of notability... which from what I've seen it fails utterly. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment How much references do you find about ODE? Virtually none. Why? Because it's middleware. Because it's a library only programmers use. Because it's open source. Because we open-source-programmers don't bother with publicity, we just make it work. So you want to ban FOSS from wikipedia? Very nice! --zeroflag (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And you still need to read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I will comply to WP:CIVIL when the people here start reflecting the behavior of an intelligent life-form (WP:RS reqired!). And yes, other stuff exists because that other stuff was NOT reviewed by someone with a Rules>Common Sense attitude.
      No, civility is not optional. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This goes far deeper than "just axiom". Because according to those (ridiculous) definitions and requirements I hear around here, you'd have to delete virtually every article about FOSS. Think about it - and(/or if that fails) leave it alone. --zeroflag (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I tend to agree with zeroflag here, a case for non-notability could be made for hundreds of articles about open source libraries/tools/etc. if the same shortsighted standards were applied to them as are applied to eg. articles about people or organizations when discussing notability claims. --SeveredCross (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked at the Computing Wikiproject a little while ago, about the possibility of a notability guideline for libraries (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Libraries). One reasonable reply, but without any concensus, we should use the WP:GNG. If no third party has written substantially about any of these hundreds of open source libraries, the then yes, they should be considered for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you consider substantial? And what qualifies as a third party? Because if I write about it in my blog, I'd be a third party, and if I write more than, say, a hundred lines about it, it'd be substantial. But something tells me that you'd still delete it, because you missed the point - again.
    Axiom is a FOSS C# 3D rendering engine, in alpha/beta status. There's several problems with that: C#, while being a very popular language, is not old enough to have gathered any significant amount of (book-grade) authors. 3D rendering is an expert topic that very few people understand, yet many people are trying to understand - removing articles about related projects would further add to that problem. Alpha/Beta status means it doesn't have a public release yet, but it's still usable for research and hobbyist purposes. And FOSS means they don't have any money to pay an author to write a book about it. So what you're doing is basically delete anything that is 1) new/bleeding-edge/modern, 2) specialized, 3) different and 4) free.
    Again, you can NOT use the same guidelines for FOSS and, say, physics. It just doesn't work. --zeroflag (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, I use WP:N to measure substantiality. Your blog, a self-published source, would not meet the requirement of "reliable". Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Doing a search for Axiom Engine in Google produces the first several hits as direct links to details about the subject of this article, so its clearly verifiable. http://axiomengine.sourceforge.net/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Main_Page is the main site for this library. There happens to be another product, Isuzu Axiom Engine mount which also turns up results, but that's the the nature of searches. If you search for Axiom 3D Engine you turn up more reasonable results. This article should be kept alive. Non notable? Open source libraries are often used by a small subset of the Wikipedia community (Game Programmers) but that doesn't mean that it's not a viable article, does it? If it does I think there's a problem with Wikipedia personally. Another thing to note is that Axiom based on a highly popular 3D open source engine called OGRE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGRE_3D. OGRE has been around for many years and has been used in commercial games. It's also not just a port (a conversion from one programming language to another) since Axiom actually has completely different features in many cases, such as its ability to run in XNA on the Xbox 360, which is something that Ogre itself cannot do. In fact, Axiom is one of very few feature rich rendering engines that can do this. Falagard (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC) — Falagard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    As a new user, could you take a look at WP:N and WP:V, then specify exactly which google hits you believe meet the requirements? The sourcefource wiki certainly doesn't. Axiom does not inherit any notability that OGRE may have. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, the sourceforge wiki doesn't meet the notability and verification requirements. At the same time - the problem with those requirements is that many open source software libraries don't get articles, pages, or stories written about them even while they're being used by hundreds of developers. They're often useful libraries, used by hundreds of developers in commercial and non commercial software products that have been released. People will perhaps mention that they're using the library on a forum or in a blog post, or suggest that library to other users on a forum when it meets their needs. Alternatively they'll maintain a wiki, such as the SourceForge wiki, and put up tutorials, frequently asked questions, documentation, etc. about the software library. Up until two years Ogre might not have passed the notability and verification requirements even though several commercial games had already been published using the library, and thousands of hobbyist and independent game developers were working with it daily. It is only since then that a single Gamasutra article (an interview with the author of the software no less) and a book have been written about the library. I realize Axiom does not inherit Ogre's notability. And perhaps Axiom isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia just yet. I'm also not going to be first or the last to complain about the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia - but I do think there is a problem with them in the case of open source software libraries. I believe they deserve to be included in Wikipedia and are getting the shaft. Falagard (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which hundreds of articles are you talking about? If these articles have survived AfDs, you may have a point. If not, I'll propose them for AfD too. As for what "substantial", how about one reliable third party source? It's not like this is a hard requirement. I have several computer programs I've written in the past that I wouldn't dream of writing a Wikipedia article for - let alone if I started including all the projects that I haven't finished yet. It's not like getting a reliable third party reference should be hard. Mdwh (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll print out that comment of yours, frame it, and use it as a poster-example of why mankind is headed for extinction. Seriously, you're posting on a free encyclopedia, and are deleting content about free projects. Err? --zeroflag (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think you should read WP:CIVIL. Yes, Wikipedia is a free project, but somehow it manages to get vast amounts of coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. As do many free projects. Axiom Engine however does not. Trying to somehow make this an issue of "free software" is avoiding the issue - no one is saying that free software isn't notable, just that Axiom Engine seems to have zero coverage. As I said, even small projects I've written in the past have managed 3rd party reliable coverage, and I wouldn't expect to see them in an encyclopedia. Mdwh (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose either keep or merge with other similar project articles. According to GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If a stand-alone article is not warranted (and I've yet to be convinced either way) then it could still be retained in a list article without violating GNG, correct? --Chris (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Not a list article, no, not really. If it could be mentioned in another article that passes WP:RS (a core guideline) then fair enough; maybe some form of merge might be appropriate. Which would you suggest? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, proposed inclusion in a list article is fine, provided the material follows our basic WP:V policy, which it currently doesn't. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — looks like the rally cry to stop the "Wikipedia Gestapos" has been sounded at http://axiomengine.sourceforge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=505. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Whilst the material can be verified from the source code, it's not like there's any information here beyond what's already stated on the project's webpage. What's the value in having a summary of [56]? Without any third party sources, I can't see what information could be added to this article, beyond what is already available on the article's webpage. Mdwh (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. In searching for sources, it would seem that Isuzu's motor car engine by the same name actually has a better claim for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And guess why that is? Because Isuzu is making money on that engine, hence they can(/have to) invest money to get noted. Axiom does not get any money, so there is no staff of PR people trying to advertise it, hence it's only known among certain groups - like 3D programmers which are rare enough as it is and are bound to become even rarer, because any resource about 3D programming gets deleted... Seriously, it is getting ridiculous how stubborn and stuck up the editors on wikipedia are. Remember, wikipedia is FREE - so stop banning/deleting information about other free projects, you're shooting yourself in the foot. --zeroflag (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of publications that cover free projects. Every issue of Edge magazine, for one. Marasmusine (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is not about self-promotion, it is about third party coverage. I personally don't have a staff of PR people to advertise something I thought up today, but that doesn't mean I get an Wikipedia page for it. Things can receive third party coverage, without the original source spending money on promotion. Mdwh (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There seems to be a decent following for this product, it is mentioned in at least two books: Cutting Edge Robotics By Vedran Kordic and The Role of 3D Simulation in the Advanced Robotic Design, Test and Control by Laszlo Vajta and Juhasz. It is also referred to by many 3D gaming applications, 3rd party fee based gaming engines, programming websites, programmer to programmer interest groups and programming blogs. For what it is and what it has achieved (market acceptance), I believe the Axiom 3D Engine code base has proven notability, perhaps not from a mainstream product perspective, but surely from a 3D Engine source code perspective. Also, the general public will contribute to the article providing verifiability based upon use of the source codes which are used to create commercial products. Also note that a separate article for this product (rather than merge) would be most suitable since it would enhance many other 3D articles such as 3D computer graphics, 3D computer graphics software, etc. - DustyRain (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Cutting Edge Robotics approaches what is needed for verifiability. In terms of notability, enough to convince me that it's worth mentioning in the OGRE article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I Wrestled A Bear Once[edit]

    I Wrestled A Bear Once (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed PROD. The band currently fails WP:MUSIC; they have a single, self-released EP and are currently writing their debut for a notable label. No website barring Myspace. No significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. There are claims to notability... airplay through Sirius Hard Attack for instance. I'm unsure whether this is a major radio network, but either way was unable to verify this on the radio's website. Coverage is also mentioned as being in The Onion and the New York Times, but again I have been unable to verify either of these claims. Notability discussion on talk page has centred around Myspace and Google hits. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete Apparently much the same reason as DoubleBlue. The Phantomnaut (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sirius Hard Attack is apparently a channel on Sirius XM satellite radio which can be considered a major radio network The Phantomnaut (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Fair enough, if that's true. Can they verify their chart placing? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment One of us would need Revolver magazine to find the chart but I don't subscribe to the magazine. The Phantomnaut (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Some claims to meeting notability requirements but none seem to be verifiable. Nuttah (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEPYou can purchase their music on Amazon[[59]] Sales rank on Amazon #8530 for MP3 albums.--Ydog (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate you presenting your opinion on this article. You should become familiar with WP:MUSICBIO which are the content guidelines for band articles. #8530 on Amazon for MP3 albums is not a criterion. Can you find one that does apply to iwrestledabearonce? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So why the hell are you even deleting this? Are you just trying to ruin things for people? they are very successful for what they are, and yes, I looked at Sirius Hard Attack's Devil's Dozen, it was in the top for a while, but since XM combined they removed that section of the program entirely. its silly that you are deleting this, i REALLY cant see a reason why. go ahead and delete black market heros as well.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Exclusion (film)[edit]

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

    Explictly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:18, 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 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Key Party (film)[edit]

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

    Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The only information I can find is that the script has (possibly?) been finalized. Filming seems to be scheduled for 2010, which means it is much too early for there to be an article on this film yet. It can be rewritten once principal photography begins, per WP:NFF. Raven1977 (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this article is a tad premature... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phantasm IV Oblivion. MBisanz talk 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phantasm V[edit]

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

    Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge/redirect (create) to a Phantasm (film series) article. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge but not into non-existent articles. I have already merged the gist of the "footage" section into Phantasm IV which has a section on the sequel. And the article here should be deleted, not redirected. If that movie is ever made, it can be recreated. Str1977 (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect The most recent news about this movie, [62] seems to indicate that it's on hold, so it definitely seems premature for an article about it. I agree with Str1977; any truly verifiable content can go to the Phantasm IV Oblivion article for now, with this article redirected there. Raven1977 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 micturation syncope. MBisanz talk 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Micruration syncope[edit]

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

    The author of this article has pursued this article in spite of a bold redirect by me, and a speedy deletion tag from someone else, so let's take it to AfD. This article appears to be about micturation syncope. We already have an article on that topic. This article's title appears to be a misspelling. The article is also written in medical shorthand, such that only someone with proper medical training can fully understand what the author is trying to say. (Disclosure: I am a doctor myself). Richard Cavell (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong/Speedy Delete and redirect to micturation syncope. Clearly an incorrect spelling. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to the correct spelling. I agree that the notes form of this entry needs substantial rewriting, but the article micturition syncope is a very short stub, and perhaps the extra material will encourage someone to tidy it up. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — I claim this should be deleted for housekeeping reasons, as this is a combination of a misspelled title as well as being not readily discernible to the lay reader. In other words, it would need a complete rewrite to be anything past the properly-spelled stub article. Hence, a redirect or a merge would not make any sense here. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aside — I originally was going to claim G6 here, but I don't think the article quite fits the intent of that criterion for speedy deletion. Of course, I will not mind if someone disagrees with me and does a speedy on it; the same objective gets accomplished. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete/Merge' - Merge any relative information to micturation syncope. Than delete. I do not believe it is policy to redirect misspellings. ShoesssS Talk 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question - Is it policy to redirect mispellings? Thanks - PS: Just for my info. ShoesssS Talk 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Redirects from misspellings are in accordance with guidelines, and, more importantly, an article can't be deleted if content is merged elsewhere because the article history has to be available for copyright reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    -Thank you - Struck delete and left merge. ShoesssS Talk 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think we can merge then delete — if we merge, we should leave the redirect in existence, to satisfy the GFDL. Though it's tempting to redirect and then apply WP:CSD#R3... —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple merge and redirect. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. A single-character typo (which is adjacent to the correct key) was apparently the cause of this article's creation. Merge the useful information and then redirect to the correct spelling. (EhJJ)TALK 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Clayton[edit]

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

    Never played or managed at a professional level or even in the top few levels of non-professional competition, so fails WP:ATHLETE, and doesn't pass WP:GNG either..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Epsilon Pi Alpha[edit]

    Epsilon Pi Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. A non notable local fraternity. No reliables sources provided and none available on search. Nuttah (talk) 12:19, 28 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 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jac16888 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris (ACE) Williams[edit]

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

    This article makes claims that are unsourced and unable to be verified easily. It may constitute an attack on a particular person. After the first version of the article, I tagged it for speedy deletion (please note that I took the first version of the article to refer to Chopper Read, whose real name is Mark Read). Now the article makes some sense, but I think it should be deleted. Richard Cavell (talk) 12:05, 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 01:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International Basketball Tournament[edit]

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

    After stumbling upon this page, I saw that this article had no other sources other than an anonymous personal website. As a big basketball fan, I've personally never heard of this tournament that's supposed to have run for 10 years. Although the article name is a pretty common term, when I googled it with some relevant terms, I found nothing reliable at all about it. I think that this is a rather well-detailed fantasy made up by someone with a lot of time on their hand. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Completely fails WP:V and therefore is not notable. In checking it out I agree with the nom and that it is WP:MADEUP. The closest thing to trying and find out if this exists is a gallery of pictures with alot of collage students. --Pmedema (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This looks like an elaborate (and, for nearly two years, successful) hoax. The creator of the article made no other contributions beyond this one; edits since then have been anonymous, or have been housekeeping measures like adding tags; it's completely unsourced, nor can the nominator find anything about it in the news. It's fascinating reading, beginning with the rules for the first "tournament" in the Bahamas ("1999: Takeout shot taken 17 feet away from the basket and two feet off center. The game was played to twenty points. All made baskets counted for two points") The idea of 40 teams of basketball players travelling from all points of the globe to play a game to 20(!) is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the fact that this stayed up from January 2007 until now. I'll save it to my own computer as an example of one that got past us all. Hats off to the author for one of the more brilliant hoax articles to end up on Wikipedia. Well played. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rethroned[edit]

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

    Unnotable album that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with NO significant coverage, and article consisting solely of a tracklist. This was PRODed, deleted via PROD, then restored by the deleting admin after an IP complained about its deletion. IP then removed the PROD that remained after the restore. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MUSIC does not say that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In all fairness, it does state that if there is only a tracklist, then content should be merged (which would make this discussion here irrelevant anyway, but hey), but that in general albums by notable bands are intrinsically notable (see WP:MUSIC under albums). Thus the discussion is not about delete, but merge. This discussion is in the wrong place. Edit: Please see WP:NALBUMS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first line is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - so deletion is a perfectly reasonable option. There is nothing to merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, being pedantic about it, you could of course merge the track-listing with the article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Unnoteable can just be the comment of somebody who does not know anything about metal music. Northern Kings is a supergroup consisting of four of the most famous metal singers of Finland (Nightwish, Sonata Arctica, Teräsbetoni and Charon). Their first album (also only covers, since this is the only goal for this band) went gold in no time at all and this album will also be gold in a few weeks. After all it (Rethroned) has advertisement during TV primetime, has its own display stands in the large music stores and so on (no coverage is a extreme understatement). In its first week after release it immediately entered the album charts (and thanks to Christmas time it will sell well for a few more weeks). -- CecilK (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet, if you can provide some reliable, third-party, sources to back up that chart claim, I'm willing to change my vote to a keep.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the article. Before I wrote here I already added it there. I hope it counts as a reliable source (at least at de.WP it is used that way). Otherwise I will have to search it on yle.fi (where for some reasons I always have troubles finding the charts). -- 82.181.146.7 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it: official chart-page. I also found a few reviews, but since the album has not been released outside of Finland yet, most of them are Finnish ([63]) or German ([64]). Oh, and thanks for making me search links, because that way I noticed that they will give a concert on Friday in Helsinki Ice Hall (now I just hope that there are still tickets left). -- CecilK (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). PC78 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanro Smitsman[edit]

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

    I considered this to be a notable person initially based pretty much only upon the putative Golden Berlin Bear award. I entered this into Berlin International Film Festival, but this diff shows it has been removed as "not in the list". Accordingly I wish to nominate this article for a consensus to be reached, but feel I should remain neutral because of my prior involvement with the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:15, 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 Redirected to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Non-admin closure. LeaveSleaves talk 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mumbai attack[edit]

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

    I don't believe that this article satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion, but I believe that it ought to go. We already have an article on the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks: November 2008 Mumbai attacks. This present article appears not to add anything to that existing content. I propose that this article be deleted and then a redirect be created to Terrorism in Mumbai. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's obviously the intended subject now, but in a year or more's time, someone using that as a search term may well not be looking for the current incident. I support the proposed redirect to Terrorism in Mumbai. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:37, 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 merge to Newcastle University. Per WP:SNOW. Hopefully you'll forgive me if I don't do it myself, from personal experience I happen to know I suck monumentally at merging. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merz Court[edit]

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

    Contested prod. An article on a building that offers no indication or evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 09:28, 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 merge to Executive_Orders_(Tom_Clancy_novel). MBisanz talk 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    United Islamic Republic[edit]

    United Islamic Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom, contested prod. This article does not establish notability independent of Executive Orders 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. There is sufficient coverage of the fictional country in the main article. McWomble (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - my own personal feeling is that a fictional creation in a Tom Clancy novel is more notable than any ordinary novel's creation. He sells tons of books, and is regarded as the king of his field of publication. If this gets deleted, at least redirect it to the book. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep: It seems fictional content in the Tom Clancy literary world can be notable, but I don't see the kinds of sources I would hope for to really establish notability in this situation. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep or Merge and Redirect to Executive Orders BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Executive Orders. I recognize that we have articles, including a category, about fictional countries. In this case, this is plot summary -- i.e., Iraq and Iran have merged and it's causing trouble in the Middle East-- and it doesn't have enough real world notability to make its own article. Like the Minnesota v. San Diego Super Bowl in The Sum of All Fears, it has no function other than to be a plot detail. If it's a keep, then it needs to be moved to a title that includes the words "fictional country". We have articles about real nations like United Arab Republic and United Arab Emirates. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Executive_Orders_(Tom_Clancy_novel). While Clancy is a notable writer, this entity, which only appears as a plot detail in one of his novels, is not. There is no significant secondary coverage of this fictional entity, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete as an WP:IAR speedy. Fram (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sobbylegism[edit]

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

    Another article in search of CSD#G13:Some kids mucking about. This article is something made up in school, non notable, and should be speedily deleted pursuant to WP:SNOW and WP:NFT. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:56, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Nitz[edit]

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

    Disputed "Notability" tag ([65]). I suspect he might be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies. No evidence of current notability, but, as ever, happy for the article to be fixed up to demonstrate it. NB also COI article, apparently autobiographical. Dweller (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm struggling to see any "historical significance", and as the subject of the article you may not be in the best position to make an unbiased determination. Murtoa (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Thank you for your unbiased opinion Mr Nitz. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No references to show notability. Brammarb (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From the pavilion[edit]

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

    This website may not be notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The article contains descriptions of the website contents that may not be of interest to a general user of wikipedia. The website is at least partly commercial, raising the possibility that this article functions as an advertisement. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional: See User talk:Sully89 for more info. This article has been speedily deleted three times on 6 June 2008, deleted after this AfD on 15 June, and speedily deleted when it was a redirect on 17 June. The article has had alternative capitalization in the past. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still sign up to the site here: www.fromthepavilion.org <--- heppa :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.188.157 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article doesnt function as an advertisment, as membership is mentioned but not advertised. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) it says that to determine notability, content must be provided that is not an advertisment or press release for the website, i have provided content that is neither of those, yet proves FTPs notability. And, as the talk page shows, it is just like any other article on Hattrick or Footstar. Sully89 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And in regards to the speedy deletions in june, that was before the website had articles written about it, so it had no credible sources. It now does, so those speedy deletions arent really a precedent. Sully89 (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G4/G11) and salt (and also salt From the Pavilion) — blatant recreation of deleted material, which is starting to become, in my opinion, disruptive in nature. This also arguably spamming. I also claim that nothing notability-wise as improved from several months ago; the reference links are either dead or provide no significant coverage as required in the general notability guideline. MuZemike (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy G4. Recreation of content that fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The creator is more or less a SPA and perhaps suffers from COI. S/he needs to be seriously warned about repeated recreation of such deleted content and next recreation, barring some major improvement, should invite some sort of administrative action. LeaveSleaves talk 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This appears on the surface to be a score tracking system for watching Cricket, but appears to be more of a fantasy cricket game. Speedy G4 does not apply, as per the logs, the only two times the article was deleted was when it was speedy A7'd - it has never been through AFD to my knowledge, so unless somebody can find the link to the dead articles, that remains. G11 is a maybe. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:02, 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. MBisanz talk 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecological design[edit]

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

    Contains one single unsourced statement, clearly a quote from somewhere, for which a citation has been requested since Feb, and for which no citation has been provided. Sure, this might be worthy of an article once there's actually some content, but I believe that in its current state this sub-stub should be deleted and recreated when there's actually some verifiable information. Pince Nez (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • speedy keep There are a multitude of sources for improvement. Google books shows 733 items, or which at least 4 have exactly this phrase as their title. Eg. [66], Ecological Design By Sim Van der Ryn, Stuart Cowan, Published by Island Press, 2007 (2nd ed., 1st is 1996). I haven't even checked articles. If one wants articles expanded, ask a suitable wkiproject, don' nominate the article for deletion. Or, even, do a little work yourself. DGG (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for the snidy "do a little work yourself" comment. I thought I did a little work here to improve Wikipedia. Obviously not. Bye, then. Pince Nez (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, I meant of course, do a little work on this article yourself, instead of nominating for deletion. Such as I did in adding a first ref. to the article, not just stating it here. Not much to be sure, but better than arguing. DGG (talk) 09:15, 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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Coltons[edit]

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

    Delete - nothing indicates that this fictional family has any shred of independent notability. Otto4711 (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep or merge suitiably. Notability within the series is sufficient. Arranging characters by families is an extremely good idea and should be encouraged. DGG (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. Relatively minor characters, but perfectly suitable to cover within the universe of the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Altogether, a Colton was a prominent guest in seven different episodes, including one in which they all appeared together. That particular episode, in which MacGyver was a minor character and the Coltons (all well-known actors: Della Reese, Cleavon Little, Cuba Gooding Jr.) were prominent, had been filmed as a television pilot, and I think that real world notability could probably be shown. I'm not enough of a MacGyver fan for that particular task, but if someone were to do some looking, I think the criteria could be satisfied. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Appearing in seven episodes of a show does not make one notable. Notability is not inherited, thus, guest stars do not inherit the notability of the show they appear in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep While the characters were not major plot figures in the series' complete run, notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If there is no reason to believe that this fictional family have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple secondary sources, then the article fails to meet our notability requirements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as I do not see anything to indicate they are not notable either as they can be verified in published books and that this episode was not just an episode of MacGyver but also an intended pilot for a spinoff show adds to its notability. Perhaps this article should be rewritten instead to be about the episode than the characters? --A NobodyMy talk 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect/delete - The article doesn't establish notability, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MacGyver. MBisanz talk 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikki Carpenter[edit]

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

    Delete - fictional character with nothing indicating any notability beyond the series. Otto4711 (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge or keep I think a major charactr in a major series. But if not as important as I think, then a merge is fine. I can see no reason for deleting altogether. DGG (talk)
    • Delete. No evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect Likely search term and notable within the series. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of real world notability or coverage from third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable character. At best, I'd say redirect her name to the page that has her first mentioning (whether an episode article, season article, or the parent page). I don't even see why should would need extended mentioning in any broad coverage page (e.g. The main Macguyver article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 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 MacGyver#Recurring_cast. Black Kite 23:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Penny Parker (MacGyver)[edit]

    Penny Parker (MacGyver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete - non-notable fictional character. No indication that the character has any notability beyond the series. Prod removed, so by all means let's spend five days deciding on whether to keep an article about a fictional character who apeared in a handful of episodes out of a series with over 150 episodes and who is without any sources demonstrating notability should have an article. Otto4711 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. No evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to MacGyver. Recurring cast members are notable within the context of a show and the nominator did not say why he didn't opt for a merge to start with. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The character is already listed at the show's main article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Los Angeles Lakers radio networks[edit]

    Los Angeles Lakers radio networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    not notable given that the information is completely duplicative of sources already on the web (NBA and Lakers web sites) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's a compound of 2 sources with more to come. Remove deletion. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 23:31, November 27, 2008
    Comment: Sourced or not, this article is duplicative of resources already available on the web. All this article does is advertise the radio network. If there are similar articles for other teams, they should also be deleted, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an advertisement! It puts the radio network in an easy-to-understand & find location, unlike the Lakers' website. Yeah, announcers & other data will be added as time goes by. This page is about 5 days old. Yes, there are other pages like this & have been for YEARS! Also, going back to information found on the web, A LOT of information used here is available on the internet! It's just not easy to find! PLUS, a lot of the information on the Lakers' web page was WRONG! The communities of license. I had to look up EVERY callsign listed on the Lakers' page on the F.C.C. database! So in actuality, this information is MORE ACCURATE than what is available on the Lakers' own page! I know in the radio network lists I've created I've done that every time. You wouldn't believe how many stations have different cities than what their actual community of license is! If it's a signal into a big enough city, I'll put the bigger city after the actual community of license (e.g.: W---: Woonsocket/Providence). This is new, fresh, better information with more to come...but not tonight as it's 2A.M. here. I say, KEEP!Stereorock (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you might want to read up on Wikipedia policies regarding content as opposed to relying on your own justification, which isn't what we use here. I may be voted down here, I might not be, but I based the AfD on those policies as I interpret them. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the article asserts notability, clears the verifiability hurdle, and while some expansion and better sourcing would be welcomed there is no policy of which I am aware that prohibits Wikipedia from containing information that can be found if one visits enough other websites. Indeed, the adamant prohibition against "original research" and the depth of Google and Google News means that many of the articles in this encyclopedia have been assembled based on reliable sources that may often be found on the internet. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - reasonably well written article which is well organized. It could use more references but it is verifiable and notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:00, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Martha Hamlett[edit]

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

    This article is about an author who may not be notable enough for inclusion. She has published one children's book through a vanity press. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:26, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Salmuian economic theory[edit]

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

    This theory may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The article appears to be written by the inventor of the theory. The article is also written using finance terminology, and as a result becomes inaccessible to those not familiar with the concept already. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, there are a myriad of problems with this article, including the fact that it's badly written, uses so much jargon that I'm not 100% sure it's not just a joke or a parody of finance-speak, and this image. More relevant to this discussion, is the fact that I can't seem to find anything to verify that it actually exists - Google at the moment returns zero hits (I know Google isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but seriously, if this were real I'd expect at least newsgroup or forum hits), meaning that it fails both WP:V and WP:N, and that's if it's even genuine. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete Nothing by the author in G Books or G Scholar, and no reference for nomination for the prize either. DGG (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — echoing what DGG said as far as lack of verifiability is concerned, and will add that I only get the Wikipedia article and nothing else in a regular Google search. MuZemike (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-encyclopedic and not notable. First considered it as a hoax, but Fred Salmu is really graduated from the Wayne State University.Beagel (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it with fire. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree to the comments above. abf /talk to me/ 11:04, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban shore[edit]

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

    This article may read too much like a self-promotion. The content of the article does not establish notability, and contains information that I consider too trivial for an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete, the article is certainly very promotional in tone, but there seems to be a fair bit of noise on Google about this company; they may be a notable retailer in India - without knowing any Indian languages, I can't be sure though. If kept, needs to be thoroughly cleaned up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    newbie, the article has been written as there are similar articles on stores such as Harvey Nichols and Harrods and Urban Shore is another, much smaller store in India which specialises in specialist skincare, not sure how it is different from Harrods page for example, (obviously it doesn't have the history that Harrods has but is making history by being the first in india). There are a number of people that are interested in the brands and that it is a new concept in India. It has included refernces from editorials from a number of independent magazines and publications from the UK and India, none of them are advertisement links and we would welcome advise or editing of the pages to make it more balanced rather than deletion, there are historical details that need to be added, in terms of where the store is, it's in a market which is mentioned in the lonely planet guide for India, it also shows that India is a market where products from the UK, USA, Europe and Australia are are sold, hope we can keep the page and improve it to maintian the standards set by Wikipedia rather than delete it. User:Urban Shore —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Delete: Given the promotional tone and the fact that an article called Urban Shore is being argued in favor of by an editor named Urban Shore is just too much for me. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:02, 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. John254 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Smart fabric[edit]

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

    Garbage article. Topic may be notable, but there's no evidence of notability and no references at all. Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Topic is very notable. A google search shows useful links straight from the get-go. This one should be saved by a massive rewrite. I'll see if the rescue squad is up for the job. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - yes, this could turn out to be a good article. But someone has to write it first... - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep — the first article that pops up in the cursory google search is a brief academic research essay from MIT. Nomination (in particular, "garbage topic") also seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MuZemike (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The term is a valid term, even if the article needs great work in its current state. MrDarcy, if you don't like the way the thing looks, you can always fix it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The issues raised by the nominator are with article content, not with the subject's notability, so the solution is editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Theta Nu Pi[edit]

    Theta Nu Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This eight-person LGBT sorority was founded in Sept 2008 and is not notable. DGG wants an AfD to be sure. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, an eight-person organisation with little or no secondary coverage, as far as I can see. Would appear to not meet the WP:ORG notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:ORG (I'm sure :-)). TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not Delete - This is not an 8 person LGBT sorority. It has worked hard to gain acknowledgment from the University of South Florida, The Womens Studies Department, as well as other groups such as local HRC representatives. As for the notability of Theta Nu Pi, it is the first sorority that bases its member class openly. Aemok —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    — Aemok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Delete Unnotable organization. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not Delete - We are an officially recognized Greek-lettered organization at the University of South Florida. We have been recognized not only through the Women's Studies department and the Office of Student organizations but also on the local level from the Human Rights Campaign. We are notable because we do not base entrance into our member classes on gender presentation. Many of our members are LGBT but that does not define us as strictly an LGBT organization. We exist to serve the needs of those searching for sisterhood from all walks of life. Our article is not harming anyone, causing your servers to be overloaded because of ridiculous amounts of formatting or traffic or otherwise negatively affecting the Wikimedia Foundation. While we may not be relevant to you, we are relevant to many other people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.145.168 (talk • contribs)
    • Do Not Delete - Theta Nu Pi has received recognition from the University of South Florida and the autonomous Women's Studies Department. The Human Rights Campaign is in the process of recognizing Theta Nu Pi as a philanthropic Greek social organization that upholds its civil rights values and goals. Regarding notability, Theta Nu Pi is the first sorority that accepts all gender presentations. Common Wikimedia notability criteria (such as website links and published articles) are forthcoming. GretchenMargarita (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC). — GretchenMargarita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Do not Delete -The members of Theta Nu Pi exceed 8 and are rapidly growing in size. In addition to being recognized by various organizations, academic and otherwise, Theta Nu Pi represents a key turning point in the nature of collegiate socio-political units. It serves a valuable point of interest to the rising number of academics interested in the subject of official, yet non-normative, organizations. Many such organizations are new and a network such as Wikipedia is invaluable in being able to locate phenomenon critical to gender studies, especially in regards to Queer Theory. Finally, this organization is exceedingly important to not only its members, but to potential members and allies who seek to find and continue such unique establishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostgolem (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC) — Ghostgolem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The organization may be notable some day in the future, but it is not now. "exceedingly important to...potential members and allies who seek to find and continue such unique establishments." indicates that an important purpose of this article is self-promotional. There are many good places for it, but Wikipedia is not one of them. but it was a little too descriptive to fall under G11. DGG (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikibook C++ Programming has a page on the topic of: Logical Operators

    C++ logical operators[edit]

    C++ logical operators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Orphaned article, pretty much just a tutorial. See WP:NOTGUIDE. All information here is given in the main C++ article. – Jerryteps 04:07, 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 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crunk (slang term)[edit]

    Crunk (slang term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    From the prods: Neologism, WP:DICT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Terrillja talk 03:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete. I am the one who originally prodded this article. Although it went through a major cleanup to the point where it looks nothing like the version I nominated, the notability of the term "crunk" is still not established by the sources used. What these sources show is that some hip-hop artists are familiar with the term and its meaning, yet they leave you with a feeling that this might be too soon for a Wikipedia article on either the term or the concept it conveys. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - what is this article supposed to represent? We have an article on crunk music, and another one on hyphy culture. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would venture to say that the intention of the article would be to broadly describe the meaning, uses, and cultural significance of the term "crunk" rather than merely refer to the musical subgenre of hip-hop. Considering that there is a significant use to the term beyond the music, I suggest either keeping the current article or merging the specific uses of the term into Crunk. The latter seems more palatable as the term is inexorably linked to its musical use. 74.224.47.231 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the use of the word has moved well beyond the music and many uses, like crunk comedy, are tied but not contingent. This article should focus on the word and its usages the main crunk article needs a lot of work so this is fine as a stand alone. I hope the writers here can appreciate that. The term is used way beyond crunk culture and this might be why so many misuse so readily. They don't know what it means or where it came from. I think both this and the main crunk one need to improve but this should be about the use of the slang term whereas the main article should be built around the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.14.36 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You appear to be in the wrong project. This is the encyclopaedia. The dictionary, which will happily take attested slang meanings of a word, is over there. Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually an encyclopedic article about the slang term would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia whereas just a dictionary definition would go to that project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.43.232 (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — basically a weak dictionary definition that I don't think would even pass for inclusion in Wiktionary let alone here. It also is not a good sign when the second item in the cursory google search is from UrbanDictionary. MuZemike (talk) 16:59, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weepcore[edit]

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

    Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:01, 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. John254 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North York Astros[edit]

    North York Astros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Currently does not meet WP:NN. no citations to back up the article at all. no references. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 03:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, and because the article is being edited by the Assistant General Manager of the subject team per this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who edits an article isn't a reason to delete an article. It can have a bearing on the quality or the content, but we can't delete it just because of a possible COI violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.Meets WP:NN. Citations in article, however you have been vandalizing the article by deleting the entries before all the citations could be completed.

    I have been editting this article since creation which was by an entirely different WP person and in accordance with the fundamental principles of WP, that is to provide information to others, this article serves as information that otherwise would not be made available on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.64.156 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Professional team playing in Canada's national league. Most, if not all, of the content of the article is verifiable by following the external link. Plenty of coverage of their games in the media. Even if the IP has a COI, the article is written from a neutral perspective. Tagging for refimprove would seem sufficient. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep High level soccer team, clearly notable. Meets WP:NN, the correct action here is to fix the article. RxS (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. The Astros are one of the teams which make up Canada's highest domestic soccer league, which makes them notable in itself. Also, I don't see how it's relevant that someone who works for the team has edited the article. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, team playing at the top level of Canadian football, obviously notable for that alone. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. My general rule of thumb is that any team who plays at or above a certain level within a country's organised football system is notable, regardless of their professional status. This team played at the top level within the Canadian league, and so in my view they are a notable team. Bettia (rawr!) 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, play in highest league in Canada. As for there being no citations, I really don't think that this should be offered as a reason for deletion when the nominator themself appears to have reverted the addition of citations to the said article. WikiGull (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - play in the top level in Canada, definitely notable. GiantSnowman 12:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - was going to try and add some content then realised it's protected. This was requested by the nominator as part of the 'edit-war' which, appears to have concerned the adding of citations. This does seem an odd reason to request protection (and I have to say to revert the additions), unless in my absence wikipedia has now got a 'rule' about not adding citations to articles! Any admins care to comment, or better still fix this? WikiGull (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - take it to requests for page unprotection, WP:RUP. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. After review of the article, the clubs website and the 'edit war' it appears quite clear than Xenu took issue with the WP:COI and not the actual content of article. When efforts were made to introduce citations to the document, which is the real issue here, they were reverted. My opinion is that this is a personal issue between Xenu and the editor, and has nothing to do with the article. Introduce the citations and keep the article, Xenu can go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.9.26 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Poorly written, but is barely meets WP:N. Rewrite? -phobia don't be afraid to take my easy math quiz! 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I see the external link to support the information on the page. However due to the edit war and page lockdown that takes away the citations. It weakens the argument. But it's still pretty conclusive it's a keep. Govvy (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The citations issue needs to be addressed, but the topic is certainly notable. No indication this is a non-existent team. 23skidoo (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Can someone close this already? Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 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. Absolutely best case scenario: it's completely unverifiable. Nothing in Google, nothing in Wayback Machine, nothing w/ WHOIS - enough, it's snowing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Baloof[edit]

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

    This is speediable under WP:IAR or WP:SNOW, in my opinion. This is something-made-up-one-day, and demonstrates no notability. It contains hoax or joke elements. The 'sport' in question has not been played in ten years, meaning that it existed for about five years, between two people. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • the sport is known by more than two people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm720 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. Whether or not the article creator and/or his friends have ever played such a game, the only source cited is not an actual web site, so the source is a hoax. Its domain name is not registered to anybody. I can't think of an appropriate speedy deletion criterion, but this article has no hope. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not a hoax, but the aforementioned web site is merely experiencing technical difficulties. The game has a small but devoted following, stretching from Maine to Louisiana. A league could possibly be organized in the next few months, bringing baloof to the people. (Simonm720 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • The web site's technical difficulties apparently consist of not even being registered. [67] That's a pretty severe technical difficulty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. A server on the hosting site crashed before the complete registration of the site could be resent. Previously, the site had been destroyed by a virus, causing a new domain name to be requested and the site to be moved. (Simonm720 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 03:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as an unverifiable hoax. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baloof was invented, not simply "made up." In its heyday, baloof was played in a 6 team league stretching across lower New York State. I played in the league for over two years. Also, while on vacation in Belarus, I attended a match between the Hrodla Flames and the Viciebesk Tigers (names are loose translations.) The sport, at one time, was certainly played around the world. (R.delya (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete. I can find no evidence the sport exists outside of this Wikipedia article. gnfnrf (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, something made up one day. Unverifiable, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Speedy delete as hoax/vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Unless it can be sourced, I don't think the article should be kept. It does look like violating WP:MADEUP to me Chamal talk 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the website will hopefully be running within the next week. Please do not delete before then. (Simonm720
    • A self-made website is extremely unlikely to qualify as a reliable source, and won't likely change the outcome of this discussion. gnfnrf (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete — a made-up game that is unverifiable. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. Creator of article claims that a website is coming, but is not up because the servers crashed, resulting in the inability to push the reg out to the system. Forgive me for sounding like a dick, but I don't buy it. DNS does not work like that - domain registrars do not have complete arbitrary failures of their very redundant racks. Checked for a whois record, nothing came up; when I did a dig for the domain name, got status of NXDOMAIN. Regardless of the promises made by Simonm720 above, neither the site nor the domain exist, and even if it did, as per Gnfrnf, creating a website about something made up one day is not a citation for notability - but Simonm720 is nonetheless welcome to create a site dedicated to this game, independent of Wikipedia. Furthermore, a Google search turns up nothing related to a game by this name, nor any game played by hitting balloons with Fisher Price golf clubs. Finally, the most recent revision of this article specifically states it was invented in somebody's basement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 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 redirect to Canadian Online Explorer. MBisanz talk 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Autonet[edit]

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

    Speedy got declined but I still fail to see what's notable about this site. It calls itself "a comprehensive automotive resource that fulfils both the advertising needs of car dealers and the research and information needs of car buyers", but basically it's just a database of secondhand cars in Canada. And ads. As far as I can tell it fails WP:WEB.    SIS  02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge into CANOE. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Canadian Online Explorer (Canoe) I was the admin who declined the speedy. To my mind, it contained an assertion of notability as a subsidiary of Canoe (A7 requires that notability be not even asserted, not just merely unproven). But I can't seem to find anything that indicates it meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB on its own. Blueboy96 04:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and maybe mention at CANOE. Not a notable site on its own, but worth a line on the article of the parent company/website. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep Proposed edit at User:Disco Dodge. Notability not proven by original author; my edit expands entry and includes references. Meets WP:Web. COI: I've been a fan of their reviews/articles for years. Disco Dodge (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all respect for your efforts, but how does a rewrite of the article make the site more notable?    SIS  15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashburnham Insurance Services Limited[edit]

    Ashburnham Insurance Services Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability via search results or coverage in reliable source or news coverage. Article was previously deleted via CSD and recreated a short time later by author with little improvement. Flowanda | Talk 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I don't see any notability. Clubmarx (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems like a run-of-the-mill High Street broker to me, with no evidence stated to suggest otherwise. Claims of nation wide coverage are available to anyone with a post box; large number of branches might have helped. Turnover? Nothing to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 13:39, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Bennett (U.K. photographer)[edit]

    Chris Bennett (U.K. photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A little puff piece about a photographer. "In his capacity as an official photographer with the Red Arrows RAF aerobatic team, Bennett is one of a handful of civilians entrusted to fly within their formation on a regular basis": an impressive-sounding claim which actually means that, as one of their handful of regular photographers, Bennett is one of their handful of regular photographers. No evidence is given even for this, but Amazon does indeed list a single, out-of-print book about this global warming team that's credited to a Chris Bennett. There follows a list of brands for which Bennett has "produced photography" (which may or may not mean "photographed"). For which we are given no evidence. Our man "has also been the subject of biographical articles within respected specialist journals" but alas the former go unspecified. (The latter improbably include Practical Photography, a decent hobbyist rag but hardly a "specialist journal".) ¶ Googling turns up a number of Chris Bennetts who photograph for a living (Wikipedia already has at least one more of these), and this Chris could be among them; since many of the ghits are merely promotional (and/or obscured by Flash flummery) it's hard to be certain of which is which and what's authoritative. I can't confidently say that there is no Chris Bennett, Youkay photographer, who merits an article; but this article doesn't clearly point to any discussion of his work; it doesn't mention a single award, or exhibition; and it has sported an "{{Unreferenced}}" tag for over half a year to no effect. Enough. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete -- does not meet WP:BIO. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the fact that, as the nom points out, we cannot with any confidence say very much about this person, or what he has done, is a gigantic red flag that he fails WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete: No sources and no notability. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per no significant coverage in reliable sources that would otherwise meet the GNG. MuZemike (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. SOunds promotional. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added external links to the article which clearly show who this man is. He is a pro photographer who is also the Red Arrows photographer as is clearly stated in this nom:- "In his capacity as an official photographer with the Red Arrows RAF aerobatic team, Bennett is one of a handful of civilians entrusted to fly within their formation on a regular basis". I would suggest that he is not one of a handful of photographers, he is one of a handful of civilians who would include other roles. He is in short a photographer and author. Paste Talk 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've added three links, including a link to the amazon.co.uk page for each of two books credited to Bennett. Amazon.co.uk is merely one of many retailers so there should be no links to their pages; still, I'm sure you had good intentions and it will be easy for you to cut the links and replace them with a books section that has ISBN numbers that readers may choose to use as springboards to a library, a retailers' database (such as abebooks.com), or a particular retailer (such as amazon.co.uk). As for the third link, what does it tell us that can be worked into the article? (I quote the relevant part in full: The unique aspects of the book can be characterised in two ways. Firstly is the insightfulness, humanity and sheer quality of Chris Bennett's photography. Chris has many interests, and has photographed many subjects, but in this book he has managed to capture something difficult to describe and incredibly rare, the spirit of the Team, and by that I mean the whole Team, air and ground crew, and in that the pride of belonging. Incidentally, note that we still lack any independent confirmation of the claims for all those brand names.) ¶ Above, I don't see how you can say the assertion that he's an official photographer with the Red Arrows RAF aerobatic team clearly states that he's the Red Arrows photographer (my emphases). -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Thanks for your comment, I'll note the point about Amazon etc. I've added a couple of links on being 'official photographer' but my research has pointed to the fact that this article is in fact a direct copyvio of [68] and so should be speedy deleted? Paste Talk 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That page is a copy of the Wikipedia article - see the note at the bottom of the screen. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment So it is is my apologies for not being more observant! Paste Talk 09:00, 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 keep. The sources greatly enhanced the subject's claim to notability. Nice find. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coney I-Lander[edit]

    Coney I-Lander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Orphaned page. Fails notability per WP:CORP and WP:REST. Kickstart70TC 06:21, 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) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I added a couple of external links for the sake of validity. Notability, I'm not so sure about. --Lockley (talk) 04:38, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete being around since 1926 is not a reason for notability. WP:N, however, is. Tavix (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just added three sources talking about the restaurant and its history in some detail.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Jensen (poet)[edit]

    Christian Jensen (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable, unpublished writer. Vanispamcruftisement. Haxidor451 (talk) 00:06, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trembling between Weak Keep and Weak delete. A good 50 trivial GHits, several from reputable NZ arts websites: He's obviously a busy lad. But no solid non-trivial source. Unpublished doesn't necessarily mean non-notable for a performance poet. dramatic (talk) 09:03, 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 01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Encandilados[edit]

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

    Tagged for AfD by an editor who says the pilot of this planned Argentinian telenovella was dropped. I have no Spanish to confirm or deny this; that makes sourcing the article difficult too. Referred for wider community input. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:31, 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) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - Notability is established in the use of the cellphone medium to distribute telenovelas. As a result, it has had some coverage in the press. 50 four-minute episodes to be viewed via mobile phone technology. It's scheduled for 2009, according to the Los Andes newspaper last week. The news has made most Argentinean papers, including La Voz. Luisana Lopilato's worldwide fame would really be alone enough to include it. Even if the series does bomb and no one bothers watching it (hardly unlikely given the coverage and the social media platforms) the fact she is the star means that this piece should stay. Tris2000 (talk) 12:03, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — does not pass notability. Note that notability is not inherited, even if a popular actress happens to star in the show; the show itself must establish notability, in which it has not shown. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Tris2000 is, I think, correct about the notability of the cell phone broadcast format. The issue I have is whether this runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. My Spanish isn't great, but the first reference looks like a trivial mention to me. The La Voz reference, though short, at least does a good job of reflecting importance of the novel format. At this point, I'd have to go with a weak delete, with no prejudice to restoration when the program airs. I'd probably upgrade to keep w/ more sources of the La Voz quality. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More sources have been found and the consensus seems to be this can be expanded upon. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liferuiner[edit]

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

    This article definitely does not meet most, if any, of the notability standards set out for musical ensembles. Notability aside, this article seems to mainly focus on promoting the activities of its many members. Synchronism (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the following articles about the band:
      • Chen, Dalson. "Living life on straight, narrow", The Windsor Star, 2005-09-19, p. A5. (Entirely about the band and their music)
      • An article in The Globe and Mail about band members' arrests during a tour of Canada and the U.S.
    Along with the two album releases on two notable record labels, this all adds up to a weak keep in my view—the band might just barely meet WP:MUSIC criteria #1, they are a tad short on #4, and just barely short on #5 (because it's two separate labels). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:19, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Idaten clan[edit]

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

    Search for sources only brings up mirrors. Idaten has results for a deity but nothing as far as a ninjas. Talk page says this might be based on some manga but no details. BirgitteSB 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless sources added. This was called to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan in March 2007, and citation-needed templates added to the article, but nobody has added citations. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/March 2007#Itaden clan. Fg2 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It seems highly unlikely that in the 15th and 16th centuries, a time when Hokkaido was almost exclusively populated by the Ezo, there would be a "ninja clan" based there. I have serious doubts about the veracity of this article, and if it is to be kept, it needs some good sources to back it up. If this clan is an important part of a manga, anime or videogame universe, it could be kept, if its in-universe quality would be made clear. As it is, I say delete the thing. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:41, 26 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 01:47, 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 keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard MacDonnell (scholar)[edit]

    Richard MacDonnell (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable historic individual. Was the former provost of Trinity College, Dublin. Only notable role was as provost. I'm unsure if that warrants inclusion. LH (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep provost and full Professor at a well-known institution is surely notable per WP:PROF. JJL (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: per JJL. Schuym1 (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article needs expansion, but it is pretty clear that the subject is notable. In 19th century there were a lot fewer universities than there are now, so being a Provost of a major university would certainly have been a much bigger deal than it is today. So most likely passes criterion 6 of WP:PROF in view of item 13 in the "Notes and Examples" section there. In any event, he also passes WP:BIO as a googlebooks search[70] shows enough examples of specific and detailed biographical coverage, e.g. [71][72][73]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand, per above. Matt (Talk) 07:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Head of a college at Oxford, Cambridge, & universities similarly organised, like Dublin, is notable. True, the 18th and 19 th century occupants were not necessarily major scholars in the modern sense, is rue, but by the relatively non-rigorous standards of the day they were notable. DGG (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Provost of a college is, in this context, a fairly clear criterion for passing WP:PROF. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - easily a notable, accomplished individual. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Subject is undoubtedly notable. The article shouldn't be deleted, but needs some copy editing. Chamal talk 12:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Trinity Dublin was probably among the top five British universities at that date. Its provost is certainly notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. For the reasons given above. I added a reflist section to the article, and included a ref needed tag.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:00, 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 speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryebender[edit]

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

    Appears to be a non-notable band. Just released their first album, no references and no significant coverage yet. A plain google search gives only 350 hits[74], none that seem to pass reliable sources. The article reads like an ad. Also, the article was created by User:Ryebender, so it is a WP:COI/WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 00:51, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_28&oldid=1081072447"