Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cody Havero[edit]

No sources; entirely in-universe. With only a couple hundred Google hits, unlikely an article conforming to policy (ie, WP:V & WP:RS) could be written on this subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see this character as significant enough for an individual entry. DGG (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 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) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and is nothing to merge. Article has no sources, so would be merging OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:06, 4 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.King´s Tree[edit]

A rather minor initiative, with few if any third-party sources mentioning it. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable, non-notable, self-promotional. Dahn (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:15, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Owens[edit]

I could not find anything that would make this person notable. The first thirty Google results according to Scroogle show no reliable sources that would establish notability – the sort of links I found were Google Groups, an online petition calling for her to step down, WordPress and other blogs, official sites, etc. A position of "dean" does not qualify under WP:PROF. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are deans and deans. The Dean of a law school, as head of a school that ordinarily justifies a separate Wikipedia entry for the school, as usual for law schools and medical schools and major business schools, is notable, and usually goes to those who are already distinguished faculty--as is her case --she was previously Professor of Law at Adelaide, which would normally be notable regardless of further positions. (The usual position of Dean as subordinate within a college is another matter, and such people have not necessarily been full professors first). In her case, I would expect notability as a professor and probably lawyer as well. since when do we limit RSs to those in the first 30 hits of a google search? That's even worse than limiting sources to those found in a gsearch. As for notability under WP:PROF, she is co-author of The Law of Work (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2007), a major treatise by a top-ranking publisher, co-ed of Intention in Law and Philosophy, (Ashgate Dartmouth, Aldershot UK, 2001), and co-ed of Sexing The Subject Of Law, Sweet and Maxwell Ltd, London UK, and LBC Information Services, Sydney Australia, 1997, and 11 book chapters listed on her CV. G Scholar finds additionally (as Rosemary J Owens) at least 6 more papers. I think a major law school appointing her as its head amounts to recognition of professional notability. DGG (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that we should delete this just based on my survey, but as a disclaimer as to tell everyone the sort of search that I did. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, I denied a speedy on that reason - I thought that a dean of a law school did meet PROF 6 on my intiial reading, and then OrangeMike pointed something out, I reread the notes at the bottom of the guideline and saw the words "dean, provost" and reached the same conclusion as OM that this did not pass the stated criteria. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree, and further point out that she is not even the Dean, she is the Acting Dean. There is a big difference. The Acting Dean is someone who takes on the Dean’s responsibilities temporarily, until the Dean is available to fulfill the responsibilities. Because of travel, vacation, leaves etc., many people who would not (perhaps never) be appointed as Dean (e.g., an Assistant Dean) spend some time as Acting Dean.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep probably should be speedy keep. notability is not questionable, and that the article needs improvement is not a reason to delete.---Buridan (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently she is the Acting Dean of the University of Adelaide Law School, not the Dean. There seems to be only a few news items mentioning her, and in a minor way. Her list of pubs on her web site lists three edited books. She does not seem to be the first editor in any of them, except for one (just published by Oxford U. Press). The most widely held of her edited books (Intention in law and philosophy; for which she is the second editor) is in 178 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat; I think a more acceptable threshold for notability is 300 for WorldCat holdings.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Sufficiently notable, as detailed well in the comment by DGG. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The summary gave no sources - just oppiions that don't seem to correlate with WP:PROF. Writing papers is not part of WP:PROF, unless they have reliable sources discussing their importance, and nor is being appointed to an administrative position.

Delete I guess Dean doesn't pass the "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." part of WP:PROF, as it is an admin position, not acedemic. She doesn't seem to pass any others wither (RS saying she has significant impact / awards).Yobmod (talk) 12:03, 4 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Holcombe[edit]

Bio about a non-notable figure in history with no reliable sources cited for verifiability Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as geneology project without evidence of notability or reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 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, StarM 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "biography" is a genealogical research entry based on land records, a self-published source, and substantial guesswork with interest coming from the extended Holcombe family. He had multiple notable descendants but shows no notability in his own right. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CL-PPCRE[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this work? Tavix (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem like a reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:41, 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, StarM 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't appear mentioned in any Common Lisp book I've checked. Pcap ping 14:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No general notability shown, and it seems not even notable within it's very narrow cateogry.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 4 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Nishiki[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC) REWROTE: Fails any notability outside its fictional world. No references, no real world information, not one of the main characters. Not every single character of every film/show/book needs a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game and television series character, even Japanese magazines mostly give passing mentions, like costumed appearances, which are not enough for the coverage required by WP:GNG. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question; There seems some confusion about this article. its about a character in a movie, Kamen Rider Hibiki & The Seven Fighting Demons . By any chance is the tagging becoming so rapid and indiscriminate as to miss the right article? DGG (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer You are right! I prodded this one for a different reason. My nomination is not correct. I am sorry. Should I withdraw? If this is one of the main characters I think we can redirect it to the movie, of not I insist in deletion but still by nomination as given is wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered redirecting before I posted my opinion above, but after much searching (even in Japanese), there is no significant coverage for him. Hence, delete. If you are still convinced that the character could require deletion, then rewrite the nomination and note why it was rewritten. At this point, it is still early for this AFD and rewriting the nomination allows it to run the proper course. If you are convinced the article should not be deleted, then withdraw the nomination. Jappalang (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I rewrote it. If someone can prove that its one of the main characters I would be ok with a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and only of interest to a small group of people anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independant notability. Redirct if a mojor pivotal character, but doesn't seemt o be.Yobmod (talk) 11:51, 4 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 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegalion[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge as appropriate for all of these. Of course its not suitable for an article by itself and I doubt anyone would claim that it is. DGG (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable Super Robots article. See previous AfDs. -- nips (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:18, 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 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seolla Schweizer[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:18, 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 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valsione[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:19, 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. no reliable sources = no article or nothing to mergeSecret ^account 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valsion[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. DGG (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:05, 5 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. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viletta Vadim[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. DGG (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:06, 5 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. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Shirakawa[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:07, 5 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 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie (Super Robot Wars)[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this series of fictional robots, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:21, 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. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaisaga[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. We could of course delete any Wikipedia articles and rewrite it from scratch to avoid attribution. DGG (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:07, 5 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. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latune Subbota[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. We could of course delete instead of merge any Wikipedia content and rewrite it from scratch to avoid attribution. But why? DGG (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:08, 5 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 Super Robot Wars. History not retained as there was zero sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katina Tarask[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. Instead of merging and attributing, we could always forall articles delete and rewrite it from scratch to avoid attribution, but I do not see why we should DGG (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no reliable third-party sources. All content must be sourced; inclusion in a list doesn't remove that requirement. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 5 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 Super Robot Wars. History not retained as there was zero sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touya Shun[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. We could of course delete any Wikipedia articles and rewrite it from scratch to avoid attribution. The possibility of doing so is no reason not to do it as a merge. DGG (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no reliable third-party sources. All content must be sourced; inclusion in a list doesn't remove that requirement. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 5 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy with the Glasses[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:N, no improvement or new claims of notability since last AfD closed as "no consensus". Google News search reveals no relevant hits ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Angry Video Game Nerd is notable enough for his own page, then TGWTG's associations with him have almost certainly gained him enough notoriety for inclusion. This is not a vote for Keep since I doubt Wikipedia's guidelines allow for such considerations when it comes to notability(though if I'm wrong, then do please consider this as a Keep vote).Bolt Crank (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for obvious reasons. --69.152.210.81 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per: Bad Sources (few, if any, notable/reliable independent ones), Non notable per WP:WEB, Non notable per WP:BIO, seems like advert (ex:"gained cult fame", what cult fame? Never heard of it, no citation to back up) etc. The fact that another similar article exists doesn't justify the existence of this. ProD/AfD it if you feel its not notable Bolt.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on this. If Angry Video Game Nerd didn't have an article, I would vote Delete. Can someone explain why AVGN should have one but this guy shouldn't? They are contemporaries, after all. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps review WP:OTHERSTUFF. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I read, Rolfe has a lot more sources written about him. I'm unsure why so little are available for TYWTG but I guess I'll change my vote to Delete with that in mind. I'll remember it so you don't have to. JuJube (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons per Noian. McWomble (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I honestly don't see why if the AVGN has an article That Guy shouldn't, his site is gaining in popularity. KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.93.138 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gaining in popularity anon, is not notability, Also, I and ZimZalaBim stated above that just because another article exists doesn't mean this one should. Just because say, Amazon.com's article exists, doesn't mean some small indiscriminate book site's should too (yes, I'm exaggerating the comparison for clarity, but you get the idea). See WP:NOTE/WP:WEB. Not to mention WP:BLOP, and (assumed) general procedure saying we should mention the real person. (ps:thanks for the illuminating shortcut to WP:OTHERSTUFF zim, didn't know what it was)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is notable, reliable, independent. Peacock (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The show appears to be gaining a great deal of popularity. However, was only able to find a single ref of note [1] to back up my claim. The article, if kept, does need some work. -DevinCook (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact is Wikipedia is a website for all information, right? He has a lot of fans who would love a reference to his works. In my opinion, the only reason that the AVGN has a page here is that he was featured on CNN. In the end, I vote keep, because it is unfaire to exclude an article for him just because he is not so popular to be a household name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHeroes (talk • contribs)

Actually, Wikipedia is clearly not an indiscriminate collection of all information, and we have notability guidelines to help sort out who should be included. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The guidelines on notability include the following:

"Entertainers Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence for TGWTG having "a significan "cult" following" and having made "unique" and "prolific" contributions to the field of online video.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.65.41 (talk • contribs)

Comment: And where are citations for those weasel/peacock words? Exactly my point in the article being promotive.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but significantly restructure it. He is notable enough to have been interviewed by reliable sources, such as Revision3[2], Cory Lemay[3] and The Game Heroes[4].--Brad M. (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how the Revision3 one is reliable in the sense of establishing notability, it's about a show that interviews many internet people at a time, and wikipedia doesn't need an article for every "notable" web person on that show, or who has a web "show" and is on another web show's show. Heck, my spanish teacher was on a TV show about spanish people in the US, but she isn't notable (not lying). Game Heroes url is the site of theguywiththeglasses, revver is a video site like youtube. Look at their other videos, non notable stuff like: How to play yu-gi-oh. When did WP:RS and WP:BLOP get thrown out the window with WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Besides, if you actually looked at what they cited in the article, you can tell they cited non-notable, irrelevant things, like "fictional feud", etc. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it should be included. Removed non-notable/citations for non-notable, trivial, useless sections which are used as a excuse to not delete for no citations.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 5 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. If anyone wants the content for merging, drop me a line. If anyone wants to create a redirect, go ahead. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Robot Type-X (SRX)[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as should be usual no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. A proper merge would have avoided all of t his, so i assume the real quarrel is with the inclusion of content. DGG (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable Super Robots article. See previous AfDs. -- nips (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you removed all the unsourced information there'd be no article anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:09, 5 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 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasuku Shinguji[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While they shouldn't have been. The terms are perfectly valid redirect targets, an option you didn't even consider. You also didn't consider merging even a heavily cut version of the article somewhere and PLEASE bundle some deletions if you use the same reason on all of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you removed all the unsourced information there'd be no article anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:54, 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. Secret ^account 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soulgain[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as should be usual no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. If the previous discussions resulted in delete rather than merge they should be reviewed. Fortunately,we're not bound by their bad precedent. A proper merge would have avoided all of this, so i assume the real quarrel is with the inclusion of content. DGG (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:10, 5 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. Secret ^account 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign residents in Japan (December 1941)[edit]

This seems like a very pointless list. It doesn't really mean anything and it's not notable. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is listcruft, and there really isn't a point to it; besides, is it even possible to determine all the foreigners, notable or not, who were in Japan in December 1941? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping would set a bad precedent that would allow articles for "list of <group> in <notable location> (<date>)" for which there are infentesimal combinations. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This page does nothing to establish why a list of foreign residents in Japan in 1941 would be notable. Obviously the outbreak of WWII is intended to be the reason for these people being listed in this manner, but I don't really see the value of it. As an alternative to outright deletion of the content, the names on this list could be put in a new category with this title, but then again there are numerous redlinks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:IINFO. This is one of the last survivors of an awful series of Japan in World War II-related listcruft created a few years ago, and should go the same way as the other articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, OR, virtually impossible to verify without violating NOR, and probably would run into the thousands. The fact there's a link to a novel concerns me, as it implies some of the people listed here may in fact be fictional. File under "don't go there". 23skidoo (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list may not currently assert the notability very well at the moment, but I'd think that interest in knowing the notable (note that a large portion of entries are bluelinks) foreign residents of Japan when it declared war on the USA, bringing it into WWII, would be fairly obvious. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you followed those links? Several of the people in blue links were dead in December 1941 (for instance, Elbert Henry Gary (died 1927) and Frank A. Vanderlip (died in 1937) and others link to the wrong person (eg, Frederic Moore (subject of the article died in 1907), Don Brown (totally the wrong person it would seem), George Kerr (not the right person, died in 1913) and James Cox (link to a generic name, no article on the person in this article aparant)). Others are outright wrong - for instance, Ba Maw was in jail in Burma, the (uncited) article on Joseph Newman (journalist) states that he had managed to leave Japan before war broke out, and it goes without saying that the Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek wasn't living in Japan at the time as the article claims! As such, the list has massive WP:V problems. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, hadn't so followed. Those are all individual items to fix, not reasons for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and fix per Quasirandom's logic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut out the NN persons from the list. I'd do it myself, but I am not an expert on it. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 5 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 as a perfectly good list; changes can be discussed on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional dogs[edit]

Had its PROD tag removed. I believe this fails WP:NOT--"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; DGG, who removed the PROD, claims it's "not indiscriminate--each is in a notable work". But notability is not inherited--else we would have full articles on every single infinitesimal minor character in any notable work. GJC 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is inherited in this case, the mantra is primarily meant for weak associations or spinoff articles on minor characters. Neither apply. This list offers people something. It means dogs that do not have separate articles can be searched for in context. So Keep. If this gets deleted, we should check if every dog, especially the bluelinked ones are categorized. Mgm|^(talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this page, there are lots of dog-lovers (including myself) who would love this list tbe kept. It seems someone worked very hard on it, and would be crushed if someone deleted it. Plus this page is really helpful for someone who is looking up fictional dogs, and we have a list of fictional cats, which is not up for deletion.

Elbutler (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd gladly put that one up too, for the same reasons, but if the way this one is going is any indication, there's no point.GJC 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lists of fictional dogs and split the list into separate, more manageable, and more discriminate lists. I don't think deletion is the way to go in this case. MuZemike (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though fiction articles often present problems at AfD, I think this one is easy. I'd expect, as a minimum requirement, that there will be one or more blue links in each entry, and the fictional dog is going to be mentioned by name in the target article. I'm not too happy with the red links in this article, because they suggest weak referencing, which lessens the case for keeping the article. If a bold participant in this AfD wanted to go remove all the red links I wouldn't complain. (Or they could move those entries to the article Talk page). The List of fictional cats has the red-link disease in a worse form. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This list provides one really helpful byway through literary history. The very fact that there are so many fictional dogs suggests the extent to which human-dog interactions and/or anthropomorphic dogs are central to story-telling, from technique to theme. I used this article when I was writing a book on narrative and evolutionary psychology, and the book would have been worse without this wikipedia piece.Nightspore (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Nightspore[reply]
Keep and consider splitting it later orn the article talk p. . I don't see what notability is not inherited" has to do with this. The items in a list do not have to have full individual notability enough for an article on them, just to have sufficient importance to be not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps rename to "List of Dogs in Fiction" and related? List of fictional dogs just sounds like a list of made up dog types. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exactly the kind of list that Wikipedia is good at. Splitting or renaming should be discussed on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Another WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Notability is not inherited from the dozens of entities from all parts of fiction. May I suggest forming narrower lists, such as dogs in comic strips for example. Each comes from a source of different notability. The list of dogs is notable because all entities share the same notability as they are real life dog breeds. A category would suit this article perfectly as categories don't subscribe to wikipedia's notability standards. Themfromspace (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Drought Is Over 6 (The Reincarnation)[edit]

WP:NALBUMS states that, in general, mixtapes are not notable. There is nothing to suggest this one is - delete, per WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:JANNMT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable unofficial mixtape with zero coverage. Karppinen (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unlike the Dedication series, this is an unofficial release. However such is the interest in this artist's mixtapes that substantial coverage may exist for this. A quick search threw up 3news.co.nz and Pitchfork mentions that are just above trivial. 86.44.24.31 (talk) 03:09, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Hambro[edit]

Fixing incomplete nomination for User:82.153.29.35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, a previous PROD rationale claimed "appointments of this civil servant mentioned in official Norwegian sources, but no secondary sources and insufficient notability", but this is wrong, wrong and wrong. 1) The sources are not official by any means, they are independent/RS. 2) Two secondary sources already in the article, one of which is a paper encyclopedia. 3) This adds up to sufficient notability. Notability should be intuitive anyway. 4) By the way the article was prodded by a new user and afd'd by an anon - who in the world has a grudge against Ellen Hambro? Punkmorten (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this stub easily meets the minimal requirements for notability via reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Reliability of sources is not at issue. There is insufficient citation of secondary sources to establish sufficient notability. There is certainly no 'grudge' against anybody! I would respectfully refer Punkmorten, the original author, to WP:AGF. On issuing the prod, I put a courtesy PRODwarning on PM's talk page, but on removing it, PM did not issue a Deprod tag on mine in return. Let us all show mutual respect, please. (To avoid confusion: I forgot to sign in before posting as 82.153.29.35, for which I apologise! Also I found the above contributions posted here before I saved this. It has been taking me some time. Sorry for any confusion caused). Case for deletion follows.

Original article cites two sources:

the Norwegian news agency's report of the official government notice of the individual's appointment to a civil service post (paper source). Whether to call this a secondary source is open to debate, because the news agency reports appointments of almost all office-holders of a certain seniority. In that sense, the source is not intellectually independent of the original government notice, even if it is formally independent. (Ref. WP:BIO, note 4).

an entry in the Great Norwegian encyclopedia. This is wikilinked to a site requiring registration, and is therefore comes under WP:LINKS TO AVOID. Whether to call this a secondary source is also open to debate, because (as with reports by the Norwegian national news agency) entries are published in the encyclopedia for all or almost all office-holders of a certain seniority. Given that the editors did not consider the individual's CV or biography to be worthy of any discussion or analysis, this source is therefore not intellectually independent of the original government notice.

Even if both of these sources were to be accepted as secondary, they do not, on their own, establish notability. Multiple independent secondary sources would be necessary, given that no secondary source has so far been cited which has any significant depth of coverage. That is what is stipulated in the basic criteria Naggie34 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy before you try citing it in your argument. In the section "Sites requiring registration", it says "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." (emphasis mine). Sites requiring registration are perfectly acceptable sources for determining notability and verifiability. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia of things you can find freely on the Internet in English. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that the encyclopedia will be freely available from 1 January 2009. Punkmorten (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If another encyclopedia already his this person listed, there's good reason to assume the person is notable. We also copy article topics from Britannica (we do need the sources to back up the content we have). Did you check Norwegian sources? Can anyone weigh in on the authority of the said encyclopedia? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Store norske leksikon (SNL) is currently the most comprehensive contemporary Norwegian language (bokmål) encyclopedia... That's from wikipedia ;) SNL is the encyclopedia in Norwegian, and if anyone is notable for SNL I would certainly consider them notable for wikipedia. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*delete The sources would be sufficient if the appointment is notable, but I do not think it is. DGG (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I for some reason didn't correctly perceive the equivalence of the position last night--this is the equivalent of the head of he Environmental Protection Agency, and therefore notable. The source are then, as i said sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She is now in an important government agency, and was previously a high-ranking bureaucrat. Punkmorten (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. Blatantly notable and encyclopedic in the most literal sense possible; she is covered in a paper encyclopedia. Any notability criteria which deem the subject of an encyclopedia article "not notable" or "unencyclopedic" is nonsense and should be scrapped or ignored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the arguments put forward by Naggie34. Listings of appointments in official journals of record on their own do not provide sufficient content, context, analysis or criticism to indicate that the subject is notable per se. In my view, this article may fail WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:NOT#DIR, as such announcements are commonplace in official circles, and any infference of notabililty must be taken with a pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And how about coverage in a paper encyclopedia? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ok, this is not a vote but I'm still adding '''keep''') and a question to the would be deleters here: Does an entry in Britannica count as reference that a person is notable in Wikipedia? Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep person in question has an entry in a general-purpose, paper encyclopedia. This is the gold standard for notability, and removes any doubt as to notability of the person in question. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is still in doubt, I added a reference to the book Hvem er hvem (English: Who's Who), a 662-page book with profiles of the 1000 most important people in Norwegian society. This should effectively end this discussion. Punkmorten (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we have never accepted Who's Who as a reliable source. Perhaps the standard of the Norwegian one is higher than the English and US ones, where the people in effect wrrte their own articles. DGG (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'For The EB, we cover everyone about whom there is an article, not everyone they may mention. For the ODNB we cover everyone for whom there a full article or sub-article, but not everyone they mention. An encyclopedia might also contain directory type listings, and it was in this case challenged whether the listing was of this nature. How long is the article devoted to her? It would help to quote it, perhaps on the article talk page. As also challenged there, how far down the level of seniority do they go? do they include her assistants, for example? Not everything that calls itself an encyclopedia is limited to encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hvem er hvem is largely, but not solely, based on questionnaires sent by the publisher to the subject. The subjects therefore give wide input to what winds up in their biography, but they don't write the biography themselves. How good this is of a source I'm not sure, but it should probably be regarded as a primary source. Store norske leksikon is a completely different animal. This is a paper encyclopedia published by two of the largest publishers in Norway (Aschehoug and Gyldendal, the former of which wrote one of Norway's best known, and most well-respected encyclopedias in the 1970s), and anyone who knows it will call it an encyclopedia, the same way in which Britannica is called an encyclopedia, albeit with a Norwegian rather than anglophone focus.

The SNL entry on Hambro goes over three lines, and would be called a stub by Wikipedia's article assessment standards, but keep in mind that this is in the "for paper" space-saving abbreviated sentence format, with words like "she was employed" replaced with simply "employed". While we would write "Hambro has studied law and holds the Candidate of Law degree", SNL simply writes "cand. jur.", not even bothering to make a full sentence.

Regarding the inclusion standards for SNL, I have looked for people further down in the SFT hierarchy (in particular, leaders of SFT sections), and none of them have an entry, Hambro is the only one I have found in SNL. The inclusion standards for Norwegians in SNL are probably slightly more lenient than the inclusion standards for Englishmen in Britannica. Norway is a smaller country and the encyclopedia has therefore more room to cover the Norwegians it wants to cover. However, their standards are tighter, I would say much tighter, than the usual WP:BIO guidelines we use at Wikipedia. For example, most legislators in the Storting do not have entries in SNL.

Actually, Hambro has more coverage than what is given in the article. The large Norwegian engineering publication Teknisk Ukeblad has this interview with her, her position is one which is of great interest to Norwegian industry as is evidenced in this article, and her position brings her into the media's spotlight very often, see these results restricted to the major Aftenposten newspaper. That is just a start, and sources are very widely available if we want to expand this biography. Even if she did not have an SNL entry, she would pass WP:BIO rather easily. I deliberately refrained from adding this yesterday, because a separate article in a traditional paper encyclopedia really ought to have dispelled any illusions of Hambro being "not notable". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as you see, there is still question, so please add these sources. In general it is good practice on the English WP to add all RSs that are pertinent, because we rely very heavily on press mentions. This is unlike practice in some other WPs, where for people in a biographical encyclopedia, only that ref. is given. DGG (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it outright depressing that I have to go on a source hunt to save an article where it should be blindingly obvious that she is notable. But I have gone ahead and expanded the article anyway. Sources are, among others, from Aftenposten, Dagens Næringsliv and Teknisk Ukeblad. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. We need to draw the line somewhere. Someone mentioned the Environmental Protection Agency, without saying of which country. Let's assume the US. The US has a population of about 306 million, Norway about 5 million. Let's say the heads of the US EPA and its equivalent in Norway are the 100th or 200th most senior or influential public servants in those respective countries. We would expect their appointments to be covered in government press releases, and intellectually non-independent sources (e.g. Who's Who-type publications, or local crypto-official paper encyclopedias) to report their appointments.

Now let's continue the analogy. The US population is about 60 times as large as Norway's. Norway's is about 60 times as large as Andorra's.

So someone is appointed as the head of the Andorran equivalent of the US EPA. They are about the 100th or 200th most senior or influential public servant in Andorra. Their appointment is covered in a government press release. Intellectually non-independent sources (e.g. an Andorran Who's Who-type publication, and the local crypto-official paper encyclopedia) reports their appointment. Should an entry be made for the person in the English-language global Wikipedia?

I do not ask this sarcastically, with disrespect for anyone or any culture, or rhetorically. I am Norwegian and my husband is from Luxembourg! I'd be interested to hear people's answers.

I would also suggest that Hambro's listing in SNL is due to the family she is related to, a connection that I and other Norwegians posting here will be well aware of. I still think we need to draw the line somewhere, and here is as good a place as anywhere. No objection of course to the creation of a page for Hambro on the Norwegian-language Wikipedia. In fact I am surprised no-one has yet created one!Brittaadland (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it cannot be drawn anywhere. Drawing it in a way which makes Wikipedia less comprehensive than a traditional paper encyclopedia is simply a non-starter.

Second, the English Wikipedia is not only the Wikipedia of English things. If you support an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia, there is absolutely no reason why an article cannot exist on the English Wikipedia either. In fact, lots of the people who use the English Wikipedia are Norwegians.

Third, you make some very bizarre accusations against Store norske leksikon, calling it a "local crypto-official paper encyclopedia" and accuse it of listing Hambro because of the family she is related to. Both are, for lack of a better word, complete nonsense. I am trying to wrap my head around your assessment of "local crypto-official", and still cannot fathom why you would call Norway's best and most comprehensive encyclopedia something like that. The second accusation, that Hambro is only covered because of her family, is your personal speculation, and is simply refuted by simply looking at SNL; if you do so you'll see instantly that having the surname "Hambro" is not a criterion for inclusion in that encyclopedia at all. There are, at present, 60 people with the surname "Hambro" in Norway [5]. SNL has a total of eight biographies over people with the name Hambro, six of which are deceased, which means that there are currently 58 Hambros (that is all except two) in Norway which did not wind up in SNL. Clearly, having the surname "Hambro" is in no way sufficient to get into SNL or Wikipedia. In addition, the former director of SFT, Håvard Holm has an entry in SNL as well, so clearly it is the SFT directorship which SNL has deemed as the grounds for notability, and not the surname "Hambro".

Fourth, you sit around making strange comparisons with Andorra. Do the Andorrans have an Environmental Protection Agency? I cannot see that they have one, and I suspect the biggest reason we don't have an article on the leader of the Andorran Environmental Protection Agency is that such a position doesn't exist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of an important national government post is an encyclopedic bio. Article has reliable sources. Quale (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notability bar is set pretty low as wikipedia is not paper. The very fact that a paper encyclopedia deems the person is notable enough for an entry means that there is enough notability for a wikipedia entry. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being head of a national government agency is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been padded out with section headers on Hambro's "education" and "private life". This strikes me as ridiculous, and to take up Britt Aadland's point, the line has to be drawn somewhere - and would we think this sort of information on a government official of this sort of seniority was justified if the country in question was Andorra? Wikipedia is not a clippings library.Naggie34 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the material in question is referenced material and not at all unusual for a biography. I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or kept. As for Andorra, that is a hypothetical question. When the equivalent person from Andorra has an article on Wikipedia that is put up for deletion, it will be discussed then. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of where to draw the line regarding people of local notability is relevant to the suggested Hambro article. Asking the hypothetical question is highly relevant to the suggested article, given the reasons proposed for its deletion. Asking hypothetical questions is often very useful indeed. Articles create precedents. The problem is that Wikipedia could become excessively Ruritanian. We are already getting contributions by people who did not understand the US is to Norway as Norway is to Andorra argument, despite its being spelled out clearly and despite the fact that one might think it was extremely simple and straightforward.

We are moving towards a position where every local newspaper article that has ever mentioned this person has been used to fill out the Wikipedia entry! Is that normal in Wikipedia? Is it acceptable in Wikipedia? What other encyclopedias is that acceptable in?

The English-language Wikipedia is being used to promote a small country by people from that country who in some cases have not even bothered to write biographical entries for the given individuals in the Norwegian-language Wikipedia. Is this OK or not? We are talking about people who know exactly, not approximately, how many people in the given country have a stated surname!!!

Like it or loathe it, but English is a global language and Norwegian is not. Your mileage may vary, but to say a question is irrelevant because it is hypothetical is to adopt a viewpoint that is strange in the extreme.

(Aspects of the SNL discussion could probably be taken elsewhere, but it might be interesting to know what proportion of government servants of Hambro's rank are included therein. Of course, even if it is 100%, that would be no support in itself for Wikipedia running biographical articles on any of them. But if we knew the proportion, we might get a better handle on the suggestion that her family connections may have been significant in deciding she should have an entry in the country's encyclopedia).Naggie34 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - to answer your question as to whether it is acceptable to have an entry on the English Wikipedia when there is none on the Norwegian: Yes. It is perfectly acceptable. And it would be perfectly acceptable to have an article on somebody from Andorra so long as the requirements for notability and verifiability are met. Wikipedia is not paper so the notability requirements are set very low.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 December 2008

Keep head of an important government agency. Reasonably sourced. Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 5 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 Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garius[edit]

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) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 30 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) 09:06, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godos[edit]

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) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 30 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) 09:07, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savinga[edit]

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) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 30 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) 09:11, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heldigunner[edit]

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) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 30 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) 09:08, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garantula[edit]

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) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 30 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) 09:04, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Tyranno[edit]

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) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of deleting before redirecting? Just a redirect is easier. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 30 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) 09:04, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

König Wolf[edit]

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) 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Those separate nominations are really disruptive. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're all lumped into one bundle, then you're going to have users cry out reject out of hand. I suppose the nom is fucked either way. MuZemike (talk) 02:50, 1 December 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) 09:09, 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 redirect to Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demantis[edit]

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) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids as a plausible search term. Otherwise, this is nothing but unverifiable original research (note: I will be copy-and-pasting this on the related AFDs as well, as the exact same rationale applies). MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term and merge if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:45, 30 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) 09:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilvader[edit]

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) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for a separate article. Eusebeus (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Zoids or the main article. There is a reference and OR and trivia can be edited out. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:43, 30 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) 09:07, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame: Deluxe Edition (album)[edit]

DELETE : this page has no references and sounds like a fanmade fantasy, if it is true it should be merged in The Fame main page. JWAD (talk)

Delete. The Fame (album) definitely exists, but I cannot find anything verifiable about a "deluxe" edition. Even if such an album does come to pass, it is better to cover it in the main article, as is done e.g. at Flavors of Entanglement. Until that happens, this needs to be deleted as unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 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, StarM 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have endeavoured to check whether Sjakkalle is correct and I too cannot find anything verifiable about a "deluxe" edition. Sjakkalle's suggestion seems entirely reasonable. Paste ^Talk 20:05, 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 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Pillay[edit]

Non-notable singer/model. No album releases, only mixtapes. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:51, 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, StarM 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:13, 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 redirect to Senses Fail. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Nielsen[edit]

Prod rejected by anonymous user. Article about a musician that isn't notable outside of his band, per WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:53, 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, StarM 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect or disambiguate. If he's not notable on his own, he's still notable within the band which makes his name a plausible search term. Dab if the name is too common. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Senses Fail. I don't believe in a merge in this case, since most of the article is unsourced trivia. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Shah[edit]

I see no assertion of notability here. I see that this person was in multiple contests. Last I checked, being in a contest like Wheel of Fortune doesn't make you notable. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete — Fails every point of WP:ENTERTAINER, as well as lacking in sources and failing in notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 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, StarM 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Couple of trivial mentions in the media, that's all. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:20, 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 Speed Delete having money is not the same as notability. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Strakav[edit]

No google results, likely hoax, Non notable otherwise also, even if it is not hoax. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Restored speedy tag removed by creator. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:05, 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 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Knowles (footballer)[edit]

Contested prod. A footballer who has never played a game in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE and consensus on footballer notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Couldn't this have just been CSD'ed as recreation of deleted material? Sunderland06 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, is it the same as what was deleted back in June? Nuttah (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought so, as he still hasn't played, might aswell just let to AFD go its length though. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if he played in FA Cup round proper, does he qualify? Govvy (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It depends. Under WP:ATHLETE no, but if it can be shown that by playing in the FA Cup there has been significant coverage of James Knowles in independent reliable sources yes. (Although he may fall foul of WP:ONEEVENT unless he has coverage from a number of games). Nuttah (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - General consensus at the WP:FOOTY project is that playing for a non-professional team (which is what Farsley Celtic is) in the FA Cup does not confer notability (unless, as stated above, he gains exceptional coverage devoted specifically to him) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Then, Govvy (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:35, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Aaronson[edit]

Not notable David Yuppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fandom repository. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.77.241 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2008
Comment I don't see how an article about "a faculty member in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" is really "fandom". Is there any actual policy you think this violates, or do you just not like this? – iride scent 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was added in response to this post by Scott Aaronson suggesting that he warranted a Wikipedia article, which was posted on Slashdot yesterday. —Werson (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nowhere in that post where he suggests he warrants a Wikipedia article or even suggesting subtly that he should have one. --C S (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He sounds like a smart guy, and he has a decent Google presence, so I'd love to see this article stay. What it needs is to meet WP:PEOPLE, which says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." So far, the article does not list any reliable secondary sources at all that discuss Aaronson, just things that he has written. The article claims that he "is the author of the essay Who Can Name The Bigger Number?, widely distributed in academic computer science", so that would make him notable if it were true. What we need is a major source that indicates his article was widely distributed and made a significant impact on the field. If that can be found, Aaronson will be a notable subject. I'm not familiar with the field, so I don't know where to look for something like this. But until there's some real sources that show where he has been cited and why he's considered a leading academic in the field, this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, and therefore meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. I have a strong gut feeling that he is indeed notable, but the onus is on the article creator to prove it. —Werson (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. The article in its current state clearly establishes Aaronson's notability in accordance with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PEOPLE. —Werson (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but nominations for deletion should still be made after reasonable attempts of finding sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel compelled to point out that I have no idea who the nominator is. I have myself been a contributor to Aaronson's article, despite some skepticism on my part whether he passes WP:PROF; I removed an earlier incomplete AfD nomination put there by an anonymous editor who was unable to complete the nom, and I undeleted a previous speedied version of the same article because I wanted to use some of its text in the present version. While contributing to the article, I found a half-dozen or so other articles in Wikipedia that refer to Aaronson and his works, so there may be an argument here for building the web aside from our usual notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, It's always really weird when someone's first edit is an AfD... As for links in other articles -- going through the "what links here" results, most of them are external links. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An active and promising researcher, but still a very junior one: PhD 2004, was a postdoc till last year, now in the first year of an Assistant Professor position. Has several well-cited papers, but not yet in the notable range. Does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Based on the newscoverage in conventional media, passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A reminder that WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria." —Werson (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quantum Computing is still a very new field and has very few well-known academics associated with it. Aaronson has already received several awards (Danny Lewin Best Student Paper Award at the 2004 ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; the Best Student Paper Award at the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity two years in a row (2003 and 2004); the David J. Sakrison Memorial Prize for his PhD thesis (given for a "truly outstanding piece of research as documented in written form"); and the C. V. Ramamoorthy Distinguished Research Award for his paper "Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem)[6]. He has already published numerous papers.[7], [8]. WP:PROF is a guideline (and a very difficult guideline to read), but I suggest there is enough here to establish notability within that guideline already. You don't win those sorts of prizes, even as a student, without being exceptional. --Rodhull andemu 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards you mention are all at the graduate student level and are thus excluded from consideration by WP:PROF. Item 9 in Notes and Examples section there reads:"Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1". In general, notability for academics means that someone is already a well-established researcher, not someone who is very junior even if very promising. There are exceptions, of course, when someone solves a major problem or makes a big discovery very early on in their career (even as an undergraduate), but I don't think this case is one of those. Nsk92 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, being an exceptional student (winning student prizes) doesn't mean one passes WP:PROF, imo. Nor does publishing papers. I agree with Nsk92, he seems promising, but a decision to delete would not be out of line with other delete decisions made here recently. But if you can improve the article, then by all means please do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not impressed by arguments about the margins of guidelines, the issue is that this article does not cite reliable independent sources of which Aaronson is the primary subject. As such, it is part directory entry and part bio teased from coverage of fields in which he is active. I consider thata problem per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Guy. When he meets WP:PROF we can recreate it. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's really disheartening to be the twelfth contributor to an AfD on a borderline topic only to find that only one other had bother to try and add sources to the article. In a two minutes Google News search, one finds citations of Aaronson's work or opinions in The Age, New Scientist,[9] ZDNet, The Guardian, Science News, The New York Times; the scandal concerning the ad agency ripping off his lecture is itself notable, being the primary topic of two articles in The Age. [10]. This is all on top of the points Rodhullandemu raised. This individual is beyond reasonable doubt a noted authority in his field, the type of academic whose work is frequently cited in the non-academic press; precisely the sort, in other words, that our readers expect us to have an article on. If we spent a little more time improving problematic articles instead of discussing whether to tear them down, we would have a lot less acrimony, drama and wasted time on our hands, and a much better encyclopaedia. the skomorokh 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some of those linked above with commentary that they represent quotes or namechecks and are not biographical articles w/ Aaronson as the subject. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our defense, all but five of those 12 were posting procedural commentary of one kind or another, rather than actively participating – I, for one, am neither going to vote one way or the other nor edit the article, as I know nothing whatsoever about the field and have no way to judge which material is important other than the totally unscientific "I've heard of this publication" test. – iride scent 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as !voting goes, the rationales given here have been of high quality, but that's not good enough. Many AfD's are open and shut deletes, but for borderline cases where notability is the issue, it's not too much to ask to look through a few pages of Google News searches. If you look at the old VfD debates, many were simply straw polls without rationales at all; I'd like us to keep improving by following GAN's lead and having assessors actively try to address issues. When someone has gone to the effort of creating an information resource, we ought to give the topic a fair crack of the whip. As to the question of "the totally unscientific "I've heard of this publication" test" - point taken, but that's precisely the appeal to authority that our entire notability/reliable sources policy de facto relies upon to a large degree. Regards, the skomorokh 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, i am prepared to accept authors of articles in Scientific american as authorities in their subjects. That's usually the basis for selection. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps someone will explain. DGG (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep Seems I've misjudged the sourcing. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Skomorokh. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep enough coverage in the media to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Skomorokh also makes (an) excellent point(s). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, meets our criteria. Multiple sources attest notability. Verbal chat 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. rootology (C)(T) 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the sources now added, Aaronson appears to be considered an expert in his field. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on extensive media coverage, plus evidence of citation impact. His post-doc is indeed recent, but at the prestigious and very selective Institute for Advanced Study.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Complexity Zoo, article in Scientific American, citation impact, etc. are enough to establish notability. --Quietly (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a published researcher in this field, but I have read up on it a lot and Aaronson's name comes up over and over, not just because of the Complexity Zoo but because of his prominent position at a top university, long publication record, and many citations. He's certainly not the most prominent of complexity researchers, but I think he deserves an article. Dcoetzee 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other editors comment, he's recognized as an expert on the field --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 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. I have found sources and I will add them to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant and Castle Pub and Restaurant[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. I could find reliable sources that show notability for the American food chain of the same name. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 20:00, 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 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Berkeley student admissions[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of statistical information. Suggest merging data into respective school's articles rather than listing here. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were an article about the status and history of UC-Berkeley's admissions policies, including the various controversies and legal issues, I'd say "keep it as a notable topic." However, the current article is an indiscriminate collection of nonnotable statistics, as stated, that should be deleted. (Maybe someone can write that other article...) --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a repository--and if it were to become one, and accumulate data on college acceptance rates, this would be a pretty inadequate job of it-- not just numbers for one university branch, for a single year, not broken down by race or sex or geographic origin. Yes a history of UC undergaduate or graduate admission would make very good articles., but this wont be of any help towards it. DGG (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we are not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 5 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 nomination as the article has been improved to the point that it is hardly recognizable from when I nominated it. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digger slang (neé Australian Army Slang)[edit]

This is an entire list of original research, and there are no reliable sources to prove their existence. This list is impossible to verify as well. Tavix (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. True, we need some sources here, but it's not original research. In fact, this has been edited on Wiktionary (wikt:Appendix:Australian military slang) since 2006. Here's one source: Australian National Dictionary Centre FlyingToaster 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, if there are no sources, how could it not be original research? Original research is basically the absence of sources (i.e. the research didn't come from anywhere). Tavix (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research with no hint of notability or reliable sources for things like Bucket - an M113AS1 LRV, APC - because these vehicles are "buckets of shit" or Hammer 1) noun - male genitals 2) verb - male who is copulating with a female may be said to be hammering her. If some these slang words are in fact commonly used then such terms come under Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note there is a similar list in WIktionary. I don't think this information is notable and I think content would be very difficult to verify. Murtoa (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, fails WP:DICDEF. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be OR but army slang, like any other jargon is certainly an valid encyclopedic topic and within the scope of Wikipedia rather than wiktionary; certainly much more than a mere dictionary definition. If the list was tidied and sourced it would be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that somewhere there has been research done on military jargon and on Australian military jargon specifically and if someone was interested to find that research and use it to improve and source this article I would have no problem with keeping it. However, at present, if the OR is removed from the article as it stands there is really nothing left to keep. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited, unencyclopedic and aparantly original research. An encyclopedic article discussing Australian military jargon is certainly feasible, but a list of crudities like this isn't it. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can attest from personal experience that many of these are accurate, but it's basically a big slab of OR at this point. Find some reliable sources, and then we can re-create the article based on those. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The point here is, as Mattinbgn alludes, cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. As has already been discussed for articles such as List of Internet slang (AfD discussion), a dictionary of slang words does not equate to, and does not magically become through a process of reaching some critical mass, an encyclopaedia artice about the slang that the words belong to. Compare London slang (AfD discussion), which got transformed during the AFD discussion from the one to the other. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation of an article where the facts are supported by reliable sources.--Matilda ^talk 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a very different article now - congratulations--Matilda ^talk 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is good, honest information that many people will be able to make use of. The article needs to be sourced, but that's not a reason to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that it needs sources, but if you get rid of the unsoured information, there's nothing left! I'm not against a recreation of the article if someone can create a well-sourced article about it, but until then, nuke it. Tavix (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~This is a dictionary.~~ Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the dictionary already exists at Wiktionary, as (ironically) pointed out by FlyingToaster above. An encyclopaedia article about a slang is suitable for an encyclopaedia (witness London slang, already mentioned), but this isn't even the beginnings of one. Unless it is turned into one, it should be deleted, leaving a readlink until someone begins such an article properly. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing does not magically turn a dictionary of slang words into an encyclopaedia article about a slang. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What turns a dictionary of slang words into an encylopaedia article about a slang is a complete rewrite. This is now an encyclopaedia article about a slang. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What a great article! A brilliant rewrite; it is now everything a Wikipedia article should be. -- 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Worthy of inclusion in the mainspace now. --VS ^talk 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as this article doesn't even look remotely similar to the article I nominated. Congrats. Tavix (talk) 22:26, 4 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 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananthashayan[edit]

Unnotable Hindu name written like an advertisement. Tavix (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable name. Unsourced vanity article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 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 redirect to List of Resident Evil 4 creatures#Notable Ganados . MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Salvador[edit]

~~Non-notable video game character with no sourcing. It's basically a partial game walkthrough at this point, and I don't see much prospect for making it into something encyclopedic.~~ Newsaholic (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes perfect sense to me and is a better solution than outright deletion. Newsaholic (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a Characters in Resident Evil 4. We don't need an article for every character in every game. FlyingToaster 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Toaster. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Resident Evil 4 creatures#Notable Ganados There's a very good reason he isn't on the characters list, he's just an enemy. Dr. Salvador is already redirected there so doubtless this has already been gone over in the past. Someone another 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect: to where "someoneanother" suggested. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: topic is completely non-notable as there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. (Aside from some off-topic information about the chainsaw controller, which was taken from Resident Evil 4.) Someoneanother makes a strong argument about the importance of this character and how to handle it, IMO. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 4 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 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Anfield[edit]

Non-notable The Referee (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. The Referee (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:WEB. No assertion on notability of website or verification of claims made. Fan sites are two-a-penny (especially for a big club like this), and I can't see why this site is more notable than any of the others.The Referee (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, I'm getting deja vu here! Bettia (rawr!) 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This 2-year old Wikipedia page seems to be well-written and well-referenced. Claims that it is not notable do not appear to hold up. A search of media articles shows that it has been referenced by various publications internationally including BBC News and American newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it well referenced when there is only 3 sources in the article that doesn't show any notability? Those links that you provided doesn't show the site's WP:Notability. So it still doesn't meet WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is well-referenced; period. Or at least well-referenced compared to the usual crap we see at AfD. This doesn't have anything to do with it being notable or not. Surely when major media outlets have over a several-year period been using the website in question as a source, then WP:CS dictates that there should be an entry here for it. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is still crap because notability matters on Wikipedia. The sources need to be reliable sources that shows notability instead of trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And all three links in the article go the official site. I don't see how that counts as well referenced. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. How about better referenced than the average Wikipedia article. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No different in terms of notability from number of other fansites. Another one faced a similar scrutiny not so long ago. And in what sense is the article well sourced? Only primary sources are mentioned with no third party inclusion. The sources mentioned above merely mention the website and the BBC uses it as an external link. That doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Giant Snowman 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two references in the article appear to be primary, and as a result do not meet the reliable sourcing guidelines. Nothign else in the article leads me to believe it is notable, so delete. Wizardman 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't say completely non-notable because I have heard it referenced on the BBC before. But alas, I don't think it needs an article here, it's not really wikipedia material. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:39, 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 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Page Unit[edit]

Seems unlikely this can be more than a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:21, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not transwiki Belongs in another Advertising article at BEST, does not belong in wikitionary as it is a technical term, not a standardized word. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TabTrax[edit]

Non-notable commercial proprietary software, article written like an advertisement, most likely by an author of this software (it looks like User:Steveh2112 has something common with "2112design" that distributes this software). Zero references, even Google searches turn up almost nothing. Despite article claiming the userbase of "50,000 users" and that it "has been available since 2003", I haven't found even any major web reviews, not mentioning any published sources. I'd go for speedy deletion, but I'm rather hesitated if I'm totally missing something and this is in fact notable? GreyCat (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per CSD G11 and WP:NOTABILITY Imperat§ r^(Talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:40, 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 keep. per consensus. Several commenters mentioned that several of the stubs have reliable sources and according to an WP:AN post some of the nominated entries were never properly tagged either. No objections against more specific nomination made after careful search of sources. Mgm|^(talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En Thangai[edit]

Two sentence stub on a non-notable film, part of series of auto-generated content-free stubs featuring the same actor. The original version did not even state the exact year nor provide even the slightest reference. Prod tag added, but removed after the addition of only one (1) reference (a newspaper article) and a year of release (1952, which does not even agree with the vague claim from the original, 'The film was released in the 1940s').

Wikipedia is not a directory, so an article should have some other reason than a listing of its mere existence if it's to be a 'perfectly valid stub', as the remover of the Prod tag claimed. And even if Wikipedia were to be considered some sort of alternate version of the similarly user-edited IMDB, it should have at least some minimal level of content and--especially--proof.

Also included in this nomination are some further examples of this auto-generated, content-free directory-listing spree. There are many, many more:

Malaikkallan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Panakkaari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andhaman Kaidhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarvadhigari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marudhanaattu Ilavarasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rathnakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raja Mukthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alibabavum Narpadhu Thirudargalum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baghdadh Thirudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep En Thangai per the source in the article and this one calling it a "mega hit". I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that the article creator got the release date wrong when this has now been corrected. I would urge splitting this into separate AfDs. The notability of these films is not interdependent, so we could end up with a very confusing mix of "keeps" and "deletes" for different films that will be very difficult for a closing admin to untangle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release date error is evidence that not only was there not the slightest assertion of notability--that is, a reason for having an article as opposed to a directory listing--but that the article creator didn't even know whether there was any when he autogenerated the list. And as all of the listed articles are similar content-free directory entries--complete with the same '[t]he film was released in the 1940s' or '[t]he film was released in the 1950s' boiler-plate--then yes, they all belong here in the same group. As for the single reference: well, 'one' is not 'multiple', as in 'multiple, non-trivial references'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to be discussing the notability of the subject, not punishing the article creator for making mistakes by deleting the article. I have now shown you two sources. I also note that none of the additional articles listed above has an AfD template. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malaikkallan. Sources say that it was an astounding success and was the first Tamil film to win a President's Silver Award. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Panakkaari to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Andhaman Kaidhi to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarvadhigari. Notable enough to be written about in The Hindu 57 years after its release. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Marudhanaattu Ilavarasi to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Also it's very difficult to search for sources in the Latin alphabet because so many different transliterations are possible: two words or three, "dh" or "th", single or double "a", single or double "t" - those combinations already make 16 and there could be more. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Rathnakumar to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Raja Mukthi. Another one that's notable enough to be the subject of an article in a major newspaper 60 years after its release. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alibabavum Narpadhu Thirudargalum. Notable as the first Tamil colour film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Baghdadh Thirudan to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a whole slew of "futher sources". Article needs expansion, not deletion. Will now go to each article in turn and do the same simple search for sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: With respects to the nom, each of the stubs on his list have multiple sources available for expansion per the most cursory of google searches. The articles should be tagged for expansion and not deletion as per WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. It's clear that the use of batch-nomination in this case isn't working, as comments above suggest at least some of the films have independent notability, if not all of them. Recommend closing and allowing stated efforts to improve sourcing, etc. to be conducted, then if it's felt that some of these films are still not notable enough, then they can be renominated individually. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. As well as 23skidoo's point I see that there are still no AfD templates in any of the articles except for En Thangai, so the AfD is invalid for those articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with procedural close, per 23skidoo and Phil Bridger. I have myself begun sourcing some of the articles. The information is out there... just takes a bit of searching. Granted, the original author put up some very barren articles, but their being poorly written is no reason to delete if the articles can be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. Stop the pain, please make it stop. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also concerned that we would be deleting articles that never had an AfD template on them so interested parties even knew that someone was attempting to delete them. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and void; renominate a bit less indiscriminately and make sure that all nominated articles are tagged. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 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 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xeon (emulator)[edit]

I believe this article fails WP:N per it's lack of reliable, independant sources. It may be the only working Xbox emulator out there but this alone is not an assertion of notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not found reliable third party souces (only forum and blogs). "Xeon" is former name of XBox 360... Google returns many false positives. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no demonstration of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 14:56, 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 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's Coffee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert's Coffee

There appears to be a dearth of reliable sourcing discussing this company in depth. Notability therefore not established Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable about the chain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the lack of independent sources makes notability an issue. Geoff (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:42, 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 per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Ivan Hurt[edit]

Non-notable actor. A Google search doesn't seem to reveal anything more than entries on websites like IMDb, TV.com, etc. He's only appeared in one film, and I can’t find very many reliable sources. Jamie^☆S93 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Jamie^☆S93 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No context. Schuym1 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will tag it as such. Schuym1 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the admonition of "please do not modify", this could hardly be called the archive of a "debate". For those who wonder what these three people were talking about, "Wesley Ivan Hurt" was the baby actor who played the role of "Swee'pea" in the Robin Williams/Shelly Duvall film about Popeye. I recall that he got written up in the People magazine article about the actors in that bomb of movie back in 1981 or 1982. I can't say that I care enough about the film or the person to do a request for deletion review, but closing this less than 90 minutes after bringing it to the forum strikes me as inappropriate. Mandsford (talk) 20:19, 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 Speedy Delete. I looked at the link is there is no way that a Geocities site can be notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HelpOnDemand[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 16:05, 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 and protect. Secret ^account 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Axe characters[edit]

This series only has a few recurring characters (already covered in Golden Axe (series)#Characters), while the rest only appear in single games. The games are perfectly capable of covering their own characters, so this is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: TTN merged material from the list in the article. As per GFDL, proper attribution should be given by redirecting the page. ~~Deletion is not a legal option.~~ - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:N. Characters notability not established outside game, and, as nominator said, the info is already covered elsewhere.--Boffob (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant game guide information. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; no notability outside the game (and not a lot within either). Fine to cover it within the games themselves. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been brought to my attention that some content from this article was merged into Golden Axe (series), in which case we need to redirect there for GFDL compliance. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Plausible search term for anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia and discourages recreation until it's neccesary, Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ — purely game guide material and unverifiable original research. MuZemike (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a little curious about why it is a question for afd whether it is better to merge a group of related characters all in one place, or into separate articles,. If it is considered that they are best covered in the articles on the individual games, then it seems to me that a for a group of related games, clarity can be best served by having a comprehensive list, with links to the individual parts. We have such lists for thousands of similar cases, and I don't see why this is any different. But if there are a few repeating characters, and they are the major characters, then that gives a good reason for a comprehensive list which will have the fullest coverage, with the links running the other way. Or, of course, if the characters are major enough and the game important enough, having their own articles. DGG (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the nominator first gutted information from the article and moved it to the main[11] then proposed deleting this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.51.120 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 71.139.51.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Probably because the content was unnecessary and excess for the encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Golden Axe article. Looking at that article, it is clear that there is a character section already put into place, so I don't see why that list can be grown to include a few other characters. Tavix (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep. TTN merged material from the list in the main article. As per the GFDL, proper attribution needs to be given, so we're not allowed to delete the history for the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect to Golden Axe by the observations made by MacGyver and A Nobody that since content was already attempted to merge/redirect, the history must be preserved per the GFDL. However, my rationale remains the same as above. If users continue to revert-war over the redirect, then page-protection of the redirect will be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, for the benefit of those who've just tuned in, if none of the members of a list have sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources which is not in-universe or gameguide content then the list as a whole fails to meet our notability requirements. That is the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect since there's no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. As stated in WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidently (I can't 100% tell) this discussion has been brought up on AN/I :Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_that_needs_to_be_speedily_closed. I don't see how deletion isn't an option--if we delete it, we just need to history merge past contributions (if there are many) to places where content was previously merged or remove the merged content. I don't see how "speedy closure" is an appropriate outcome. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I'm aware of "merge and delete" but I don't think that deletion discussions need be held hostage to editor actions. A redirect is fine, too. Characters aren't covered in third party sources and meet WAF and NOT much better in the main article. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you removed all the OR/unsourced statements there would be no article left anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping my vote at a "delete" despite an attempt by user: "A Nobody" asking me to change my vote Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

follow up comment We could move the page to a talk subpage of the target article before redirecting. It would retain the history and leave this page blank. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a merged article to the Talk namespace is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page and specifically as an alternative to a history merge at WP:HISTMERGE#A troublesome case. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Obviously our readers want this information and we are well positioned to present it objectively and without commercialization. Pop culture content can be treated encyclopedicly even if it takes work to do so. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 5 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 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks in the Sim City Series[edit]

Listcruft, no significance outside of the game whatsoever. For another similar page written by the same author, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonders in civilization IV. RedThunder 15:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Purely in-game value. RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a table. It doesn't need to be independently notable, it's a valid spin off (a subarticle given an own page for space or presentation reasons). Or would you prefer the list to be put in the main articles? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly in-game value. Neuro√Logic 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Include a few examples in a series article since there are some real-world influenced buildings here. --MASEM 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a SimCity player, I like the sentiment, but this is absolute listcruft. Demolish and rezone. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extend and turn into table. This list has nothing to do with game guides — it doesn't help anyone to win the game or whatever. Game itself includes a couple of real-life landmarks and a couple of fantasy ones. As a reader of an article about SimCity game, I'd like to know about these relations — which game landmarks have real-life counterparts and link directly to these ones. If I was an avid SimCity gamer, I'd found it helpful to be able to quickly find this information, without long and tedious putting any particular game object name into wikipedia's search, looking for it, if it's real or not. In fact, it's almost no-one except Wikipedia who can fulfill this purpose: no gaming-related encyclopedia project has as much data about various landmarks as Wikipedia. I guess that's the great educational value of Wikipedia and we must use it to the best extent possible: if someone just would found a pretty-looking building in SimCity and would turn to reading serious articles with history topics about these landmarks — it's that what we're trying to achieve? --GreyCat (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldoze — Nonverifiable information and original research. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not true, it's perfectly verifiable information and not an original research. The games were published and are available to the general public as all other media, books, articles, etc. --GreyCat (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be shown to readers via reliable (not primary) sources. You must provide sources as to where this is coming from. Even in that case, as I regretfully did not mention in my rationale for deletion, you also have to display some out-of-universe (i.e. outside of SimCity and video gaming as a whole) relevance — in essence, showing that this is not, as several others have validly claimed above, not merely in-universe game guide material. MuZemike (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't mislead others about sources. WP:RS that you cite clearly states that reliable sources are not required to be third-party. In fact, primary sources are just as well are acceptable. Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources states that "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations [...] for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction". Here we're dealing exactly with work of fiction, and it's perfectly acceptable to just reference the work of fiction itself for a "list of characters" (i.e. here a list of objects one can build in game). Whether or not there's out-of-universe relevance (I think personally that it's not WP:GAMEGUIDE, as you may have read above), please don't mislead yourself and others about sources. --GreyCat (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the other article mentioned in the nom, this list consists of game guide-type information. In each of the Sim City articles, a few of these landmarks can be used as an example of what players can build, which is already done in the SimCity 3000 article. However, this list grouping all landmarks from three games (landmarks in SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 64 and SimCity Societies are not included) in no particular order, with no further information, is not encyclopedic. Somno (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the article stands, it is a mere list of buildings, without any indication of the role in the games., There is a good deal to say about them in context, but is would need to be said in more detail. This article is not likely to be used for that purpose, and if we do this right, we might a well start over.DGG (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the issue isn't so much sources, as notability. Have the landmarks in the game, as a subject, received any coverage in reliable, third-party sources? Is the coverage significant enough to warrant a seperate article? In addition, our WP:WAF guidelines apply here - the article has nothing interesting to say. Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. It's verifiable enough but who cares? I would say the same about list of landmarks I can build with blocks or legos. I'm not seeing the usefulness of this information I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a gameguide. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the three comments above --Teancum (talk) 19:00, 4 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 MacGyver'. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Jackson (MacGyver)[edit]

Delete - no indication of any independent notability for this minor fictional character. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that oustise notability has been proven. A quick google search of the article title proves that the article recieves no coverage in non-fansite third party sources. RedThunder 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there's no independent notability, that only proves there's no reason to have a separate/independent article, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in some way at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced biography of an extremely minor fictional character. I do not support a merge because there is no sourced material that can be salvaged, and no target article into which to put it. Reyk _YO! 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is MacGyver's character article, or the article for the tv series not a merge target? Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter up a half way decent article with a list of dozens of minor characters that doesn't belong there? Just so we can keep some unsourced fancruft in some form? No thanks. If this character could be shown to be notable enough within the series to warrant more than maybe a sentence, if there was any sourced material that could be put somewhere, and if there was something like a List of MacGyver characters (a kind of article I mistrust anyway because the potential for sprawling, unreferenced drivel is too great) then I'd reconsider. Reyk _YO! 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would probably be the sensisble way of dealing with this, as fof 95% of the hundreds of similar afds. 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge what little useful information there is. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:11, 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. John254 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Gilkey[edit]

Declined speedy as asserts notability with hall of fame award. Only a smattering of Google hits, but it can be hard to establish notability with martial artists. Bringing it here to be sure. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Keep - He did receive a national championship, in his weight class, in 2001 from IKF as shown here [12]. That maybe enough for inclusion. Does the article need a rewrite - definite YES. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Based on Shoessss source, but needs cleaning up. Also note Internet Halls of fame are often based on paying to be added, and it seems like an awfully long list with no details as to why people are on it.--Nate 14 81 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakzai[edit]

An IP is complaining about this article and in fact I see no real sources to verify the context of the article. abf /talk to me/ 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe an indigenous people qualify for inclusion. I referenced and cited the piece. In addition, there is more than enough coverage to expand, as shown here [13], especially when ties into the Taliban are incuded. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed Delete (Author failed to state contention --Flewis) - The article is a total POV and full of fantasies.--84.59.198.100 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Please note, user subsequently blocked for vandalism [14] [reply]

Comment - I agree the article needs a rewrite - expansion and more sources added. However, that is not a reason for deletion. Regarding the POV that will be taken care of in the rewrite. You are more than welcome to help! Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - "I see no real sources to verify the context of the article" - the context is evident following the first sentence: Sakzai are a tribe of Afghanistan mainly living in Nimroz [...]. A simple google search easily refutes the nom. Some sources: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. WP:JNN is never an effective reason for deletion - and neither is AFD'ing on behalf of somebody else. 'Nuff said --Flewis^(talk) 14:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources Flewis supplied. "I see no real sources to verify the context of the article" is looking like a case of WP:OSTRICH not to mention a violation of WP:DEL#REASON. It took me only 2 seconds to find most of the sources Flewis found.--Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post closure comment - I was a bit hard on the nom. It was really the IP who seemed the disrupter here. --Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the numerous sources found by Flewis. Edward321 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep: Plenty of reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 18:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Liveras[edit]

Andrea Liveras, sad as his death was at the hands of terrorists, would not have been suitable for an article in Wikipedia before this event, hence WP:BIO1E is relevant. Equally WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. No disrespect is intended to those who mourn Mr Liveras in this nomination, nor to his memory. We are creating an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks#Casualties.--Boffob (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable in life by wikipedia standards, the fact that a notable individual does not have an article is no reason to not have such an article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's mentioned on a list of wealthiest people in the UK. Now arguably he's down pretty far on that list, but he's still listed; we also have articles on charting singles, regardless of their exact ranking in a chart. It's not our job to set arbitrary cut-off points when the people compiling the list already did that for us. I think wealth is one thing that can define notability, at least for business people. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and should not have been nominated per WP:BEFORE (as original article editor). Hard to believe people continue to misunderstand WP:N in this way. A successful business person, started three notable companies (two of the largest pastry producers in Europe) and was widely known. Satisfies the notability hands down without the circumstances of his death. The article is mostly about his life and gives due weight to his business accomplishments.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate is nowhere near the level we saw for 'Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan'. Mr Liveras as a White person does not need to pass the test for "NOTABILITY". People here need not quote sources to justify their vote. ~~ Varun ~~
Keep Another pointless AfD nomination of someone who is clearly notable, regardless of the circumstances of their death. Just because he did not have an article before he died is irrelevant. Our time would be better spent on creating useful content, rather than trying to save what has already been done. Edwardx (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly. Appears to be notable irrespective of his death. But the mediatic way in which he was killed, talking on the BBC seconds before dying, adds extra notability. Made front cover of most newspapers in UK. Tris2000 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because an article didn't exist before his death doesn't mean it shouldn't have. As mentioned he was already on the sunday times rich list, and his death made the front cover of almost every newspaper in the UK, for someone who is not notable that is a pretty astounding accomplishment. --Lemming64 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His means of death is the most notable aspect of his entry, but in aggregate with other factors he is notable.72.75.11.5 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 265th richest is pretty small fry, so fails WP:N and WP:BLP1E. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what number is the cut off point? 90.197.220.134 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st is definitely notable; 265th is not. That's black-and-white. Where exactly black becomes grey and grey becomes white is not for us to decide in this venue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"265th is not" - says who? This is merely your opinion, and you cite no external validation. As an example comparison, there are many more than 265 currently active UK-based footballers who have pages on WP. I imagine that there has been some sort of WP consensus that they are all notable. And business is clearly more generally important than football, and the simplest measure of an individual's success in business is wealth. So, 265th should therefore be notable. The Sunday Times list goes out to 500th, as I recall. And it is a respected publication, so it would seem reasonable that at least the top 500 are notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football is business. Perhaps 1000 should be a cutoff point being a nice clean number but 265th when we have no server space issues, I don't think so. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say 100, Edwardx says 500, SqueakBox says 1000. All three are matters of opinion. Given that no consensus (itself an aggregate of various opinions) has been reached in the wider community on what constitutes notability for businessmen in particular (as opposed to people in general), all three are equally valid.

By the way: do you believe we should have articles on the 500 or 1000 richest people in every country on Earth? Because, at (let us say) 193 countries (UN members + Taiwan), that's 96,500 or 193,000 people, and could prove rather trivial as we go down the list -- for instance, the 868th richest person in Malawi or the 721st richest in Tuvalu (population 11000) will truly be rather small fry (which Mr Liveras was too, at least in comparison with his far wealthier co-nationals). - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the 721st richest person in Tuvalu receives coverage in a respected third party source such as the Sunday Times, then sure. :) 90.197.220.134 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that the richest 500 in every country should be mentioned, the top 500 richest in the UK received notable third party coverage, making them notable. Where as the top 500 richest in Tuvalu have probably not received such coverage, so they are not notable. Tatarian (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can easily cover the richest people in the top economies of the world without any particular burden on the encyclopedia. Liveras got particular attention from the press because his life story is interesting (self-made immigrant businessman) and his field of business is food and luxury yachts, which generate a lot more interest than, say, mining or commodities trading. The press eats this stuff up - it's not exactly movie stars, but people who create businesses get a lot of attention, for practical reasons (people want to do business) and more ideological ones (they are role models). Covering the notable business leaders of each country is not a terrible burden. This would probably exclude most who obtained their money as heirs, silent partners, investors, and such, so in practice maybe 200 per country X 10 top economies, or 2,000 entries. There are far more than that who are notable in business without being so rich, of course, but that's a different story. Anyway, the argument isn't that he should be covered because he is rich, but the fact that he became so rich in business is an explanation of why the sources have decided to cover his life.Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikidemon. Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 4 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 Turkish exonyms . MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria[edit]

Is this really necessary? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Flewis^(talk) 13:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the listed Turkish names of these locations are still in use in Bulgaria, however a proper listing is missing. Many of these locations have been established by Turks and there are historical facts of interest that wikipedia can help ellaborate on. Wikipedia contains dozens of similar articles, why you want to delete particularly this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs)

It's definitely preferable over move wars on the article names, but I think this needs to be renamed to something shorter. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Turkish names, if still in use in Bulgaria, or otherwise were used historically, can be put into each of these places' own articles. Wiki is not a howto/travel guide, so I don't really see the point of this list otherwise.--Boffob (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with boffob on this one, it seems it would be relevant in articles themselves, however the list is relatively pointless. Neuro√Logic 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Boffob. RayAYang (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turkish exonyms #Bulgaria, assuming these aren't already on there. Far from being stupid or pointless, the subject of "exonyms" is an encyclopedic topic, and Wikipedia has many such articles about place names. However, in this case, it has been done. Maybe the title can be moved, as suggested by Mgm, to a useful redirect term. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a place is notable for having an alternate Turkish name, please place it in that place's article. A list for this is indiscriminate and overkill. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. It's not useful as it is, but many Turkish placenames in Bulgaria are notable. Todor →Bozhinov 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. Turkish exonyms are names in current use in Turkey. They do not necessarily coincide with historical Turkish toponyms for places at some time in the Ottoman Empire – at which time the names were endonyms. --Lambiam 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - then that article could be amended to include historical ones as well (with their own section or subsection in each country section). The information in the article nominated for deletion could certainly be somewhere, but it doesn't warrant its own article and is an unlikely search term.--Boffob (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In theory that could create a strange wart of historic Bulgarian names in an article otherwise listing current names – but as it is there are only five entries here as of yet, all starting with Abd. In any case, before entries from here are merged into any other article, it should be verified that they have a certain amount of notability. For example, the fourth one (the only one I've randomly checked) does not have an entry in the English Wikipedia under any name, and I've found 0 Google hits on English-language web pages with "Abdul Ehat". There is a stub for Абрит in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, which does not mention a Turkish toponym but reveals it is a village of population 273. However, the Bulgarians place this village in Dobrich Province whereas the article under discussion would have Abrit in the adjacent Silistra Province, so either one of the two is wrong, or this Abdul Etat Kalesi/Abrit is a different Abrit not even mentioned in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. --Lambiam 20:58, 4 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 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Caccamise[edit]

Using the search terms "Joseph Caccamise" and "songwriter" produces only 3 hits and Google news comes up ziltch. He exists and he may be notable but it regrettably can't be verified. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, doesn't meet WP:NOTE not to mention the article isn't even properly laid out, stubbed, etc anyways Neuro√Logic 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is in pretty bad shape even if it were notable, and the fast that I can't really find anything on the guy leads be to believe it fails both notability and verifiability. Wizardman 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banpresto Originals Terminology[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Check also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha terms (2nd nomination) about a recent result about terminology in fiction. Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive in-universe information, per WP:WAF, WP:GAMECRUFT. Marasmusine (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same bloody reason as all the other articles before. At this point I'd almost like to salt all Super Robot Wars article forever.--Boffob (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per the above and all the other Super Robot Wars AFDs before this. I thought the situation with Pokemon was bad! MuZemike (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suitable combination article, of the sort that should be encouraged. The notability of the individual items covered here is not at issue,since its a combination article, if there is excessive detail it can be edited, and the primary sourcing is appropriate RS for this material--there is essentially no real OR. Of course the discussion of a game's details will be in-universe-all that matters to WP:NOT is that not all of the discussion as a whole is in-universe. I think that covers all the objections. DGG (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What are the references for this? This is original research. -- nips (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per comment above --Teancum (talk) 18:58, 4 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 Des Moore. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Private Enterprise[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. most of its third party coverage relates to its director Des Moore Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete unless some reliable third-party references can be found. That could be tricky, as I Googled it and the only relevant things that came up were the Wikipedia article and the already mentioned reference. TopGearFreak 12:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - How about a merge/redirect to Des Moore. They seem to go hand and hand at this time and combining the two, I believe, has enough coverage from third party - reliable sources to establish Noatability as shown here [26] and here [27]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Des Moore as per Shoessss and the hits via the Google search referenced by Michellecrisp --Matilda ^talk 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources. Fails notability under WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banpresto Originals Technology[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge to Super Robot Wars. TopGearFreak 12:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive in-universe information, per WP:WAF, WP:GAMECRUFT. Marasmusine (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is not a fansite for Super Robot Wars.--Boffob (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a fansite. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — basically agreeing with the above in the Wikipedia is not your own webhost. MuZemike (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suitable combination article, of the sort that should be encouraged. The notability of the individual items covered here is not at issue,since its a combination article, if there is excessive detail it can be edited, and the primary sourcing is appropriate RS for this material--there is essentially no real OR. Of course the discussion of a game's details will be in-universe-all that matters to WP:NOT is that not all of the discussion as a whole is in-universe. I think that covers all the objections. DGG (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a fansite nor a collection of undiscriminate information. -- nips (talk) 21:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Robert Frew[edit]

I added a PROD tag to this article as there had only been one contributor to this article on a non notable accountant who had tried and failed to become the Conservative candidate for London Mayor. The PROD tag was immediately removed by an anonymous editor. There are no independent third party refs and I can see no reason for retention. Paste ^Talk 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some reliable, third party sources can be found. I have done a quick Google search and the name does come up a lot on various news media web pages, but in all cases I have encountered so far these are comments by Frew about the articles and are comparable to forum/blog posts. Given the subject's skills as a self-publicist, it may be a reasonable assumption that the author of this article is linked to the subject in some way. Road Wizard (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article later confirmed that he is Robert Frew (see this dif). Road Wizard (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple candidacy fails WP:POLITICIAN, and subject has no other notability. ninety:one 22:10, 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 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping the hate[edit]

Article tagged under CSD A7 - hangon added by editor, however I would most probably have sent this article to AfD for wider discussion in any case. Here posted for further comments from the community. --VS ^talk 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vastly fails all notability standards on any test that is applicable. Note to admin: please also delete the picture. Yanksox (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this organization (or its website, www.stoppingthehate.com) is covered by independent sources or that it is notable. WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX are on point for this article. I love the irony in bragging that Stopping the Hate "wrote scathing columns on John McCain and Sarah Palin" and that "There wasn't one nice thing said about either of the latter for 5 months..." Mandsford (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. That is funny. It's stuff like that which makes hardcore libs no better than the hardcore conservatives (dare I abbreviate as "cons") :-) MuZemike (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete: This organization is valid. They have been doing great work for the LGBT Community. It sounds to me like the other two wanting it deleted have a problem with the LGBT Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.75 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because it is lacking info from a reliable source we can verify. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability and soapboxing. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing and notability. The IP comment is ironic indeed; what's that I hear? An organisation promoting equal rights accusing people of intolerance to get their message across? Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to the organization and told them about the Wikipedia article their response was as follows. "Thank you for writing to us. We feel Wikipedia does what they do best and we do what we do best. We do not feel the need to be validated by Wikipedia so if they choose to remove us, it won't deter us from our work with the LGBT Community. We are not here for praise, we are here to help our community and nothing more. Sincerely Meghan Chavalier Founder Stopping The Hate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.75 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX Tavix (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — above IP blocked for 1 year for persistent edit warring/vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, is it time to consider WP:SNOW? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Stopping the debate"? Probably so. 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 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 - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gingermin 002[edit]

This article may be a hoax. There are no sources that verify the production of this movie. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:42, 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 keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wang (Actress)[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as CSD A7 - and appears that may be the work of two (or one sock) single purpose accounts - however am posting here for wider input. --VS ^talk 11:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite - There are several third party sources available and the subject may be notable. But the articles needs to be rewritten and it looks as if it was copied from somewhere. Tatarian (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Keep Several of the sources provided in the article appear to be reliable sources, but the ones I looked at were in Chinese, so we might need some assistance in double-checking that. The article definitely needs rewritten to be less promotional, but deletion isn't necessary. Raven1977 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote/reworked the article. I think it's clearer now that the subject is notable, the previous tone and format was just problematic. Raven1977 (talk) 21:16, 4 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 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Zain-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi[edit]

A7 speedy was declined but article was redirected to father's. Author undid redirect without explanation. Article reads like a soapbox entry, difficult to tell if anything actually is a claim to notability. Difficult to tell whether anything useful can be found on Google. Suggest deletion unless anyone can find anything worth salvaging as a stub (I can't). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect — Fails WP:BIO, redirect per nominators comments. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no google news hits (all dates option), with either spelling of shaykh/sheikh. I've also checked various permutations -- no hyphens at all, hyphen only with ul-Aqtab, "Shaykh Zain", "Shaykh Siddiqi" (and both with sheikh). The fact that this guy is English also lessens the concerns we might have about the spelling of his name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find anything that would suggest he passes WP:PROF. Wikipedia has only a few articles about Shaykh’s. These are usually for individuals with scholarship accomplishments that would qualify them under WP:PROF or for notability under other WP:N categories. That is, its seems that just being a Shaykh would not be enough to automatically qualify someone as notable under WP:N.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:13, 4 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 Leek. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leek soup[edit]

Where there are leeks there is leek soup. This is an unremarkable soup, surely not notable. It should be transwikied to Wiktionary and removed from Wikipedia. It is a dicdef. Anyone creating a soup out of salt, water and leeks with no added ingredients will find they have salty leeky water, too, rather than a pleasant soup. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Leek for now (probably a new bullet point under to existing three in cuisine will do). There probably is enough references to leek soup out there for an article if anyone wants to write one, but a simple recipe isn't enough to warrant a separate article. (Might be a case for an article on Leek recipes though.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, as above — Unless anyone wishes to take on the expansion of this subject with reliable sources, then I suggest deletion and merging with Leek until someone comes along and does a better job. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - With Leek, should be noted there, however specific article, unless it's expanded, isn't necessary. Neuro√Logic 15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work. But leek soup is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why would it ever be transwikied to wikitionary? Last I checked, wikitionary was not a recipe book. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be transwikied to wikibooks, which does have a recipe book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep and expand, from the 100s of culinary sources available. Dealing with the historical and practical aspects of he subject, articles of any common food can be made encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the soup is pleasant or not is not for Wikipedia to decide. Being pleasant is not a requirement for articles on soups. Fg2 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leek. McWomble (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leek and Transwiki to Wikibooks/Recipe Books per what Mgm said. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:21, 4 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 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No references aside from random external links. Notability has not been sufficiently established. I tagged the article close to a week ago, but there's been no improvements since. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete unless claim to notability established. There may well be claims to notability for this person, but it's the responsibility of the author to find them, not the participants in a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd be curious to hear from DGG on this one. That Dewey award might help with notability, but I couldn't find any news coverage on anything apart from the award. It's worth noting that the article in its current state is extensively copied from his UCB bio page (the order of sentences is different, but many of the sentences are the same). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Board member of CLIR is enough to demonstrate notability in the field of academic libraries. Being head of library is less significant, but given the national reputation he has established in the field, i'd say this at most needs verification and improvement. --Buridan (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs more citations and references. His service on the boards of visitors of various universities, including prestigious ones, probably qualifies him as notable under WP:PROF criterion 4 (work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). There is also evidence of either passing, or being very close to passing criterion 6 (elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society).--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that the first AfD, which led to deletion, was for someone else. There the nom refers to a “non-notable artist”.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not altogether sure about this and would like to hear DGG's opinion, but as Eric Yurken noted, this does seem to pass criterion 4 of WP:PROF. In particular, there is a fairly prestigious award from the American Library Association that he got in 2002[28]. I did add a couple of references to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll accept this as a keep. However, this is still written far too much like a resume and needs significant rewriting. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 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 merge to Via Francigena. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of the Via Francigena[edit]

WP:NOT a travel guide. If deemed encyclopedically necessary, a compact list of the stages should first be included in the main article, Via Francigena, before being spun off again. In its current state, with no useful sourcing and written in a mostly inappropriate tone, the article is not a useful basis for such a spinoff and can be deleted. Sandstein 10:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge compacted list to Via Francigena as suggested by the nominator. A lot of sources in the article on the stages is off, but I'm pretty sure the sources already in the main articles would cover this information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect depending on whether there is anything worth merging. This article is too much like a travel guide to keep in this form. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my content. I just moved it from the Via Francigena page as it was overwhelming the encyclopedic content and did some (very) minor cleaning up as it was so poorly written. I'm not a deletionist so I would leave it so that someone else can clean it up. IMO the travel guide parts of it should go but the stages part can stay. reinthal (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep reinthal's rationale for forking it is legitimate. However it is a very poorly constructed article. My only reason for tbinking that it might be kept is that the original author may put it back into the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 4 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 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falyoren language[edit]

Contested prod by original author. My original belief was that this was not a notable subject, and the limited GHits that all link back to Wiki, backed up my gut feelings. As well as contesting the prod the author added a lot more material and a reference that doesn't mention this language once. On current evidence I still believe this is no more that a student's project and is therefore unsuited as an article as it is non notable original research. Nuttah (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this seems to be part way between original research and a made up language. Either way, there are no decent sources to be found. Reyk _YO! 10:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very detailed but seems to be completely original research with no sources to verify any information. Tatarian (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. —An gr 10:33, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YS Flight Simulation System 2000[edit]

Notability is not asserted, nor have any references supporting notability been found that meet requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Despite an extensive search since September 2007, we have not been able to improve the situation at all. Many edits to the article are completely unverifable, in addition to the notability problems. We could prune the article down to the stub yet it would still have no assertion of notability nor references to back that up. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a fan of freeware games myself, if there's no notability to be found despite extensive research, it should be deleted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find much in the english language to go towards showing notability. [29] is the nearest I can find, and I'm not convinced about the reliability of Unziana.com. There are a number of Japanese language hits, [30] for example (translation) looks stronger, but could only be a publisher's description for all I know. What do you think? Marasmusine (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have been torn over this one for a while, but every time I have gone to review the article I haven't found anything that I could improve it with. I'll checkout those links. I have a friend who I get to translate Japanese for me. I'm a fan of the freeware stuff too, FlightGear is a great article and I use that as my benchmark for freeware sim articles. Icemotoboy (talk) 20:52, 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, MBisanz ^talk 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - some new citations have appeared, in particular I'm looking at the review from FlightSim.com; I'm not familiar with the site but it looks rather comprehensive with some form of editorial oversight, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. Marasmusine (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only with improvement - seems to be a poorly researched article. It is one of many, many flight sims. However, it has a potential to be well written.

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this one early since there appear to be sources which would allow for improvement through editing (the deletion policy gives deletion as a list resort for articles that cannot be edited to meet standards), also, there's a near unanimous keep vote, by established non-Indian editors. I suggest people to improve the article as soon as possible and if required, we can have a review in a couple of months. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Salaskar[edit]

"killed while fighting terrorists" clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just that! Actually Salaskar was considered as the best encounter specialist in India. He is believed to have killed almost 75 criminals in shootouts. This article must remain on Wikipedia. In such cases, Indians who know better than the foreign editors should be the best judges. I have edited the article now. I have also added a Rediff interview link to the article, which is a clear indication that this man was famous even before his death. I hope you would accept the fact that the interview was taken before his death!!!! -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell you cannot have dual rules, one for Asians and another for whires, Vijay Salaskar was a brave man, he had a record of killing goons.

This article should stay!

- Comment, Sreejith didn't mention whites but non Indians. So let me assure him that not all non-Indians are against a decent coverage of all things Indian as a part of our coverage, or in favour of deleting this article, and of course all are welcome to contribute. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:BIO and see whether this meets the criteria. Taprobanus (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks like we can improve the article with RS sources Taprobanus (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay as this person in a brave soldier of India and no damn policy can rule out his heroic act. Borfee (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)borfee[reply]
Delete - Per nom, "fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial". Wikipedia does not cater to the requests of Indian patriots. Tatarian (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not 1E because he was in the news multiple times before for hunting bandits. As for patriotism, well some people actually like bandits because they think the government is crooked, so police hitmen aren't always entirely loved. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The particular point states this: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is not a low profile individual. He was one of the best encounter specialists in India. He has killed around 75 criminals. This man was among the top police officials in the country. See, the media reports of his death came with his name in the title, like "Salaskar killed". That itself shows he was not a low profile individual. This articl must stay. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating again; from the Rediff interview that was taken in 1999, a good 10 years back, it is clear that Salaskar was not an ordinary person. Wikipedia must have a page for him. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep as clearly notable in life by wikipedia standards, seems a shot against our coverage of India, where our coverage remains poor. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The whole material cannot support notability of the subject to have a separate article. Mention it in the main article, the attack, and that's enough. Dekisugi (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be lots of sources from human rights/justice type groups somewhere about his extrajudicial killings...YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure, then please provide those. Otherwise it's an original research. Dekisugi (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly meets the following basic criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.Borfee (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)borfee[reply]

Keep: He has been in the news as an encounter specialist having killed about 80 gangsters and his death is not his only claim to notability. He has been in the news before. March 2008[31]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this trivial mentioning of one small news article does not enough to support his notability. Dekisugi (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Redtigerxyz. Docku: What up? 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply here on two counts. First, for the reason that it is about biography of living persons. Second, Salaskar was in the news as early as in 1999 [32]. Salih (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I'm the creator of the article) along with the other keep arguments here, I'd like to say that (1) Salaskar was notable for being a senior Mumbai police officer, period. His article is relevant to others such as Mumbai Encounter Squad. His killing of criminals and presence with Karkare and others in the team fighting the terrorists denotes his importance to the units fighting terrorism in Mumbai/India. (2) Salaskar is noted by most news agencies as one of the key police officers killed in the attack. Shiva (Visnu) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Open and shut case of systemic bias. Salaskar was notable for gunning down the most wanted underworld criminals. It is the death of a notable Salaskar that made headlines, not the other way around as the nomination statement goes. I wish nominators in the future do a bit of basic research on notability instead of just reading a developing article. This list of sources including some from the BBC, Times of India, NDTV, and Indian Express should put a lid to this debate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am from Mumbai and my heartfelt sympathies go out to Salaskar's family and others affected by the ghastly attacks. However, we must maintain a sense of objectivity and neutrality and not be carried away by emotions. While it is sad that Salaskar died, it also cannot be denied that he does not pass the notability criteria. If you do wish to honor him, make mention of his act of bravery (along with a small description of his police career) in the Main Mumbai Attack article instead. But as I said, this article has to go - it doesn't meet the notability criteria. -- User: rajiv_pnp

You are contradicting your own understanding of WP:Notability by saying If you do wish to honor him. Docku: What up? 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per Tatarian. See WP:NOT, please. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clear case of (hopefully systemic) Bias. Any Western policeman who had killed 75-80 mafiosi in shootouts would be a national hero and clearly notable. Which Salaskar is. He would be notable without his death in the recent terrorist attacks - so BLP1E is being used as a straw man argument—see the several references in the article about him. I'm suggesting speedy because the ugly AfD tag on the top of the article might dissuade new Indian editors from joining. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no grounds for a speedy keep.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Considering this is extremely likely headed for keep, and the strong emotions around this right now (for example, the fact that the captured terrorist's article is not being challenged, while the hero's is, has been rightfully noted), I think if an admin closed this early he would be doing the right thing. WP:IAR applies here, if it ever does. Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- The AFD discussion for 'Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan' has started it all. While there was some justification for AFD for that article, the AFD for this article on Mr. Salaskar is unfortunate. He killed more than 75 criminals in his service and was covered in newspapers for every encounter. He was entitled for an article even before his death in this terror strike. This AFD is actually out to destroy wikipedia. For Example the AFD on the article on Todd Beamer is closed as majority of people have voted for it. There is no discussion about the 'Notability' in the context of wikipedia policies. Contrast that with the AFD on Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan where it is closed as emotions are involved. When the regular registered editors are voting with national bias, how can we be sure that this bias is not creeping in the articles on wikipedia. ~~Varun~~
Strong Keep If a terrorist is more notable than a martyr. You can delete otherwise Keep this page Aminami (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very notable for participating in wars against underworld, ie, by killing lots of bandits. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striong Keep Once again i am asking same question is terrorist are more notable than a martyr? there are many articles on terrorists. Is this wiki policy to make notable terrorist rather than a martyr Aminami (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepIn India a martyr is above of all, even above of God. a martyr, in our India, doesnt need any reward from Govt. of other. each commando, mitlitry person or policeman wants to become a martyr. Ask to any Indian that who is above of all? President, Prime Minister or a martyr. The Indian will say offcourse a martyr. So dont wait for any other notability or reward. Aminami (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable before he died. Notable after he died. Sarvagnya 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For reasons already stated by SqueakBox, Srijeath and others. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: same reason as given by Sarvagnya.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes the GNG, and as Sarvagnya and others point out, there are RS's mentioning him before he died. So even contorting WP:BLP1E to apply to him (deceased) , he doesn't fit, as he isn't a one event guy. A more appropriate guideline is WP:BIO1E, which is worded a little less stringently. But in addition to there being RS's with info on him apart from the 1E, it contains the clause "unless ... sources have written primarily about the person" to make it consistent with the GNG (2RS=N). So even under the strictest interpretation, BIO1E thus does not really apply to this article. In any case, BLP1E and BIO1E suggest redirection, not deletion. When there are substantial RS's like newspaper articles that put a person or a topic in the title, the article is very rarely, perhaps never, something suitable for deletion. There are sources specifically about him, with him in the title in the refs - perhaps they weren't there when the debate started. But now it is clear that according to our policies and guidelines, this is a keep. What BLP1E and BIO1E and Not a memorial are for is to discourage articles on people like the victims of such attacks, private individuals for which an article based on reliable sources would just say things like "died in the attack" and little more, and who at most should be treated in a list or as a redirect to the "one event.". Not people who have gained real notability, or attracted more notability, due to their prominence & actions in the "one event". John Z (talk) 09:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

777th Tools of the Demon World[edit]

Non-notable fancruft. Misarxist 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable list of "tools" (aka techniques) from the Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro series, almost all of which are single chapter/episode events, making the list an unsourced repetition of List of Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro chapters and List of Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro episodes (which already cover these as they are relevant). Also appears to have some WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Indiscriminate and unsourced accumulation of non-notable information. Reyk _YO! 10:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much a list of incidentals that would be better covered in a list of chapters or list of episodes summary. --Farix (Talk) 13:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – textbook WP:NOT#PLOT case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:16, 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 List_of_past_recurring_and_minor_Emmerdale_characters#M. Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Merrick[edit]

No real world information, no references, no media coverage and no notability outside the show. Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Emmerdale or a character list for the show. All your nomination means is that it doesn't warrant a separate article yet, but a character who was in the soap for over 9 years must be notable within the context of the show, hence the merge (now you only need a reference to proof he exists). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Jackie Merrick" in List of past recurring and minor Emmerdale characters. what should we do with the article then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to complete the merge as I have done. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F4L Rcords + F4L Records[edit]

A couple of "teens" out of "the streets of detroit" 'founded' a record label. Dare I mention the "inherent" notability that comes with the lack WP:RS? WP:1000THINGS is looking for an update - the perfect addition of Vanispamcruftisement awaits. . . Flewis^(talk) 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for one thing, it's a misspelling of F4L Records. If the latter were to survive, this article should be a redirect to it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --GreyCat (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul[edit]

~~It is only a statue and must be deleted in accordance with WP:N~~ No reliable resources to justify notability and Fails WP:N BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if being "only a statue" is a reason for deletion, I suppose we must also delete Christ the Redeemer (statue), Great Sphinx of Giza, The Thinker, David (Michelangelo) and Statue of Liberty... or are you arguing that this statue in particular is not notable? Your nomination statement is unclear. Somno (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination statement makes more sense now. Thanks for fixing it. Somno (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found few references to this statue on Google; enough to verify it exists but no reliable secondary sources which would satisfy notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a statue by a notable sculptor depicting a notable figure displayed on a notable location. You can't get more notable than that. Your search for sources is likely muddled by a language barrier and the fact the sculptor is pre-internet age. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I searched for this statue under its English name, its French name and every combination of the words "Democritus" "Delhomme" and "meditating" I could think of, and there's no significant coverage that I can find. I'm surprised; I was expecting this statue to be notable, but the truth is that it doesn't seem to be. As always I'll happily change my mind if any sources turn up but burden of proof is with those arguing to keep. Reyk _YO! 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All major works of art by etab ihsed artists for which there is sufficient material are individualy notable. The proper place to find the references in not google, but the the various artistic encyclopedias. I am assuming this paticular work is of such stature as to have been written about. DGG (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm thinking historical systemic bias applies here. Further research would need to be done to find the right sources offline, but it can be safely assumed that these do exist. I do lean towards giving more leeway for historical works, as the issues of notability are not as pressing as when dealing with living, breathing and self-promoting artists. freshacconci talktalk 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freshacconci - the sources will certainly exist in print. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, at the least, merge to artist article. Notability is not temporary - "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." Clearly at some point it met the notability guideline or it would not have been "exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1868", nor would it have been installed "in the garden of the musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon". It is, as Freshacconci points out, an example of historical systemic bias. Many (if not most) contemporary subjects meeting WP:N through the excess of sources currently available will not in 140 years time have the exposure and attention that this statue does. WP:N was necessary to exclude the abundance of contemporary self-promotion of nonentities, and historical trivia such as family genealogy. That a work such as this should be even considered for deletion shows not where the subject fails WP:N, but where WP:N is flawed, because it was not conceived with these situations as its target. There has to be a sensible application, not one by rote. Ty 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, it may need a rename though. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 23:14, 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 University of California, Berkeley. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley APEC Study Center (BASC)[edit]

Contested prod. Article is basically one long advertisement for this group. Is that, by itself, a reason for deletion? No. However, I am unable to find any reliable third party sources that demonstrate why this group is notable. TN‑X-Man 12:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new article I do not think this particular center notable, but the best method of salvage would be an article about the ~~BASC~~ ASC Centers in general, including the basic information about this. DGG (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article provides basic information about the APEC Study Center (ASC) in Berkeley (BASC is the abbreviation for Berkeley APEC Study Center... so we can't write a general article about BASC since this article is it). While it is not prominent in the media, it seems like it is notable in the academic field. If its projects/findings are cited in many academic papers, does that not imply notability? I admit that Tnxman307 is right in that it does seem a bit like a product advertisement (in that the article lists the books and such) so, at this moment (unless I am convinced otherwise later), I guess this article would be OK, to me, if the author would edit this list or throw it out altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.108.165 (talk) 20:09, 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of California, Berkeley. I certainly don't see any grounds for deletion - ad content is a matter for editorial action not deletion. A couple of paragraphs from the lead is all that is required and they can go as a new section under 'Faculty and research'. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of California, Berkeley. agree with Terriersfan, only some of the lead should be kepot. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:45, 5 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Now[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC as it is a album that did not chart. Prod declined with the reasoning that the artist's article is too long to contain this information. —BradV 05:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge You cannot delete verifiable non-trivia information. If the article is too long, one may split the page Albums and singles of Cosima De Vito. Twri (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's rationale is mistaken- WP:MUSIC does not state that an album needs to have charted to be notable. Rather, it states that albums by notable musicians may be notable. The musician in this case, Cosima De Vito, is notable. Considering one of the singles on this album charted, the album has been out for over 1 year, and the artist has other charting albums, I think we can safely assume this album is notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charting is just one of the possible criteria it can meet. But the guideline says it only needs to meet one point in the entire 7-8 criterion set. Not charting in its own isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, keep in mind that the laundry list of criteria in WP:MUSIC refer only to bands and musicians. Here, we're talking about an album. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable article on an album released by a clearly notable artist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep : "if the musician that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles" per WP:NALBUMS. WWGB (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I declined this {{prod}} request. Notable artist=notable album, and the artist article is too long for the recordings to be merged with the parent article. – iride scent 14:58, 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 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffa (band)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, fails WP:MUSIC. Tatarian (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:03, 4 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 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hawkins (Jericho character)[edit]

Tagged for a considerable time as needing reliable third party sources. Consists entirely of primary sourced material and plot summary with no evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important stuff from this article into List of Jericho characters. Somno (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on unverified plot summary and merge into List of Jericho characters until enough is verified for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green showed that the best solution was to merge all the other characters and leave the two protagonists to have their one article. I am ok if we merge since none seems to can find any real world information but certainly don't delete because we need the redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly keep the "character conception" while performing the merge. I added and it seems to be the only important real-world information there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably cut down on the plot summary (it seems a bit excessive). As Magioladitis said, the previous discussion decided that it was best for the two main characters (Jake and Robert) to have their own articles, while everyone else is in List of Jericho characters. I do agree though in the need to cut down on the plot summary. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am nominating for deletion many article myself every day but I think this is not the case to delete. I think we can find real world information for these two characters. If we fail then we can merge. But the last time I found two interviews of the second main character just by google searching. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup or merge Seems to be covered in some sources. The article should be trimmed down to meet the guideline for writing about fiction. I'm not opposed to a merger into a list. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trim the plot summary, but otherwise this is a major character in a major series (which is getting replayed in prime time on another network than it originated on, which is almost unheard of). Jake and Robert are the two key characters in this series, so it's justified to give them their own articles. 23skidoo (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And the reliable sources supporting notability of the character independent of the series are.....? McWomble (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thi is an exceptionally important series, and the main characters are suitable for individual articles. How to edit them is for the article talk pages. DGG (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jericho being an important series is not in question but notability of the series is not inherited by the characters. There is no evidence whatsoever of this character having any notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 08:47, 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 List of Jericho characters. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Green[edit]

Tagged for nearly a year as needing reliable third party sources. Consists entirely of plot summary with no evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important stuff from this article into List of Jericho characters. Somno (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on unverified plot summary and merge into List of Jericho characters until enough is verified for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green showed that the best solution was to merge all the other characters and leave the two protagonists to have their one article. I am ok if we merge since none seems to can find any real world information but certainly don't delete because we need the redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim plot summary. See discussion under the Robert Hawkins AFD, above. 23skidoo (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' or do a proper merge, that preserves the information. I have no real objection to a long list of characters, if the information is kept. At this point , the best way of ensuring that here seems to be having separate articles. I would however cut down on some of the plot details, DGG (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And the reliable sources establishing notability of the character independent of the series are.....? McWomble (talk) 08:49, 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 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Control (song)[edit]

Non-notable song, no references or charting info. CSD was declined, since a prod was already removed in favor of the CSD, I'm just bringing it here for discussion. Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no charting info because according to the article, the single isn't due to be released until June next year. The album's article was already deleted. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL (it's unsourced and I can't find sources). Somno (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 22:41, 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 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle Me This[edit]

online radio talk show with little evidence of notability Jac16888 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any mention of this radio show or its hosts in any independent reliable sources. Somno (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable online radio talk show. Schuym1 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. I also think that there might be a huge CoI because of the "signature" in this version. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability requirements and is very poorly written. L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above opinions for deletion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:33, 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 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonders in civilization IV[edit]

Non-notable list of items that can be built in the computer game Civilization IV, doesn't have any references whatsoever. I came across the article right as the proposed deletion was contested; since I agree the article is non-notable, I went ahead and brought it here. Raven1977 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-game significance. RayAYang (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. About as useful as Landmarks in the Sim City Series by the same editor... Somno (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a listcruft. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is this. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not siginficant whatsoever outside of the game, delete as listcruft. RedThunder 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contributor may wish to expand at a specific gaming wiki (Wikia Gaming needs an Civ IV entry, for example); devoid of encyclopedic value. Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a table. It doesn't need to be independently notable, it's a valid spin off (a subarticle given an own page for space or presentation reasons). Wonders are a significant part of the game and including them in the game article would make the thing needlessly long. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Brief mention of a few examples should be placed in the game's article. --MASEM 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you look around, you *can* find coverage on different wonders here. A lot of reviews such as this mention wonders. Some give actual critical feedback, like "Most of the new Wonders weren’t all that impressive". Some go into detail on specific wonders, such as this review that says the Great Wall is "a pretty impressive sight considering the other tiny wonders on the main map, squished in as they are among the coliseums and aqueducts." There's also a number of books on game design that highlight wonders as being a major part of the civilization series, and tries to use it to teach good game design: powerful milestones for players, super abilities, and so on. But when I look at all of these, I don't see anything that persuades me we should have a list of every wonder in the game. Yeah, highlight a few wonders in the main article if they're a major part of why people loved or hated the game. Yes, explain the appeal of the wonder mechanism. But a list of every single wonder is complete exposition and belongs in a WP:GAMEGUIDE, not for an encyclopedic summary of the game. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonders are part of the game, however the links all go to the real-world wonder, so as an article on the game it's utterly useless. It's a list of real things analogies of which are found in the game. Which is basically a pretty arbitrary list. MadScot (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of stuff should be covered in a far more encyclopedic and concise manner in the main article. This approach is simply contextless trivia and unsalvagable in value. -- Sabre (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I was the one who originally PRODded it. Unencyclopedic list of information of questionable real world value. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to civilization.wikia.com. and deleteSYSS Mouse (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that civilization.wikia.com wishes to be our dumping ground for mediocre articles? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always ask. --Kiz o r 16:50, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Marshall[edit]

Contested PROD where my rationale was "Subject lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and allow for a full, neutral, biography to be written about this individual". The PROD was removed and eight sources were added that, at first, I thought was fairly impressive. When I looked at them, however, none actually addressed the concerns for my original PROD, save for the fact that they are reliable, third-party sources. Here's a quick look at all of them:

An article about Raquel Welch - Contains a quote from Marshall in the context of him being her former publicity manager
An article about Frances Farmer's alleged lover - Has a brief mention of Marshall in his role as executive producer of the Exorcist
An article about Tippi Hedren - Mentions Marshall as her ex-husband
Another article about Tippi Hedren - Again, nothing more than a mention of Marshall as her ex-husband
Yet another article about Tippi Hedren - Another fleeting mention of Marshall
Website about film flops - Notes Marshall as a director of one of them
Same reference as #3
IMDb-style profile of Marshall from the New York Times - Nothing more; perhaps less, than what one could find on an IMDb-profile

None of these sources provide non-trivial coverage that would be required to establish notability and allow for a full, neutral biography to be written. A quick Google search does reveal a lot of hits, but most of them relate to The Exorcist, providing little more than his role in the film if that, and none of them provide anything more than trivial coverage. At best, this should be a redirect to Tippi Hedren, although I doubt that anyone would type in Noel Marshall to get to her page. Cheers, CP 02:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on Creative Notability Guidelines where is states: “…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”. I believe the Exorcist qualifies, as a well know work. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Do sub-guidelines override the general notability requirement? In any case, for the reasons stated above (lack of non-trivial coverage), I see no evidence that a proper article could be written about this individual. Could we not keep the material as a small section of The Exorcist (film) rather than have a perma-stub? Just a rhetorical question or two. Cheers, CP 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Hello CP Ahh the eternal question :-). First, as a guideline it is not policy, in that it is not mandated that it be followed. It is more a reflection of the community consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. With that said, the sub-headings under Notability are meant for individuals, under specialty areas, such as Academics – Films – Music and such who do not meet general notability standards but are notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Example is if an academic is notable under this Academics guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as disagreeing, but as an alternative way of saying it--they need to be read together, in the understanding that they are all of them guidelines, not fixed rules, a guide to how we judge individual articles. The way we evaluate the possible conflicts in guidelines and policies is to discuss articles here at Afd. DGG (talk) 03:03, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the basic common sense rule for notability is whether someone would like to know about the person. In this case the answer is "yes" (exetive producer of several films; hence part of the history of Hollywood), and verifiable information, however scarse, exists. Twri (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete after looking at the available sources, both in the article and on a couple of subscription-only newspaper databases. Noel Marshall's name comes up often in producing Roar, which I do not think can really be considered "a significant or well-known work" per WP:CREATIVE. In resources other than those covering Roar, he is only mentioned in passing. The Wikipedia article as it stands feels like a forced hodge-podge of these brief mentions and information better suited for the article for Roar. I think that his involvement with Roar should be detailed at the film article, but I don't think that there is enough information about the person himself to warrant a biographical article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn in Silence[edit]

Band called it quits after one self-released EP and one album on a minor label. No big tours reported, no independent coverage outside the occasional note on the usual suspects (the metal blogs) Drmies (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:38, 4 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 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Your Halo[edit]

Only one demo/EP, no independent coverage: the band is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:38, 4 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. Shown not to be a hoax through consensus, speedy keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Džemaludin Čaušević[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources at all, probably a hoax. europemayhem (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - an obvious nominator error. Probably their search engine has troubles with these South Slavic characters. See e.g. [33]. Timurite (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick Google search shows this is not a hoax. The article could use some more references and inline citations, but it's certainly not a hoax and the topic definitely passes the notability criteria. Somno (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator error. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously. Thousands and thousands of references. Tris2000 (talk) 13:49, 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 (IAR/SNOW) keep. There's a reliable (print) source cited right in the article itself, and more evidence that it's not a hoax has been brought forward here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arebica[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources at all, probably a hoax. europemayhem (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are plenty of reliable sources, including for alternative names of the alphabet. There are more sources in other language wikipedia articles for this page, even in google books [34]. I am starting to doubt the diligence of this nominator and doubt his userboxes claiming his association with Bosnia/Yugoslavia. Timurite (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina holds manuscripts written in Arebica,[35] which I imagine would be quite difficult to achieve if the script were a hoax. Somno (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, subject passes WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I very much doubt this is a hoax in light of the above comments. Balkan Fever 07:23, 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 all. Secret ^account 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podophobia, Papaphobia, Pithikosophobia[edit]

Dubuious phobias: "feet phobia", "Pope phobia", and "monkey phobia". While there are 281 hits for e.g. podophobia on google (of rather dubious veracity), there is none in Google books. Timurite (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I looked through category:Phobias and I suspect there are other rather nonstandard phobias worth deletion. I will look thru them to double check and list them for deletion as well. Timurite (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are they (surprisingly, the rest seems OK in various deggree, with some requiring cleanup & refs): Nomatophobia, Ombrophobia, Scopophobia - in google books they are only dictionary defs, online they are found only in shrink websites which can cure you from any noun translated from English into Greek. While the three in the section header are definite candidates for deletion of equal "dubiosity", the remaining three have kind of more hits, so unless you vote to delete them as well here, I will nominate them for deletion separately. Timurite (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all six. No evidence of clinial cases of the mentioned "phobias". A phobia-word may be coined from enery noun and verb. Twri (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete podophobia, papaphobia and pithikosophobia - no mentions in scholarly journals in ProQuest. Somno (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scopophobia per PMID 7891414 and Nomatophobia per PMID 855542. (PMID are Pubmed references) Delete the others. A search for podophobia on Pubmed redirects to photophobia (didn't even know they had redirects. Papaphobia gets redirected to papa phobia (note the space) and an unrelated article. Searching for Ombrophobia and Pithikosophobia yields nothing. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMID 855542 is for vomitophobia, not for nomatophobia. There is no nomatophobia at PubMed. Also, scopophobia is a single hit in pubmed, and the word is used in the article only once, in a list, so no evidence of notability here. But like I said, I thought too that these cases require separate investigation. Timurite (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ombrophobia, it should be written as Omrophobia or Obrophobia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference, still don't get any hits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 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 deleted by User:TenOfAllTrades as a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Foxworth[edit]

Likely hoax. The only source is an IMDB link to another person. The author, JARIAN (talk · contribs), has a history of problematic edits in this area, as well as sockpuppetry. Blueboy 96 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the page creator is currently under a 1 month block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same user created a heap of these hoax articles. McWomble (talk) 04:00, 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 keep. John254 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Womensforum[edit]

Weak assertion of notability therefore probably can't be speedied, but no reliable sources backing up the claim. Reads like an advertisement. McWomble (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD's nomination was blanked from the page by the page creator, and was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. I've removed the G11 template, replaced the AfD banner and warned the page creator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~the article's promotional crap but~~ the website appears to be notable. [36] [37] [38] [39] Somno (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Amending comment to reflect change in article) Somno (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unless the article is fundamentally rewritten, it should be deleted. (EhJJ)^TALK 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to rephrase that argument... otherwise it sounds like you're making the mistake outlined in WP:NOTCLEANUP; would you care to elaborate? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make a very good point. As the article stands, it falls under WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising requiring rewriting). The article isn't simply poorly written or lacking references, but needs to be rewritten from scratch. Since it's going through AfD, if it is rewritten before the AfD closes, then I'm all for keeping it (the topic appears notable, per Somno (talk · contribs)), but it really could have been speedily deleted. (EhJJ)^TALK 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Furthermore, the intro paragraph is copyvio from http://www.womensforum.com/about_wf.aspx and the stats are from http://www.womensforum.com/ad_info.aspx . (EhJJ)^TALK 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've made a start at rewriting the article using some of the sources I provided above. Somno (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the WSJ article and the Reuters/Businesswire, it meets WP:ORG. Good work, Somno. RayAYang (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate sourcing to show notability. Usually there's some difficulty with articles like this having unconventional sourcing only, but for this one it is not a problem. DGG (talk) 19:44, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article is poorly written, and does not have much scientific supporting evidence. Seems to be supporting racial superiority rather than reporting actual scientific data. There are really only three sections, none of which support the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities. ScienceApe (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I agree the article is poorly written. However some of the sources are reliable. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the article is unsourced, with "citation needed" tags added throughout many of the claims made. The sources provided do not support the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities. ScienceApe (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Luckily, the article is entitled Ashkenazi intelligence, not Ashkenazi superior intelligence, and so isn't inherently constrained by its title to contradict what some sources say. Do you have an issue with this article that cannot be solved by editing it, in the normal way, to render it more neutral? All that you appear to have is a neutrality dispute, for which the correct tag is {{NPOV}} not {{afd1}}. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The title of the article is not reflective of what the article is about. The article deals with making claims that Ashkenazi Jews have superior intelligence over other ethnicities. The first line reads, "Ashkenazi intelligence refers to a controversial theory asserting the higher general intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, the Jews of Central and Eastern European origin who are the descendants of Jews who settled in the Rhineland beginning around the year 800." So yes, the article is about Ashkenazi superior intelligence. That's why it's supposed to be notable. If article deals with just intelligence variance of Ashkenazi Jews, then I don't see what's notable about the article. There's intelligence variance in any ethnicity. We could therefore make an article about the intelligence variance of any and all ethnicities. Notability of this article is under the allegation that Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other ethnicities. There is no neutrality dispute, there is an issue with the lack of scientific citations for the claims made. The article was reviewed a year ago, and no improvements have been made since then. The claim the article is trying to make, that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities, is not backed by scientific evidence. There are citations of those who make the claim, but none which empirically verify it. Therefore, there is very limited research on this subject, and at most, some of this article could be included in articles on Race and Intelligence or Ashkenazi Jews, but it does not merit an article on its own. ScienceApe (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashkenazi Jews. The article is inherently POV with many of the claims unsourced. Any relevant, verifiable material can be merged. McWomble (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Uncle G says, just because it suffers from some POV issues doesn't mean it has to be deleted. The references listed in the article demonstrate that this is a notable theory. —BradV 06:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no POV issues. If the claims can be verified with empirical research, then there is an established notability to the claim. However this research is absent. We only have citations on claims made, but no reliable scientific sources to substantiate them. ScienceApe (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely discussed topic, quite anecdotical for most part; all the more, anything academically published on the issue worth keeping track. Twri (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not enough empirical data to warrant its own article. ScienceApe (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A heavily-cited (50 citations and counting, according to Google Scholar) paper published on peer-reviewed journal, dozens of more papers arguing back and forth, and NY Times coverage. To argue that such topic is not worth an article on Wikipedia is a serious stretch. EIFY (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there are no scientific papers which support the claims that the article alleges. There are only citations of debates, which are not scientific journals. ScienceApe (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Examining the article carefully, the "Psychometric findings" and "Other theories" sections are almost entirely unsourced and without merit. The few citations they do have are merely opinions made by non-scientific authorities. One of the references cited is quoted as saying, "Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not? At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people." https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/jewish-genius-10855?page=all Citations from sources such as this are inappropriate for the claims being made. There simply is not enough scientific data for an article such as this. ScienceApe (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete "Science" articles like this are one of the reasons Wikipedia is a laughingstock in the academic community. It would seem that many arguing to keep this nonsense have not taken the time to actually read the cited sources. There is no acceptable sourcing here just mainstream media doing their usual stellar job of covering scientific topics and some academic journals reporting on the debate engendered by this theory but NO actual peer-reviewed papers or studies. This is the same kind of garbage that J. Philippe Rushton was trying to push a dozen years ago. If some decent sources can be found then maybe merge with Race and intelligence but without better sources this crap needs to be excised from the encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There IS a cited, peer-reviewed paper, the first citation. In fact, that's the paper starting the whole debate. There are also papers supporting the authors' conclusions, published afterward (e.g. INTELLIGENCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND ORIENTAL JEWS IN ISRAEL). Arguing that the article should be deleted based on false claim is without merit. EIFY (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are not peer reviewed scientific papers. This article is a scientific subject, making extraordinary claims. Therefore it needs extraordinary scientific evidence to support those claims. Debates, opinions, and social theories are not appropriate for the claims being made. The existing theories and hypothesizes made on the article are entirely unsourced and unfounded. The article had well over a year to improve its quality by citing new scientific research, however no improvements were made because there is no research in the scientific community over this subject. ScienceApe (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - L0b0t misses the point entirely. This article is about the theory and who proposed it & why; it does not pretend to justify the theory nor to masquerade as a scientific journal article. It is about the subject, silly or otherwise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not Google Scholar. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the only peer-reviewed study is the one the article is based upon and, according to the article itself, that study has methodological flaws that call its conclusions into question then there doesn't seem to be enough material here for a discrete article. A mention in Race and intelligence perhaps but not an article of its own. As it stands we have an article about a concept, a concept that exists solely as a hypothesis of one flawed experiment. A hypothesis that, according to the article itself, has many other causal explanations. I just don't see anything here to warrant anything beyond a mention in another article on a broader topic. L0b0t (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a good enough reason to keep the article, because then according to your rational, the article is about the paper. Therefore the paper counts as a first party source, and is not appropriate as a 3rd party citation. There have been numerous claims of racial superiority for a multitude of different ethnicities and races. Published claims which also have no basis in scientific fact. A paper that claims Ashkenazi Jews have higher average intelligence than other ethnicities, needs 3rd party peer reviewed scientific journals to analyze that claim. No scientific journals have analyzed this claim, so therefore the article fails to establish notability. ScienceApe (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after having done thought, I believe the subject matter is unquestionably encyclopedic. As to whether the sources are good enough to keep the article, I believe the answer is yes (with apologies to L0b0t) - several mainstream media articles and academic work are enough to write a coherent article. And, after reading most delete arguments on previous AFD's, most seem to be more offended by the subject matter than anything (i.e., WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are insufficient scientific citations. There is only one paper written on the subject, and that was the basis for the article. However it counts as a 1st part source, and is not verified by 3rd party scientific sources. The subject matter is not the problem, it's the supporting evidence for the claim is non-existent. ScienceApe (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an idea that's gotten quite a bit of attention in the press; notability doesn't depend only on scientific papers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The article is not only provocative and based on bad science/weak arguments (IQ score can't be seriously seen as adequately evidence)but it's also the foolish article I ever faced in Wikipedia. Not to mention that it's unavoidably biased for better or for worse. --Gilisa (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources to establish notability. In response to Gilisa, it's not our place to judge whether anything is bad science, weak arguments, etc. We're not posting essays here; that would violate WP:NOR. The fact we don't like a particular subject is irrelevant. If there are issues with how this article is written, etc. this isn't the forum for that discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The sources are poor and of questionable authority. Most of them are just editorials. There are no scientific sources. The article is a scientific article. Asserting an ethnicity has greater average intelligence requires scientific sources, of which there are none. Furthermore, the claims on the article are entirely unsourced. The only section that is cited is the original paper that was written that asserted greater Ashkenazi intelligence. According to, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, third party sources must be used. The original paper counts as a first party source because that's what the article is about. That specific paper as was stated by A Sniper. Two entire sections of the article must be removed because of the poor citations and abundance of original research. That leaves only a paragraph about the original paper. That's not sufficient for an article. Malamockq (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I guess that's also count as reply to 23skidoo.

Keep Notable hypothesis. We ar not called on to decide whether or not it is correct. There is more than the one paper available. Editorial comment of scientific papers is not science, but about science, and is acceptable content as showing the attitude towards the work. DGG (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Most of the delete arguments here are totally missing the point: it doesn't matter that it's bad science, because enough people have commented on the idea that the theory has risen to the level you could almost call it famous. A lack of scientific sources is irrelevant to an article about the history of an idea. The article does not assert that one ethnicity has greater average intelligence than another, it merely reports that others have made this assertion, and on the controversy that the assertion has caused. The details surrounding the assertion being made are the subject of the article, not the assertion itself. JulesH (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article actually does not go into any depth on the history of the idea at all. It really does try to use statistics to reinforce the claim that Ashkenazi Jews have greater intelligence than other races. There are three main sections of the article. "Psychometric findings" details the statistics, most of the claims are unsourced. "Cochran et al" talks about the paper that was put forth that started all of this, the paper is a first party source since this is the actual basis of the article. "Other theories" then tries to explain why Ashkenazi Jews are allegedly more intelligent than other races. This entire section is almost completely unsourced, and original research. None of the sections go into the history of the idea. There is no mention of the controversy it caused. I agree, the details surrounding the assertion made, are the subject, in other words, the paper itself "Cochran et al". It is the only section that is properly cited, however as you said, the article is about that paper, so the citation is the paper itself. A first party source. There are no credible third party sources, there are only opinions from non-credible authorities who agree that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent. I don't see how that is any different from someone proclaiming that Asians or Africans are the most intelligent race, and then non-notable identities write editorials agreeing with that sentiment. Malamockq (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any simple Google search or Google Book search speaks for the subject's notability, including academic articles and mainstream media articles on the topic. Whether the science itself is bad or if this particular article is not well written is irrelevant to this AfD. If the title is causing consternation, it could always be moved to something along the lines of Ashkenazi Jews and Intelligence, which follows the pattern of Race and Intelligence. Joshdboz (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there is just not enough material here to justify an article. Once you strip out the chaff there is just a bit about the original study and that would fit nicely as a sentence or two in Race and intelligence. L0b0t (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At least two sections must be removed because they are entirely original research. That leaves only one paragraph. That's hardly enough to justify its own article. We can merge the relevant information to Race and Intelligence. Malamockq (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not wikipedia's (or any encyclopedia's) place to make a scientific judgement, but merely to report on what work has been published. Horselover Frost (talk) 05:16, 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. Many of the keep opinions provided little or no reason, or fell afoul of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. As a result, the delete reasons, based on actual policies are much more convincing. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jdimytai Damour[edit]

Not notable, only known for the incident that caused his death rogerd (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or merge with Black Friday Shopping. His name should be listed out of respect for his life. Something this tragic should be preserved for all to see
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E. It was/is an utterly shocking news story that was covered extensively, partly due to the motive behind a man's death, and the mark of American consumerism growing to an intolerable level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parhelictriangle (talk • contribs) 18:37, December 1, 2008
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E. An unfortunate death it may be, but that's all it is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Not notable at all. Schuym1 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — This guy made the AP CNN and Fox.

How many of us can claim that?

He's also well on his way to becoming a martyr. --71.142.252.230 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC) — 71.142.252.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel for the man and his family after this senseless death, but he is not notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. If he becomes notable due to legislation being named after him (or something like that), then the article could be recreated. As it stands now, however, it's just a sad event that is not notable according to our encyclopedic guidelines. Somno (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable. Twri (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not think it should be deleted. This is information I want to know, and Wikipedia can provide it. If this article does not stand, it should either be folded into the article on Wal-Mart, or transferred to Wikinews. Alternatively, there should be an article on the event, not the person. But complete deletion into nothingness is wrong.--Westwind273 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS, though some info could be included into an appropriate section of a Wal-Mart or Black Friday article.--Boffob (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a one of a kind tragedy that should never happen again. He should not be forgotten, the incident is noteworthy for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.204.134 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I don't see how this person is notable when all he did was die. Schuym1 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Somno. He is not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Tatarian (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Death of Jdimytai Damour" to cover the event rather than Damour himself. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (changed my decision based on response)[reply]
- The event isn't notable also. If people did what you suggested, every person that dies could have an article. Schuym1 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However tragic, this is an insignificant event and keeping the article even under the name "Death of Jdimytai Damour" is just tabloid morbid curiosity. This is certainly not a "one of a kind event". Stampedes kill people regularly. Mad crowds on boxing day or black Fridays are a common occurrence and regularly lead to injuries and property damage. This man's death is a terrible absurdity but it to CNN and AP not because of its profound importance but because it was a slow news day where crews and reporters were specifically assigned to get good stories about shopping hysteria. Let this guy rest in peace. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, delete & possibly merge by advice of Schuy and Pascal given how scant media coverage there has been so far. If the NYPD ever make any great insight in their investigation I guess that Wikipedia can expand its coverage. I found an article on the history of Wal-Mart, but I doubt the relevance of this even to the history of the Wal-Mart store chain as a company. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just move the information to an article like Black Friday 2008 stampede or Wal-Mart stampede, but deleting something that made it on CNN is wrong I think. Fotisaros (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being on CNN is not a good yardstick for encyclopedic value. This cute story made it to CNN, as did thousands of other human interest stories. There are already mentions of the stampede incident in the articles on Black Friday and on human stampede. There's no need for anything more developed. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, however tragic, but not notable person. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - flatly fails WP:BLP1E. The most appropriate target for a merge would be Black Friday (shopping) - but that article already mentions his death, and in about as much detail as is necessary. I don't think there's anything to be gained from a merge. Terraxos (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. However, I don't think it even makes sense to redirect Jdimytai Damour to Black Friday (shopping). It's an unlikely search term and, besides, there's no reason to present this tragedy as "Jdimytai Damour was killed in a stampede" rather than "a Wal-Mart employee was killed". Omitting his name is more respectful. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident received considerable coverage in the national media. However, it's important that the article be about the incident and not the person. I would consider a name change. Capedia (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Abstrakt (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. davidzuccaro (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Don't rename this article since this incident is not notable enough to have its own article. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Name change possible, should probably be about the incident Jackk (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 64.180.109.136 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The article should not about the person (who isn't particularly notable), but about the event of his death. BTW, the first story of the main page of Google News is now about how his family is suing Wal-Mart for wrongful death, so I'm sure we'll hear again about this story. (reuters) bogdan (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe redirecting to somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.57.229 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable as an individual, but still deserves mention somewhere, perhaps at Wal-mart or Black Friday (shopping). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out by Raven1977 below, this is sufficiently covered at Black Friday (shopping) already. I'm unsure of how we ought to proceed if there are significant developments in the lawsuit being brought against Wal-Mart or in the criminal investigation by police. However, since the individual is not notable by himself, I change my vote to Delete. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered sufficiently in article Black Friday (shopping), a redirect is not needed as I don't believe his name is a common search term. Raven1977 (talk) 21:44, 4 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 as an obvious hoax, and thus pure vandalism (G3). Blueboy 96 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Chop College[edit]

Hoax school. Doesn't exist. Fictitious. Only "reference" is to a conveniently dead link. People can speedy this if they like. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I smell barbeHOAX in the air! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original discussion at this AN/I thread. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 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 Already speedy deleted by User:TenOfAllTrades as a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrymore[edit]

Possible hoax. The IMDB link is to another actor. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Mitchell (nominated article created by the same editor).

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Tisha Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremy Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shawn Diggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Barely escapes a G3 in my mind. Note that the author, JARIAN (talk · contribs), has been blocked by me for disruptive editing in this and other areas. Blueboy 96 03:52, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Iridescent. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damages (Band)[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD) Non notable Band. Search for "Damages Band" turns up nothing Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine Australian[edit]

Relisting a few of the (I hope) uncontroversial ones from this discussion. These articles are yet more of the "X-ian Y-ian" articles about people from country X living in country Y. They contain no assertion of notability and are sourced only by census info, if that. Consensus at similar discussions has been to delete

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge all to Demographics of Australia. McWomble (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep all since additional information from reliable sources has been added. McWomble (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Argentine Australian and Ethiopian Australian for being unsourced beyond some census data. In the case of Danish Australian, I'd say Keep the Danish. I think there's already some notability shown in the article, such as the Premier of Queensland, analogous to the governor of an American state, and an appreciable population. In doing some more searching, I note that there's a "Danish Australian Cultural Society" [40] and that the Dane community has been written about in books [41]. Unlike the other two articles, I think that this one can be developed. Mandsford (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect all three. A list of notable persons iMHO is hardly a notability criterion. If the Danish (or any other) diaspora in Australia is somehow nonably present (eg if the mentioned Cultural Society), then a separate artcle may be written. In the current state not enough text for separate pages. Twri (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Three, all good examples of non-notable nationality intersections. The fact that a few notable people might have been Danish Australian, Martian Australian, or whatever isn't a good enough reason for keeping, in my view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 30 November 2008
Keep whatever is sourced and expanded by the end of this debate (I have expanded the Ethiopian Australian article, for example), redirect the others to Demographics of Australia#Ethnic groups. Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0 devotes at least a few thousand words to each of these populations and contains a bibliography pointing to further sources, so these articles could eventually be expanded. But in the mean time, if no one can be bothered to actually do the expansion, we should remove the unsourced content (namely, the infobox entries about their languages, areas of settlement, religions, and related groups) --- which leaves a near-blank page with a number and a dicdef --- and turn them into redirects. cab (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the deletion process should be about. I know, we see a lot of fighting words in these debates, but as a nominator pointed out to me once, the process can be a "win-win" situation. Articles that can be improved, often are made better. Articles whose existence can't be justified, after being given a chance (and that's what a nomination is) are weeded out. We all like Wikipedia (obviously) and even if we disagree about which direction it should go, we all want to keep it moving along. Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge or improve; the loss of all data from similar articles that were not merged or improved was damaging to our project. Keep in mind (this is very important!) that not all three articles are equivalent; the second contains notable individuals and the third has quite a bit of historical context. Thus, these three articles should *not* have been proposed in the same proposal, and I ask that they be split, or the second and third be stricken from this proposal. Please be very careful when insisting that all data from particular articles be removed entirely from Wikipedia rather than merged. Keep in mind that although it's more time-consuming to improve an article oneself rather than propose it for deletion, such activity on WP can be very rewarding, and useful to our readers and the community as a whole. Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo-Delete again and again. Without sources or notability, it just doesn't belong here. Damaging to your project? Respectfully, Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even small minorities in Australia are significant, they are counted in the census and some are much discussed in the newspapers - something blows up and suddenly that minority is notable. AfD is not supposed to be a call for improving an article. The ethnic minority exists, is recognised by the Australian government and academic sources. --Matilda ^talk 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment each of these three articles has now been expanded with additional information on the history of immigration which describes why each of these small communities are notable within Australia. Did you know that
- ... most Argentinian immigration to Australia was in the 1970s but it was economic not political?
- ... that there were Danes on the Victorian goldfields, that the Danish community contributed significantly to the development of Australia's dairy industry in the late 19th century, that emigration of males meant cultural traditions were not easy to retain, there Danes were part of Australia's post war immigration scheme?
- ... that most Ethiopian refugees to Australia have 3-4 years of school attendance or less?

lots of my referencing has come from the Jupp book. I wish to acknowledge the expansion done by CaliforniaAliBaba to the Ethiopian Australian article. Every similar article can be improved - there are sources available of which the most notable is:

Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0

Not all of this book is viewable on-line but much of it is. There was a previous edition which is also viewable through Google books. --Matilda ^talk 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well done. Your contributions convinced me to change my !vote. McWomble (talk) 10:04, 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 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian's[edit]

I could not find any sources for this article Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any hint of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be promoting something but I canlt work out what! McWomble (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find any online sources for "Julian's" or "Series Sunset" to support notability. Only related website I found was "Julian H"'s MySpace, with 65 profile views and seven plays of the song mentioned in the article, "It's Fatcat Time"... completely non-notable. Somno (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7; I can't tell if this is a band or something else, but there's no apparent assertion of notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be about a guy who's a musician (fatcatjulian @ MySpace), who develops music software, and who runs an internet radio station of some sort? It's always a good sign for an article when people can't work out what it's actually supposed to be about. Somno (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to support the notability of the subject. Tatarian (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - should Channel 3 Network be included in this AfD or have a separate one?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate — while directly related to the article, there might be different rationale for (or against when the discussion starts) deletion. MuZemike (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will do it this morning sometime.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel 3 Network
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No whiff of a claim of meeting WP:N, and not even enough info in the article for someone to attempt a rescue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. A YouTube post is only trace of Julian's or Channel 3 Network outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 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. Snow. If it were an album, it would be speedyable. A game by a n-n person is similarly n-n StarM 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Toki high[edit]

NN-notable game> WP:MADEUP Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your game. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under longstanding Wikipedia policy, all secondary schools are considered inherently... excuse me, what's that? It isn't? It's about a game? Never mind. Delete. Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wat? WP:N/WP:PRODUCT seems relevant. Try again later please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A made up game. Schuym1 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Searching for the term brings up 2 results, both of which are wikipedia pages, either doesn't exist at all or it's just another hobby game sat on someone's hard-drive. Someone another 15:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obviously non-notable, no refs, no reviews... --GreyCat (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — While a scant few games from RPG Maker meet our inclusion standards, this is clearly not one of them. Rationale include lack of verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 23:05, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SubRip[edit]

As WP:USEFUL as this software may be, it is not notable -- it lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The sources currently being cited are blogs and chat forums. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Third party sources here: [42] [43] (I consider the non-forum sections of both of these sites reliable, as they are basically the go-to sites that everyone recommends for video encoding related subjects; I'll accept that this might be a somewhat controversial classification, but I'd say they are reliable for this subject). JulesH (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the sources provided, as small as they can be. Marlith (Talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like good software, but references to substantial coverage in reliable media? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep References are enough, just needs cleanup and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability in my opinion. "Tutorials" and "Specifications"? No. What's needed are reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above editor, user guides and directory entries are just not good enough for notability. --neon white talk 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a case of "give it a chance"- while notability may not be established, .srt has become a standard for subtitle files in both the legit videophile scene and in fansub/piracy scenes. The former is rather specialized, with most of the major discourse residing in a few discussion forums, while the latter would naturally receive little mainstream attention. I'm sure something significant exists out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the multiple relists here are chance enough. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article references are not acceptable references as per WP:RS and the software is not notable as per WP:V. The software has not attained any notable level of acceptance and probably never will (since it is kaput). - DustyRain (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The references look like barely enough to establish notability, though I think it's borderline. Xihr 08:33, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JobTiger[edit]

Maybe its not notable? notability tagged since January 2008 The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep If those awards are sourced, then I think the article could be kept and cleaned up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, heavily tag for citations needed. Twri (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See reference: Microsoft Bulgaria and JobTiger Launch Career Project. Also 3rd party references (computerworld.bg) but in Bulgarian, when I used the Google translator the articles seemed to be valid. I cannot understand why references were not provided when they are so easily found. - DustyRain (talk) 07:12, 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 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Umpires[edit]

Proposed deletion because "Non notable group, no evidence (in article or through Google or Google News) that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NOTE". ProD contested with reason "the fact remains that many artists part of this are in wiki already & the info is notable because they were huge on the WORLDS largest online indie network." However, no evidence that they are actaully huge, or more importantly that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources, has been provided. There are only 77 distinct Google hits[44], most from mspace, their homepage, self-released press releases, .... The one Google News hit[45], also included in the 77 previously mentioned results, is just a repeat of the press release, not a journalistic article: not surprising, from a site where you present your own news articles anyway[46]. Fram (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be a speedy candidate... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive mentions that I could find in reliable sources to establish notability. gnfnrf (talk) 00:27, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Twri (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Ortíz[edit]

Contested prod. Is a local television presenter someone who meets WP:BIO? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable bio. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The Imagen (Mexico) piece [47] is in depth and a bona fide secondary source. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Augusto Seco Machado Gil[edit]

If not for the article's history, this would be an A7 with no assertion of notability, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. There's no assertion of evidence of notability. He existed, yes. But is he notable? Note, if this is deleted, the following redirect will need deletion:

José augusto seco machado gil StarM 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established and this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of obituaries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, no indication of why he might have been notable. Seems to be a simple obituary. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable third party sources of notability or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

39th Street[edit]

Semi-notable street in Missouri. Not notability given. American Eagle (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article was moved 39th Street (Kansas City) and the afd tag was never added. I fixed the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article only mentions a list of irrelevant trivia and a route that can be gleaned from maps. There's no indication the street is worth including. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are reliable sources to be found such as this, as well as 211,000 g-hits. While I don't see anything particularly notable, given the low notability requirements of road and street articles, I'm not sure deletion is necessary. Cleanup is definitely needed, although that seems like it would be fairly easy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing how this is notable. swa q 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have grave doubts as to notability, but am the wrong side of the Atlantic to know. The original title should be deleted and salted, lest we get articles on every other NN 39th Street (of which there must be hundreds). If retained it shouls be under the revised title, incorporating "Kansas City", but might it not be better being merged to Kansas City? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - as Julian pretty much said, there is a very low notability bar for road articles... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see external links; can be cleaned up. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 5 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 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Very little info, which could easily be integrated into the main Wolfmother article. The song is not very notable, only appeared on a soundtrack, which like I said should be included in main. Main author of current form of article listing. Andre666 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was another AfD discussion that closed 10 days ago with a result of no consensus. What is the purpose of renominating it again so soon afterwards? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notice this, but figured that my alternative may not have been mentioned previously; that is, just to merge the information into the band or album article. Sorry if this is breaking rules. Andre666 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSONGS (rank of 83 out of 100 in one poll too low to be significant, coverage almost inexistant).--Boffob (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really weak keep - Is a track on the soundtrack of a major movie (I think that satisfies marginal notability), though the article is pretty darn stubby and shows little potential for expansion at this time. Maybe merge it into the notes section of the main album article and redirect to such or do same towards the band's article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: stubby but can be expanded. This is a reasonably noted song in a major film release. JamesBurns (talk) 02:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:MUSIC "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". I don't see this growing beyond a stub - so merge and redirect if useful content to merge or delete if no merge worthwhile. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. To be short: You can't delete if material is merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - what I meant was merge and redirect OR if there is no content worth merging, delete. I'll update accordingly. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being featured on an album, soundtrack or otherwise, is not a criteria for notability, WP:MUSIC clearly states that "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." and "a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". It cannot inherit notability from the movie. --neon white talk 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album article per WP:MUSIC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? --neon white talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song originally had another name and it ranked on a notable music poll. Not much else, and admittedly that's borderline trivial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, per the reasons given by Unusual? Quite & Neon White. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott (Dart Player)[edit]

Non notable, semi pro darts player, never seen on TV and never qualified for a major tournament. Appears to be autobiographical.Paste (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself indicates he has not met WP:ATHLETE as he has never been professional or at the highest level of non-professional competition. No indication of notability, no claim of notability, no reason to keep the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec - could this be him? [48] - if so it clearly shows him as a darts player. Raphie (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may well be him but all it does is prove that he is non notable! Paste (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'm not making a decision here, I'm just showing that he may be real and not a fake like another player that was deleted not that long ago. But honestly since he hasn't won anything professionally yet, I don't think he's notable, I mean I'd may as well make an article for myself as an amatuer player. Raphie (talk) 12:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Theseeker4's comment; fails WP:ATHLETE at the moment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Tatarian (talk) 13:19, 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 merge to Canada's Wonderland. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Festival (Canada's Wonderland)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There is already a page devoted to Canada's Wonderland. International Festival is just one of several themed areas that are part of Canada's Wonderland. There is absolutely no need to have a separate page for each themed area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecMan2008 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 02:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canada's Wonderland- that article can hold the information, and this article isn't really substantial enough to branch out at the moment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There's no need for individual articles for each area, but could easily be added to the main article. StarM 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. The park as a whole is unquestionably notable, but that doesn't mean that each individual themed area within it needs a separate article. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 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 keep. John254 02:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sky Motion Pictures[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand and source per sources: The Advocate, New Orleans CityBusiness, Sun Herald, Decatur Daily, The Times Picayune, Delta Groove, Worst Previews, Louisiana Film and Television, Eclecto Groove, Reality Wanted, New York Times, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability for the company, it shows notability for the films. I found a lot of those sources. Schuym1 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good job! Then you see how those articles speak toward the company infusing Louisiana with money as they decide to film there. Specific reference to the company, as the film was (at the time) only in pre-production. No company, no film. No film, no write-ups. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I'm saying is that the sources talk about the production of the films. Which would only show notability for the films, not the company. Schuym1 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. They talk about the productions of a production company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But it only shows the notability of the films. Schuym1 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also the NYT link and the Eclecto Groove link does not talk about the company. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The TP link is a trivial mention. Schuym1 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Worst Previews has one film listed. Schuym1 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then that only leaves SEVEN reliable sources independent of the subject that directly address the notability of the production company through trough its business of being a production company. It's what they do and what they are notable for.... producing. Or do you requite more than 7? Strikes me that two should be enough per WP:GNG.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not think that those sources show the company's notability per WP:CORP. Let's just see what other editors think about the sources instead of arguing. Schuym1 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CORP states, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.". I believe Big Sky just squeeks by, as it has the multiple independent sources. But if consensus shows I am wrong, that is okay. Thanks for your courtesy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Multiple articles that find themselves enveloped under this article creates notability by association. To tailor it to an alternative fashion: the linkage and common bonds of those films generates an inherent inclusion. It's like guilt by association. 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not saying notability is inherited. If Joe Smith writes five novels that are notable, that notability is also Joe's as the writer. If Joe Smith Films produces 5 notable movies, that notability belongs to Joe Smith Films as well. One is not "inhertited" from the other... one IS the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree that it shows the company's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I understand that you do not. And that's why you brought it to AfD. You wanted Reliable Sources and I gave you at least 7. Now others will determine through consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Having looked at the refs added to the article, [49], [50], and [51] all seem to qualify as reliable sources that are directly reporting on the film company itself. I say weak keep, because they're all discussing the same thing: the company moving its operations to Louisiana; but it's enough to give the article a chance for expansion, in my opinion. Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The formatting of the sourcing needs work, and more detail needs to be added to the article, but sufficient sourcing to satisfy notability as far as I'm concerned. Also, the films listed are all bluelinks and examination of the links reveal movies that are clearly notable through cast and coverage. 23skidoo (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A company that makes multiple notable films is notable. DGG (talk) 20:37, 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 redirect to North Point. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island Children's Montessori School[edit]

Non-notable Montessori school, no different from any other Montessori school in the world. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a handful of Montessori schools in Hong Kong, a city with a population of close to 7 million. So I think it's worth adding. Liz1230001 00:45 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to North Point per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly merge to North Point); nn elementary-level school. JJL (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines

I would agree with a merge if this were a public school, but it's a private school, making it a private corporation, and therefore a merge is no more appropriate than if this were a store. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, thanks for considering this article. Please delete if you feel it doesn't meet the guidelines. Liz123001 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Party (K'Maro Song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gangsta Party (K'Maro Song)

Not a charting single, no cover version, etc... Fails WP:NM Europe22 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:57, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Million Dollar Boy. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:53, 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 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68 Teeth (Aussie Chomps)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:BK. No reliable sources, no awards, no contributions to cinema etc, not a historical author! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.80.31 (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might be on the weak side of keep but there appears to be a source here: [52] a better reliable source review can be found here:
- Meiklejohn, Annette Dale. "68 Teeth." Magpies 20.1 (Mar. 2005): 36-36, Abstract: Reviews the book “68 Teeth,” by James Moloney. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Question is not whether a source (reliable or otherwise) is available, it is whether "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." That source alone does not confer notability, and this fails all of the 5 criteria found in WP:BK

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Harriz[edit]

Article claims Harriz

is a two-time daytime Emmy winner for set designer of "All My Children" and "The City". this confirms that he was a "scenic artist" on the series, no years specified. He has no page at IMDB. ~~Note: People don't win Emmys, shows win Emmys. With no year specified, even this is hard to check out.~~
designed three productions of Off Broadway "Boob! The Musical": the Workshop at The Pulse Theatre
Off-Broadway hit productions at The Triad Theatre and the transfer at Dillon's Theatre.

Delete. Not Notable Mwanner | Talk 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have tried to verify the Emmys online, and there is no canonical list. They would be Creative Arts Emmys, but I cannot find his name on any such list. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the content is now verified, addressing my concern. Two Emmys, even if they are Creative Arts Emmys, make a person notable, in my opinion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a citation to a book which indeed supports the claim that the subject won a Daytime Emmy for The City. Furthermore, the IMDb awards page for All My Children lists him as having won another Daytime Emmy for that show. [53] Contrary to the nomination, Emmys are awarded to individuals in their own names, including in the "creative arts" fields such as Outstanding Art Direction/Set Direction/Scenic Design for a Drama Series which is what he would compete in. The Daytime Emmy rulebook provides: "Emmy Awards are presented to individuals, not to their employers. ... One gratis Emmy® statue will be presented to the individual(s) as specifically listed with each achievement on the submission. The individual achievement credits broadcast on the television program and thus verified by the executive producer or producer will be the sole criteria for individual achievement eligibility." [54] (page 10). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. Thank you for the research on this. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 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.