Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

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 Speedy Close, non-existent article. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse pussy[edit]

Probably meets G3 or G1 :/ Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seatearth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonstopdrivel has nominated this article for deletion but does appear to have said why.

I cannot see any reason for doing so. It seems to be an extensive and informative article about a number of commonly used terms. Possibly the article on ganister may be merged providing it remains clear to readers of Totley Tunnel. It should perhaps also make clear that it is the loss of certain salts due to prehistoric plant growth that gives it its specific properties for use as fireclay (as opposed to ordinary brick clay) Chevin (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ksysenka[edit]

Self-advertisement by a non-notable artist. Written in very poor English, plus very poor knowledge of wiki-markup (resulting lots of dead links). The original Russian version of the article is nominated for deletion in Russian WP. By the way, why is this article semi-protected?. Netrat (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not even a hint of notability in article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, non-notable. Poorly written isn't really good reason for deletion, though. ~Pip 2 andahalf 10:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. while it may be useful, consensus is that it's not notable. StarM 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garmin eTrex[edit]

Article is merely a sales catalog style definition of a product, fails WP:CATALOG Oscarthecat (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's an advertorial, no reliable sources, no notability. Make it speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion on why this subject is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although a common device, I think the combination of the information in the main Garmin article and the List of Garmin products makes this article useless, on top of the fact that it's presumably original research, considering there are no sources whatsoever. ~Pip 2 andahalf 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to much like an advert (including pricing information which is meaningless in most of the world) or data sheet with no information on notability or references. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains useful information Kyknos (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Psychological Association of America[edit]

no reliable secondary sources Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eligible for speedy? Obviously they think Wikipedia is just a promotional tool. Weirdly, there was an Iranian Library Association or some such also just put up for deletion. Fletcher (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment yes, the library one was started by the same SPA. In both this instance and the library instance, the same user removed the speedy tag (in both cases placed there by someone other than me). I'm all for speedy, but am not really an experienced editor when it comes to these more administrative issues. If someone else wants to deep six it poste-haste, i would be delighted, but won't do it myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was the one who tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:G11. I agree that, my tag having been removed, AfD is the best means to its deletion. It still contains "our community" first-person language typical of blatant self-promotion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known association based in Los Angeles. There is no commercial advertising in this article, but informational. As a non-profit NGO they are affiliated with APA and are providing continued education credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.28.27 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the above commenter, who has never edited wikipedia before (first contribution) provides no evidence that would prove it's a notable org I urge the commenter to read WP:CORP Bali ultimate (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saiyan. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oozaru[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply and in-universe repetition of the plot sections of various Dragon Ball articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information in the article is far from duplicative/repetitive, and "zero" notability is just a rediculos exaggeration. Seems necessary for adequate coverage of Dragon Ball as a series, and a merge would be impractical.--Koji† 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT, element of fiction for which I could not find any reliable source showing it is notable separately from Dragon Ball.--Boffob (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the only keep vote saying it's ~~notable~~ necessary to cover Dragon Ball as a series. Strongly suggests this should be included in Dragon Ball and provides no support for why this subject is notable other than "impracticality" of doing the suggested and appropriate merge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, maybe I had a few. So sue me. :-/ --Koji† 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saiyan Despite the opinions of ignorant deletionists, this topic is a notable recurring element in the Dragon Ball franchise and should be covered somewhere for the sake of a more complete understanding of the series. And if someone tried hard enough, they probably could find third party sources that talk about this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saiyan. Not deserving of its own article, but it is an important subject in the series, and the information needs to be on here somewhere.kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chainsaw and merge with Saiyan. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related note, I suggest to chainsaw both, Saiyan and Super Saiyan, and merge the latter into the former. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all versions of WP:FICT to Saiyan. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability with real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (Dragon Ball)[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of Dragon Ball Z articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essential fancraft. Considering that Namek, Planet Vegeta, nor Qo'noS (for some Star Trek perspective) have their own articles, a separate article for Earth in the Dragon Ball universe is not warranted. Earth in the Dragon Ball universe should be chronicled in the Dragon Ball article where necessary instead. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable and fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. What "Earth" is does not need an entire article of explanation, and the basic essentials to Dragon Ball can be summarized in just a few words as necessary in the main DB article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Ball. See this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oy. JuJube (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Ball as per Sesshomaru.kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through real world significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is rare that a user types "Earth (Dragon Ball)". Explanations of places from the series can be explained in the episodes lists, manga chapters, or simply characters or plot sections. A terminology section in the main article is not necessary.Tintor2 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dubai[edit]

An outdated rumor for a team that has shown no signs of ever existing. There would be almost nothing factual that could be added to this stub of an article. The359 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:F1 discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete a speculative article about something that didn't happen?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add a very brief ref'd mention to the McLaren article - probably along the lines of "McLaren has been linked with several attempts to create customer Formula One teams using its chassis and engines, including Team Dubai, Prodrive F1, Direxiv etc." 4u1e (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio. Sandstein 23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Knowedge Management Available To?[edit]

There is already a good article on Knowledge management, to which this adds nothing. This is the author Kazanovac (talk · contribs)'s second attempt at a fork - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is Knowledge Management earlier today. A PROD would probably be removed, so I bring it straight here. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly a copyvio of this. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) — copyvio as noted above. MuZemike (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House of Mihran. WP:V is not negotionable. But this redirect should allow editors to add any material that they are able to source to the target article and continue working from there. Sandstein 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran[edit]

The references offered for this don't cut the mustard. The first one is very vague without enough information to know where to look for it. The other two are both searchable with Google Books, the Wilcox book not getting any hits when I search for "Mihran" within it, and the only possibly relevant information from the Farrokh book is that "the post of Savaran Sardar was held by a member of the Mihran-Pahlav family during Julian's invaasion in 362". That's not enough to support the existence of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability - in fact little evidence for the existence of the subject. dougweller (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as per Phil Bridger. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic figure. Needs refs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic figure. Needs refs to be fixed but I have the Sassian empire (224-651) and it said the same as the artical so lets not delete.Shahshah39 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please supply details of that source (author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, ISBN if applicable) for verifiability purposes? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentStill no verifiable sources, the two sources added don't seem to actually deal with the subject. If editors want to claim that there should be an article on someone with this name, we really should have some reliable sources that back them up. dougweller (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can search The Cambridge History of Iran, which is one of the references added to the article. It mentions the family named Mihran but not any specific individual with that name. Ditto East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity, no mention of the name when searched. More luck at The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars [1] - but none of them seem to be our Mihran. I would really like to know why none of the 5 references added don't seem to mention the subject of the article. It suggests a need to see if this situation is repeated it other articles created or edited by this editor. dougweller (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mihran" is actually neither a personal nor a family name, but a title (at least, that's what Procopius says). Roman historians commonly confused Persian titles with proper names, which is why one can find several "Mihrans" during the Roman-Sassanid wars. For instance, there is a Mihran (Μιρράνης in Greek) also during the Anastasian War [2] and, of course, Firouz, the Persian commander at Battle of Dara, is mentioned as a Μιρράνης.[3] In light of this, I vote for keep, provided that its meaning is clarified. The article could then be used to list those commanders mentioned simply as "Mihran" (without other names that would distinguish them). Constantine ✍ 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great opportunity for a content dispute maybe? This source [4] says it is "the name, not of an office, but a family." dougweller (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is indeed weird. Procopius is quite explicit: Πέρσης ἀνὴρ, μιρράνης μὲν τὸ ἀξίωμα (οὕτω γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν καλοῦσι Πέρσαι), Περόζης δὲ ὄνομα. "a Persian man, holding the office of mihran (thus the Persians call it), named Firouz." It is of course possible that Procopius is wrong (possibly the office was hereditary to the family), but Haldon, in The Byzantine Wars, follows Procopius. On the other hand, a more careful search brings up Persian sources as well as the Cambridge History, which do indeed indicate that the Mihrans were an important Parthian clan ([5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]). At any rate, since they were among the preeminent families of the Sassanid Empire, the article should be kept, and we can discuss content there. Constantine ✍ 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But this article is not about a family, it is about a particular person. This article should be deleted, but an article about the clan sounds possible under the title 'Mihran clan' or family or whatever. But this particular article which is about a specific person is what this AfD is about. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the current content is pretty much worthless doesn't mean that the article itself, or rather its title, doesn't refer to something important, namely the Mihran clan, and the several Persian generals of that clan who are known only as "Mihran". If one were to write an article on the clan, then "Mihran" would be a possible title. I have some similar articles in mind, e.g. Doukas or Palaiologos. As such, there is no need to delete the article, merely rewrite it with proper sources. I for one intend to do that over the next few days. It's a situation similar to the History of slavery in Iran article, i.e., falling under WP:RESCUE. With proper sources, it can become a worthwhile article. Constantine ✍ 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I feel stupid: an article on the House of Mihran already exists. So I guess it would make more sense to redirect Mihran to that article, and add whatever info there is in the House of Mihran article. Constantine ✍ 15:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washburn School[edit]

I attend this school and almost everything on it isn't true. And it is giving our school a bad name. So please delete this because nothing is true and yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhensley32 (talk • contribs)

Comment Inaccurate information can be removed without outright deletion. I see no other reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost everything in the article as it is now is either referenced (i.e. the infobox contents) OR is in very close agreement with the version here which the nominator first created. I confess the nomination leaves me more than a little confused. MadScot (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not saying that it is the case here but it is not uncommon for a well-meaning student to write a page on their school and for their head to take against it, often because of potential or actual vandalism, and then instruct the student to delete the page, being unaware of Wikipedia procedures. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as no valid deletion grounds have been specified. I see nothing in the article that would give the school a bad name - anyone who thinks otherwise should hang around school articles for a while :-) In any case, unfavourable coverage is no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's still unclear to me why a redirect to Lulu (company), a book-on-demand company whose article does not mention Sutton, would make any sense as a redirect, but feel free to create one. Sandstein 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Sutton[edit]

Dom web-site operator. Claims to have published two books, but they're both from a vanity press. Much promotional detail, no reliable sources, and a quick spin through Google only pulls in a large number of very low-quality hits. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no notability, no reliable secondary sources, it's advertising for this dom. God bless her, but doesn't meet any criteria for an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete this advertisement with extreme prejudice ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, pure vanity piece. Two self-published books (and no sources whatsoever) does not equate to notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt this is a promotional article. A variety of disinterested editors have worked on the page since 2005, and she appears to be quite famous in certain circles. Likely the article is based on primary sources because almost all the critiques found in an internet search are blogs, and would have been removed per RS. Finding non-primary sources and non-blog critiques of her books remains a problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lulu (company). I found some sources which mention her, especially with regards to the publisher, Lulu. It's still a weak claim to notability, but material could be used by the regular editors of the Lulu article to make a paragraph about their most popular titles, and this article could be spun out again if more sources are found. Heres a few I found buried under all the blogs:

Linux.com "A new venue for selling open source software" Nov 18, 2004 [10] Article about Lulu, says "Female Domination" was best-selling title at the time. Rationale for merging to Lulu article.
Think Magazine. Very brief book review in Czech entertainment magazine, both online and print.[11]
Who is Elise Sutton and why does it matter?[12] ( NSFW; some mature content ) Article in blog of sex therapist and BDSM author Gloria Brame. This won't establish notability, but should pass selfpub by expert and could be used in as one of the refs in an improved article. I'm not sure all the BLP sourcing requirements come into play because "Elise Sutton" appears to be a carefully guarded pseudonym.
Google Books shows something called "Worshipping Your Wife" that mentions her ideas, plus an Italian book on female domination, and a brief mention in a Spanish book called "Entretiempo" which I can't figure out but which seems more about literature and culture in general. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Lawless[edit]

Irish local council candidate for future election. No other notability claimed, no sources. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Source here : James Lawless blog[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Lawless is notable in Co. Kildare, Leinster, Fianna Fáil and Irish politics. A source has been provided for the claim of candidate for upcoming elections. Further information will be added to the article and sources will be provided in due course. User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Being a candidate for the Kildare County Council is notable within Irish politics. Kildare County Council is responsible for approx. 180,000 citizens and is the 5th largest local authority in Ireland. See Kildare CoCo website User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Looks like he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I can't find anything from a Google search (aside from blogs, which are not reliable sources). Kildare County may be large in size, but we still need coverage in reliable sources for us to have notability. On a side note, Nickleeson FF (talk · contribs) may have a WP:COI related to this topic, as his contributions are narrow in focus. Fraud ^{talk to me} 01:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This resume and campaign advertisement has no suggestion of notability. Good luck with your campaign. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: It would be possible provide a reference from the political party, however this would be some form of letter and not a press release or statement on a website. A Google search normally turns up poor results when searching for politicans, past and current, in county council elections. This is probably due to lack of initial input on Wikipedia, rather than the articles being AfDs. The only sources available on the internet at this time would be newspaper articles, however, not all articles in the Leinster papers are archived. User:Nickleeson FF, i.e. myself, hasn't met the politican and doesn't know him personally, however, I would be part of the same political party. The information I provided on the article is taken from his own blog, from word-of-mouth and radio interviews. If the information on the article is too narrow, that wouldn't necessarily warrant deletion, neither would a WP:COI as the article would just require further contributions from other people who would not be connected politically. As regards the notability of the article, it is certainly notable within the Leinster political sphere. Might it be better to mark this article as a stub so that other political enthusiasts and browsers may expand it over time? User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.240.98 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is not a major local figure and the lack of significant sources means he fails to be sufficiently notable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~: Would newspaper articles as reference to political notability and community activism be sufficient to qualify for general notability given that a political candidate would not automatically qualify as notable under WP:POLITICIAN? I can provide more newspaper references in the article. User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

~~Do not delete~~: I provided more references to the article - newspaper and radio links. User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Local political candidate without significant press. Most refs from Lawless' own site. -skew-t (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Those in favour of deleting have to provide reasons why local and provincal notability are insufficient to maintaining this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickleeson FF (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Being a candidate in the upcoming Irish local elections is sufficient to justify maintaining this article. Links to coverage of candidate in local media demonstrate local profile. -kbyrne 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This was at least the third time this article was up for deletion--and it was deleted at one point in the spring of 2008.--Canada1776 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolo Soetoro[edit]

See immediately below $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A merge was previously discussed at Talk:Lolo Soetoro#merge redirect recommendation. Voters in this AfD may wish to read the comments made earlier in relation to that merge proposal.

Delete and redirect to Family of Barack Obama, since the article at its present length would fit nicely in the family article.

Here's the history of AfD's concerning extended Obama family members:

"Ann Dunham" was kept March 10
"Barack Obama, Sr." was kept March 12
"Madelyn Dunham" was kept March 17
"Malik Obama" was deleted July 7, then was "merged to an article to be determined" July 12
"Sarah Obama" was kept March 17, then merged to Obama Family July 17
"Maya Soetoro-Ng" was no-consensus kept July 17
The "Obama family" was deleted June 4, then no-consensus kept July 20
"Zeituni Onyango" was (it appears) no-consensus kept(?) Novemeber 6

If some Wiki-editors would comment on what principles they believe apply to multiple family members across the board, I'd appreciate this too. Thanks.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just like during last AfD on same article (when the article was less developed). LotLE×talk 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought there may have been a previous one for Lolo but upon researching it was surprised to discover that there has yet to be one.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a merge discussion on Talk:Lolo Soetoro that was rejected. This AfD is really more like a merge request than an AfD proper. LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the above mentioned discussion.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep stepfather of a US president? Notable. Article is ridiculously long, but that's another matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. While the stepfather of a US President is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia content in the appropriate place, he doesn't inherently merit his own separate article just because he married Barack Obama's mother. Merge into Family of Barack Obama; the talk page discussion opposing that seems to be conflating a merger with deletion as if merging meant that the information would somehow disappear. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the subject has been covered in depth in multiple reliable sources. Sure its true that the only reason he received this coverage is because of his marriage to Obama's mother but every notable person has to be notable for something. WP:NOTINHERITED is more that a subject without sourcing does not merit its own article just because it is related or a derivative of something notable. Icewedge (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historians and amateurs are interested in the close relatives of historical figures. The Family of Barack Obama page is already kind of cluttered, and there's enough content here for a reasonably informative article, so we might as well just leave things as they are. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the family article, since a merge requires edit history preservation, the delete request and merge suggested by the nominator cannot apply. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
at best merge into the family article. Merge discussions are not for AfD, hence speedy close. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saint Joseph has his own article and he is only known as the foster father of Jesus. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is present for close relatives of famous figures--I deliberately use the very restrictive word, "famous", rather than merely notable, and US presidents count as famous. (more so than losing candidates, and some of the article listed above were discussed before the election). This notability is shown by their invariable inclusion in considerable detail in biographies. In many cases of famous historic figures, we have difficulty writing the articles because there is simply not enough known about them--and this may well be the case for some of Obama's remoter relatives--at least at the present time. But a stepfather with a role in a child's upbringing is a very significant person in his life, which is why there is extensive coverage of such people in biographies--and the extent of sources already available shows it. I think for people as famous as Presidents, any relative with a significant role in the life is independently notable--and so are children, siblings, parents, and grandparents, even if they had no particular direct role--grandparents have at least an obvious indirect role. More distant relatives depends on the sourcing. DGG (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Notable and too long to be merged into that already-huge page. WP:NOT paper, etc. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dont merge. Mr Tan (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no merge. they are the family of future US president. before long, there might be some more info to add. no more comment from me w_tanoto (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, don't merge -- Scanlan (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turncake Project[edit]

There are enough claims of notability here to avoid an A7 speedy, but a gsearch isn't coming up with hits to verify any of them. Prod contested without comment. Given the talk page and post-prod edits to the article, a G3 speedy wouldn't be out of the question. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Especially since the original author removed the speedy delete request that was originally on the page. Support delete due to the normal reasons; the band is not notable.Theseeker4 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As per article says "major upcoming band". That clearly established they are NOT notable. Next. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awk no, don't be going and deleting the Turncake Project's page! It's good clean fun and is spreading an image of hope and love that, I think, is more appropriate now than ever before. So I say keep the Turncake Project on Wikipedia, to stand as a constant reminder as to what we can achieve when we just believe in ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.253.45 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've also tried searching for sources, but could find nothing that would help to establish WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survis Technology[edit]

WP:COI article with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Had been nominated for speedy deletion as an advert, but original editor removed the tag multiple times -- last removal by IP editor. Gsearch comes up with just 7 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows a whiff of notability. Gnews search comes up with 0 hits. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for usual reasons as promoting a NN company, especially considering the original editor's vandalism of removing the speedy delete tag.Theseeker4 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertising for a non-notable company with no reliable secondary sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per info in nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure. It appears to be a company that specializes in promoting buzzwords. No content = non notable. xschm (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio. Sandstein 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Knowledge Management[edit]

The main article of Knowledge Management is fine. The creator of this article has repeatedly removed redirects to Knowledge Management. There are no sources or unique content to warrant a separate article. Also, the "what is" title is not an appropriate article title. Clubmarx (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Clearly a WP:CFORK being recreated, and the title looks intended for google bombing. VG ☎ 20:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (obviously, as I prod-ed it early on, which the author removed --Blowdart | ^talk 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect and protect would be an alternative, but it's not a likely search term: delete is best, and salt if it reappears. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) — copyvio of this, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Is Knowedge Management Available To? MuZemike (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources = no article. Sandstein 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meida*[edit]

— Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason?.--SkyWalker (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess, made in part with my Wikibooks editor hat on and in part as the person who performed the transwikifications to Wikibooks for a fair while, is that it would be something along the lines of "Wikibooks doesn't want this any more than you do.". Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~not sure what the nominator's intention was but I'd certainly say this is an incoherent article that barely establishes context, let alone notability. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
The article has been tidied up a bit so it's decipherable now, but I'm still struggling to find any real reference to it anywhere. Unless it's referenced (or someone at least points to some reasonable information about it elsewhere), i'm still going to suggest this fails requirements for verifiability and notability. The only relevant google hit I've found seems to be this article, although this is handicapped by all the misspellings of "media". ~ mazca ^t|c 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete if there was a wp:incoherent indecipherable nonsense this would be its poster child.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I'll ignore the rules on the fact that absolutely no reason is given behind the nomination; I will remind the nom to do so next time. Anyways, article clearly fails not a how-to and also lacks sufficient context; that is, if the man from Mars cannot figure out what this article is about in 10 seconds, it probably shouldn't be here. (Luckily, I barely beat that time and figured out that this is about complexity in queues in computer programming.) MuZemike (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be about a combination of Iterative deepening depth-first search and A* search algorithm. IDA* is reasonably important but this variant is starting to get a bit specialized. We don't have an article on IDA* itself, though — that should come first. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Now that David Eppstein added more context to the article, the deletion comments above are no longer applicable. This is an article about an algorithm, which are generally legitimate topics. I cannot comment on notability, though, but if not too notable it could at some point be merged somewhere. --Itub (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability can only come from independent reliable sources and there are still none for this article. xschm (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article G12d, rightly so, before this discussion was over. Non-admin closure. Ouro (blah blah) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed AfD header. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador x golden retriever[edit]

This is not really a topic for an article. No sources or references. I would have done a speedy, but it isn't clear what speedy reason applies. Clubmarx (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A soapy OR how to on canine crossbreading. upon creation, the article included a "review" of the article from somebody. Possibly a copyvio from another website? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found source of part of article here. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I gave less weight to the SPAs, a rough consensus developed to keep the article, albeit in a drastically rewritten form. I will add a ~~NPOV~~ disputed tag to the bevy of others on the article, and add it to my watchlist. I suggest others might want to do the same. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object[edit]

This is a fringe theory of dubious notability. Almost all of the references are preprints or papers from the theory's four proponents (Mitra, Leiter, Robertson, Schild), as are most of the papers citing those works. I strongly suspect that most of the article was written by one or more of those proponents (most likely Mitra, whose name appears in the edit history) as a means to gain publicity for the theory.

Mitra's preprints attempt to disprove the well-established result that black holes are predicted by general relativity, but his "proofs" are rooted in a misunderstanding of basic calculus (for example, see Eq. 4.1 in arXiv:astro-ph/9910408 and the sentence following it) which has led him to confuse the superluminal motion of an abstract surface with superluminal motion of actual matter. For this reason his views are unlikely to gain a significant following in the wider physics community.

I realize that just because the idea is wrong doesn't mean it can't have an article in Wikipedia. But the article as it stands puts far too much emphasis on Mitra et al's viewpoint, misleading lay readers into overestimating its merit. (It was from a discussion with one such reader that I came across this article.) At the very least, the article needs a complete rewrite, something that is unlikely to happen due to the obscurity of the idea and the lack of good secondary sources. Jim E. Black (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FRINGE - there are plenty of refs. Besides the refs listed on the page, the most creditable website ref I could find was this, but gbooks has even more: [13], [14], [15], [16] (whole chapter in a book for this link), and a ~15 more over here at gScholar. Not to mention the article is well written and informative. However, I would like to see a criticism section included. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleanup is not a reason for deletion. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could always restore the original stub [17] 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the huge article raises red flags indeed, but this is no reason for deletion. Tag it for cleanup, restore an earlier version or, if unsalvageable, merge it into Abhas Mitra. You can take either of these approaches without submitting a formal AfD, it's a wiki. Fwiiw, the edits ostensibly by Mitra are harmless. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article says Mitra disavows the MECO concept, and keeps to the ECO concept instead... 70.55.86.100 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This whole thing is crackpot nonsense. If the article is kept it needs to be very clear to the casual reader that the idea is nonsense; if we create the impression that there's a controversy, or that the idea is considered viable, then we've failed. I'm worried that we won't be able to find any sensible debunkings by experts to use as references. The mistake is too elementary to be worth it; it's like trying to find a paper debunking some random circle-squaring construction. Here's a Usenet post at least (John Baez quoting Chris Hillman). Do we have to keep everything that some idiot on the newscientist.com staff thinks is worth reporting on? I'd rather delete the article. -- BenRG (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Crackpot nonsense' is not a reason for deletion. Why do we keep the article Cydonia Mensae? There's a reason we have an article for religion and flat earthers, too - and I'll give you a hint. It's not because they're factually correct. We just need to clean up the article and have an understandable criticism section. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now now, Cydonia Mensae is a perfectly respectable topic for an article... it's a totally valid piece of Martian geography that has had the misfortune to be hijacked by fringe theories, the unfortunate fact that the article is mainly devoted to said fringe theories notwithstanding. Icalanise (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article. This is a political manifesto, especially Discussion section. This a pseudo-science, not even a fringe-science, because it is based on simple mathematical errors, which its authors refuse to recognize. This article is in many respects an original research, because it makes conclusions from the facts (often wrong conclusions). Therefore the article should be deleted. Maximum what this theory deserves is a short stub. Ruslik (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Non-specialist readers need an explanation of why such theories are outside the mainstream. -- Philcha (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Non-notable far fringe theory. It's the pet of 3 or 4 guys, the very definition of an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority per WP:WEIGHT. The article looks like it's referenced but it isn't; practically all of the references are to the theory's tiny circle of proponents. Despite lack of notability a heavily revised article could be useful as a debunking (see also WP:SNARK). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands it gives far too much legitimacy to what is considered a fringe theory, and is written in a style which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. However the concept has been covered in secondary sources (e.g. [18]), thus deletion seems like going too far. It would be preferable to have a complete rewrite. In the meantime we should replace the article with a stub giving a brief overview. If we want to preserve the material that is currently on the page, perhaps move it to some kind of subpage? Icalanise (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking through the history, I couldn't find a salvageable version. Recreate a stub if it's worthy of an article, but delete this mess first.--Boffob (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this should be deleted. The nomination states no policy to require or suggest deletion. The reasons stated focus on the incorrectness of myopic scope of the article, however; in the absence of any policy stating so, I cannot endorse deleting an entire page simply because the article is either wrong or referenced too narrowly. If indeed the references are all that are available and the topic is not notable, perhaps it should be deleted, but in such a case it should be renominated on that basis so that people can review under that criteria. As it stands, this appears to be an attempt to delete a disfavored theory without any justification therefore- despite the admitted acknowledgment that such isn't sufficient grounds to delete. I say Keep and renominate for deletion for lack of notability if such is the case- which I've not reviewed since that was beyond the scope of the nomination. --Δζ (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So the reasons that were given by nominator are not important. Ruslik (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no genuine basis for the deletion of this article. There might indeed be scope for improvement for this

article. In particular, if there is anything like ``personal reflection in a scientific article, the same may be removed. May be I will look into such angles. Otherwise, it looks to be balanced scientific article well supported by many published papers in standard peer reviewed journals. However, it is true that in this new concept may take its due time to become well trenched. But this happens with many new concepts. The present plea for deletion seems more to have do with intolerance with new ideas rather than genuine scientific reasons. As far aware, as far as published scientific literature is concerned, there is no critique of the MECO idea. Even if there would be critique of a certain idea or a paradigm, there is no reason that, wiki articles on that idea/paradigm should be deleted. For example, many particle physicists thing that String Theory is a complete failure which is ``Not even Wrong. But such disagreements would not justify deletion of any article on String Theory. -Dingle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingle2008 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many physicists do think that String Theory may not be a true theory of nature. However nobody questions its mathematical foundation. MECO theory is based on mathematical errors—it basically claims that 2+2=5. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical errors, or any factual errors in general != non notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been listed as crackpot nonsense but this isn't a useful policy based reason for deletion. The degree and level of reporting is the relevant factor here and this is only tangentially mentioned in this discussion. Its too complicated for me to make any sense of this so I'm relisting in the hope that further discussion will make a consensus clear on this. I'm sure the closing admin will very much appreciate comments on the sourcing since that is the policy we need to measure the discussion against. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle2008's comment illustrates what I'm afraid will happen if this article is kept. The article looks reasonable enough, and most people can't possibly evaluate the claims on their merits, so they will come away from it thinking it might actually be reasonable. What we need is either an article that makes it clear that it's not reasonable, or no article at all. Writing that article is very difficult because of Wikipedia policies. Mitra makes certain claims (believes certain things) about the theory of general relativity which are false (in a purely mathematical sense, all empirical issues aside). For example, he thinks that a black hole can never form because of singular behavior (e.g. z → ∞) at the event horizon. There's a section in MTW which specifically discusses this idea and says/shows that it's wrong. However, if you take WP:SYNTH at face value, we're not permitted to cite that source because it doesn't specifically say that Mitra is wrong, it only says some claims are wrong that happen to coincide with Mitra's. I don't know if there are any published papers that specifically outline how Mitra is wrong. Yet an article on this subject must clearly state that Mitra is wrong, because he is, mathematically, wrong; anything else would make a joke of Wikipedia's core goals.

Keep As I go through this article, I find that it is based on physical principles like (i) Bending of radiation

in strong gravitational field, (ii) The existence of a critical luminosity called Eddington Luminosity, and (iii) attainment of strong magnetic fields due to magnetic flux freezing. I do not see how these aspects could be ``crackpot and cranky. Far from it such adjectives seem to be in a bad taste and emanating from intolerance. Neither do I see where is 2+2=5? And if it were so, how so many related papers got published in standard peer reviewed journals. I hope the original authors would improve the article, if need be. Overall, the comments smacks of personal attack and intolerance. This cannot be justified. (Dingle2008 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But maybe I'm overthinking this and a sensible article can be written; I'd much prefer that to no article at all. The best way to show that a sensible article can be written is to write it. I would be happier if at least one person who wants to keep the article would (a) rewrite it and (b) commit to policing it for a while. If that doesn't happen before the end of this discussion period then I'd prefer to delete what we have now rather than continue to serve it to our readers. Anyone interested in taking up this challenge in the future can always recreate the article. -- BenRG (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only after radical rewrite. Effectively, it is now a promo piece on a crackpot theory (according to people whom I respect such as John Baez). The Jew of Linz, the article that first brought me to Wikipedia presented a similar problem. However, thanks to the combined effort of several WP editors, we managed to turn it around diff. It was a lot of work, though. Essentially we cut down (with a hacksaw!) on the self-promotion by the book's author and expanded the "Response" section to accurately reflect the 10-to-1 balance of unfavorable reviews of the book. I think something similar could be done here, too.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, but after seeing the phrase "MECO's are not a widely-accepted concept" too many alarm bells went off. This smacks of original research unsupported by reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - third party sources: the article has two external links, one to SpaceDaily (science news website) and to New Scientist (UK science magazine). And has some googlenews hits [19] [20] and was in The Age and Harper's Magazine. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- gbooks has plenty too. See my links above. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is the lack of accurate sources that we can use to debunk this nonsense idea. Can you find a source among those you listed (or indeed any source at all) that describes this work as embarrassing nonsense? Because that's what it is. -- BenRG (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this fringe theory is mentioned in enough credible sources to justify an article. It needs to be rewritten so that it is not just a promotion of said theory, but that's not a reason to delete. Reyk _YO! 23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to show this is a notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the people voting "keep" be willing to change their position to "keep but only with a total rewrite", like Goodmorningworld? You think this subject meets notability guidelines and ought to have an article—sure, great. But a decent article on this subject is not going to magically spring into existence. If you think it ought to exist, then write it! What we have now is far worse than no article at all. If no one is going to write a decent article in the next few days, then we should go back to our previous no-article state—not forever, but until someone writes a good article. You don't need to be an administrator to recreate a deleted article; anyone can do it. -- BenRG (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only problem I can see with that is that we'd need an expert (or at least someone smarter than me!) to determine what's factually correct and what's not. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 15:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit very drastically. In fact, that's what the nominator suggested. I think he'd be in a good position to do the editing. It doesn't have to present the theory in detail or try to prove it--thats what the linked references are for. I note that some of this group's papers seems to be in the most respectable journals, Monthly Notices of the RAS, ApJ, & AJ. One can show it is being ignored by looking to see if the papers are cited by anyone else. And if they are cited, you can see what people say about it and quote them. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried reading it and it is just too darn confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.222.8 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty in rewriting the Article is finding someone to do it. Comments above include "misunderstanding of basic calculus", "too elementary a mistake", and "like 2+2=5". I rather suspect it is not quite so easy. Especially if Mr. Mitra were to jump in and defend himself. These people can be surprisingly resilient, and it can take weeks of pounding away at them by real experts before they finally break down and fall apart in ways visible to everyone. I've added the article to the "Fringe physics" category, based on the negative assessments by Chris Hillman and John Baez, who are recognized authorities in the field. That, combined with the multiple disclaimers slapped on top of the article, should be sufficient that no-one gets misled into taking the theory at face value. It could be months, however, before a Wikipedian with proper scientific qualifications (others need not apply) finally takes the time to rewrite the Article. Even then, it will not be comprehensible to most readers (by "comprehensible" I mean that one understands where Mitra went wrong and can explain the problem to others.) However, unlike the IP above, I do not consider "makes my head hurt" a valid criterion for deletion.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite so that the theory is not given undue weight. Make it clear that it is not widely held, and add in a section of criticism if such a section can be sourced. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start from scratch if this theory is notable, which it doesn't seem to be. Verbal chat 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pointless since the existing content would just be put back. All that would be achieved is the removal of the edit history which would be contrary to our licence terms and general principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noc list[edit]

This new one-hour-a-week show on a student-run university online radio station is not notable. No references from independent reliable sources, and I don't find any (except this article) in Google. Contested PROD - author's reasons given on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like an ad, I've also checked, no signs of notability, there's an objection on the article's talk page to deletion but that gives no evidence for notability. dougweller (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly advertisement material. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE. 4. The programme is 'new' and therefore, finding notability across the internet is not possible at such an early stage. 5. Some have called it an advertisment but I object as it is information about a REAL radio show. By arguing that it is an advertisment, you could argue that any band, artist, tv show etc on wikipedia is also an advertisment. 6. The argument for deleting it seems to be based on finding lack of quantifable information on the internet. I argue for qualitative measures as well as quantitive. The information supplied is accurate and truthful. I object to information which is new and lacking quantifiable presence being labeled as having no value or worth. glockyboots
- By your own admission, then, it needs to be deleted for being non notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE. 1. No other proposed use of the term 'The Noc List' can be found on Wikipedia. 2. 'The Noc List' is a popular Belfield FM radio show. The station operates in Irelands largest University. UCD is also one of Europe's largest universities. 3. The format, identity, and appeal of the show is unique, no such radio show offers a similar format etc glockyboots
- Please do not !vote twice in an AFD discussion. This is a discussion, not a vote in which the ballot box can be stuffed. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, you're free to discuss, but you only get to say SAVE once. MuZemike (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable by Wikipedia's standards. ... discospinster _talk 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Glockyboots, none of your comments address the issues involved here. Please read WP:NOTE and WP:ORG to see what the issues are. The show doesn't gain notability by operating in a notable university, you have to show its own notability. And there is no point in writing 'Save' (should be 'Keep') twice. If you don't like our policies and guidelines, you could always try to change them, but you aren't going to change them here. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — As noted above, user is trying to take advantage of the SEO capabilities of Wikipedia as noted above — an admission to spamming. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and fancruft. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. ... discospinster _talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt whalley[edit]

Apparent hoax, no specific source to show verifiability/ RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Hoax. Most of the "facts" are nonsense; to just pick three examples, the "symbyonic [sic] era", "placated the issue of gender", and "the 1618 Stockholm uprising" are made-up phrases that lack a referent. --Bonadea (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — No assertion as to why this person may be notable in any way. MuZemike (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalbye Group[edit]

Company only notable for association with hijacked ship MV Faina, appeared in initial press reports though further reports are showing Tomex Team, not Kaalbye, as owner Switzpaw (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Switzpaw (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is probably notable, but some shipping industry publications which might cover it are not available online. As for the ownership question, many commercial ships are owned by one company and operated and managed by another, and their crew may be employed by an entirely different company. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to operatorship, I think there is a possibility that the Western press initially got this wrong. Attempts to confirm that Kaalbye is the operating firm of the ship have been unsuccessful. The operating firm that has been in communication with the hijackers is Tomex Team, and the owning company is something different altogether (Waterlux AG). Given the lack of coverage of this company in reliable sources, it would be bad to keep possibly false information about this company on Wikipedia for all of eternity -- and it's unlikely this article will receive much maintenance since it was clearly created in response to a recent news event. Switzpaw (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for one news event. Really doesn't seem to be a notable company otherwise. --neon white talk 12:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable company. Cyrillic sources are hard to work out, of course, but subject to substantial third party coverage, even in English. Neon white's argument on why we should not follow the usual notability standards is unconvincing. Wily D 14:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say anything about not following the usual notability standards. Misrepresenting other editors comments is incivil. In fact policy says it needs significant coverage in reliable sources and as yet we do not have such and there have been no evidence of such existing. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC

It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Deletion based on notability grounds requires making an exception to the usual standards, since by the usual standards this would be kept. Discussing arguments is inherently the behaviour mandated by civil. I'm sorry if you're upset that this company is notable and that the arguments proposed for deleting it are so weak, but I can't (or won't?) help with that. Wily D 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable company [21]. --Tavrian 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and references found easily enough, just through google i expect people do do this before bringing it here. I would also expect them to have at least looked at the company's home page, in english cited in the article, from which they would have discovered it manages over a dozen ships, which is large enough to be notable in the field, and not assert oneevent. they/'d be notable without it. How long will it be before we require a search before nominating for non-notability? DGG (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are they? You cannot simply speculate that they may exist, you must show them here. Slef published sources are not relevant to notability and neither is the amount of ships a company owns. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I've probably read far more about this issue than you, so please drop the pedantry. I've also read WP:CORP -- the fact that we can verify the company exists is not the threshold for inclusion. And as I've mentioned above, I think its mention in secondary sources regarding the MV Faina is scant and somewhat dubious. Switzpaw (talk) 16:07, 5 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! 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage owing to one criminal incident does not meet WP:CORP. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that can be handled easily enough by expanding the article. The company itself is notable, even if the incident had never happened at all. DGG (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the only way to show that would be to cite reliable sources in the article which show coverage having nothing to do with the incident. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. _Gb^T/c 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition Data[edit]

The only source that I could find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Speedy Delete Non-notable website, now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cortes 24 Hour Racing[edit]

Team only exists through a press release. Google search reveals nothing besides this article. D-Day (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an obvious hoax. Readro (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete with prejudice. "The team will make it's NASCAR debut starting in the 2009 season."? Only source is: "Website to come"? What are we waiting for? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Template:Cortes 24 Hour Racing can go as well. Readro (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google hits and created by a serial hoaxer. Prolog (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aerolínea Principal. Sandstein 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Airlines[edit]

Does not pass WP:ORG and I could not find evidence of its existance on either GNews or regular Google. A speedy was declined on this, so I didn't want to send it to prod. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article content is very odd, possibly due to being written by somebody not entirely proficient with English. The article is written in the future tense, but refers to dates in the past. Also, the web site for the airline consists of a splash page and nothing else. Apparently they have a fleet consisting of a single plane. The airline appears to exist as a very small charter company but there needs to be better sourcing than this single link I've found. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Since this is on a Chilean airline, it is not unexpected tha the article should be in fractured English. The article appears to claim aircraft of three types. Is this a significant enough airline to warrnat an article? Can a Spanish speaker, please see whet that Spanish WP says? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm pretty sure that no other wiki has an article on said Airline. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me with a link. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - After some digging around, I've found [22], [23], and [24]. I imagine that somebody actually proficient at Spanish instead of relying on machine transalations as I did might have better luck at tracking down better sources. The ones I found are rather small mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aerolínea Principal since there is an existing article. Or in the alternative, simply redirect as it is not clear what informastion in the current article is properly sourced from the one reference given the confusion over how many places they even fly based on searching. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable, charter carrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Aerolínea Principal the same airline. Move anything worthwhile to main article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as clearly nonsense. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed AfD heading. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubama[edit]

Unsourced, unverified. Looks like youthful mischief. Previously speedy deleted as nonsense, most recent speedy delete for same rationale was refused. Author's edit [25] history suggests vandalism as primary motive. JNW (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Speedy Delete candidate, per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. A blissful fusion of non-notable neologism and random hoax, with poor writing drizzled on top to taste, and left to age in the barrel of ridiculous process wonkery. It tickles the brain with memories of middle school, while containing no content or potential for said content. A most splendidly useless, hopeless article that would only be improved with a light sprinkling of Salt, to prevent future recreation and/or fermentation. The fact that this was refused a merciful Speedy is exactly why people continue to take such liberal ("deletionist-friendly") positions with A1 and A3 - the dictionary definiton of "process wonkery" is Epbr123 (talk · contribs) demanding an article of this calibur be run through AfD Badger Drink (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a joke with no sources given and no sources to be found anywhere else. "Tubama" appears to be a word in Turkish and possibly other languages, but not with the meaning shown here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) — complete and utter horse dung. MuZemike (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism, no reason to discuss it here, should have been tagged for speedy and deleted already.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. G3 does not apply, because it's not nonsensical - but it certainly looks like fodder for the Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. No strong editorial consensus about how to present this information, but "keep" and "merge" both argue keeping content. One might argue this should be closed "no consensus", but the outcome is unaffected either way. Wily D 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Tagged for notability, third-party sources, in-universe and context for a year. Really doesn't seem to be a notable character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Am I allowed to cast that as a vote? If not Speedy Delete. Subjects within video games don't generally warrant their own entry unless they have independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussed article is not about a video game character; it is about a monster in a pen-and-paper role-playing game and which is also the central focus in one of the game's novels. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per ChildofMidnight. Stick it in List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters or something. RayAYang (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a species of creature, not a "character", video game or otherwise. And further, this species has been around through every edition of the game. And has been in several novels, modules, and other publications. - jc37 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per JC37. Also, I have been doing quite a bit of merging of monster-related D&D articles recently and could merge this into another article if it was kept, or at least if its edit history was retained. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drilnoth; failing that, give him a chance to merge the content properly as he has been doing with other articles. BOZ (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—I see three keep comments, but none of them address the nominator's notability concern by providing secondary sources. Pagra shtak 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I said keep I basically meant "keep for now"... I think that merge is the proper course of action for this article, but a concentrated effort will be nescessary to create an article to merge it into, so it could be kept for the time being and then merged as soon as a suitable article is created. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is comprised of synthesis of plot summary which places an over-reliance on an in universe perspective, and in doing so fails to provide content, analysis or criticism about the real-world development of these fictional characters. There is no evidence of notability, either for the characters themselves, nor the publications from which this synthesis has been composed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Falling Kingdom[edit]

I've seen this article speedied several times, and the author seems intent on re-introducing without much improvement. Though I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources online, previous versions of the article asserted references in photography magazines (if an admin could retrieve these from the falling kingdom, it could help us here). I think we need to either conclusively establish notability, or salt all permutations of the title to prevent this unconstructive cycle from continuing. the skomorokh 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Salt, bury, encase in concrete ~~As per nom.~~ See new and improved reasoning below... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not helpful. The author is likely to just repost. This AfD is intended to uncover and assess the sources, and as I said in the nom, there is an assertion of coverage in reliable sources—that is, the topic is asserted to be notable, making it ineligible for WP:A7. the skomorokh 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion of notability. Every book does not deserve an encyclopedia entry. There's nothing in the article to suggest it's notable. I hope that's more helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much clearer, thank you. I would only object that the book may pass the general notability guideline, as previous versions of the article have alluded. the skomorokh 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reviews in reliable sources can be cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no sources for this. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sven NordgrenDon’t really see the issue here. The Civil war in Nepal has hardly been on the papers front row. There is hardly any text and very little Photographs made to document this time of history. The Book “ The falling Kingdom” is all that. Why I belief it’s more then notable for Wikipedia. The book is just out in the stores. Since I am been working about 40 years as doctor 10 years as a volunteer in Nepal. I belief I would be able to point out the need for this kind of book and it’s important. Since this my first article in Wikipedia I understand that I did some mistakes in the article. But would appreciate every comment and help to make this page better, which are my only concern. Sincerely Sven Nordgren

Read WP:BOOK. Schuym1 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book may become notable, but it is no now, nor can it really be expected to be, as it has just been published. (Some books can be, from very well known authors, or instant best sellers, but it's unusual. Normally, an article inserted at that time has a strong likelihood of being considered promotional. And the expalanation given for it in fact indicates that purpose. WP is an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. _Gb^T/c 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DirectSong[edit]

Based on the three seaches that I did, this seems like it's non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete "Directsong is an online music store for video game soundtracks... currently has thirteen releases available for download." Thirteen songs for download? Kill it and I mean NOW! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged it as db-web. Schuym1 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Sohn[edit]

Non-notable person JakeZ (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JakeZ (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Was a candidate for office. That's it. That's all the article says. Move along folks, nothing to see here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failed candidate with no other accomplishment, he also fails WP:POLITICIAN.--Boffob (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plante[edit]

Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having established notability. Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having citations or reliable sources. Neither of these have been fixed, nor the work improved. This is a biography regarding a supposed but mostly unknown writer. I have been unable to find additional material to support inclusion. -t BMW c- 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ There's no hint of notability in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm changing my opinion. An editor has supplied references indicating some notability. Good enough for me. Won an award. Has recieved some recognition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping short of speedy because 16 stories published in a magazine is a start. However, this is well short of the requirements listed on WP:BK, and no traces on Google other than probable self-published sources. Unless better claim to notability presented, ~~Delete~~. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline keep. Still only really associated with one magazine, but the fact that covereage of his stories in the magazine have been mentioned elsewhere just about counts in his favour. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's been in other mags as well. Lot of semipro ones. Also a Writers of the Future sale (anthology, prize). Besides, I really don't see why it would make him a better candidate if you took the 16 Analog sales and divided them between Analog and IASFM and FSF. I mean it's the same output and of the same caliber. What if some famous writer only published under Campbell? NB: I'll consider a different argument that short story writers are not notable (of this sort, not EA Poe!) But then we need to flesh that out. And at least be clear on it. Rather than putting down someone for concentrating at Analog, which is arguably the most read SF magazine. TCO (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. TCO (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Belay my last! Keep the sucker. I made a stub and someone came and added good content. I guess this is the way wiki is supposed to work. Deletionists foiled again...mwahahaha! But next time, I will just write an entire article in user space to FA status and then add it to wiki. Since the deletionists think that is how wiki should work. And really maybe they have a point. I'll take a dedicated smart researcher who writes an article the way one would for Brittinica (of same caliber) over the iterative method. Anyhow...Dravecky is THE MAN for saving Brian. TCO (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a discussion, not a "vote". - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ not notable Clubmarx (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changing my vote due to new info. --Clubmarx (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He won the Analog Science Fiction and Fact reader's poll twice. At the time I thought that made him marginally notable, but the world of short SF writers is maybe of more interest to me than the general public.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As his sole connection is with one niche magazine (albeit one with a long history), I'm still not convinced this warrants a mention outside the magazine, but I can see a case for including it within the Analog Science Fiction and Fact article (or maybe a fiction sub-page). Anyway, I'm including this in the Science Fiction deletion sorting and see what they say. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as I have now added several references, added categories, then expanded and detailed the section on honors and awards including two AnLab wins, a Writers of the Future finalist, and a Nebula Award nomination. WP:BK doesn't apply since this man is not, himself, a book and there are numerous sources about the author to be found with Google from reliable third-party sources. (Some are now included in the article.) The age of the tags does little to move me since the article had been not been given any stub tag, category, or wikiproject tag so it was quite a bit less likely to come to the attention of an interested editor. - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work, Dravecky. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. _Gb^T/c 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dukes[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. References to films, books etc do not exist. Fails WP:V at the least Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nice story. The only notable fiction written by this author appears to be this unencyclopedic Wikipedia entry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious misinformation, therefore blatant vandalism, so Speedy Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newport ACF[edit]

Newporte ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware of a policy prohibiting the inclusion of youth programs and summer camps. If someone is searching for these youth programs I don't see anything wrong with providing encyclopedic information on their history and operations. If you contact them, I'd be shocked if there haven't been local news stories about their prgorams and the youngsters involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Newport AFC is a youth organization and is directly involved with the town, this group has been around for over 60 years and has been in the press numerous times. (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

delete no reliable sources, no notability demonstrated. The "strong keep" above comes from the originator of the article (not relevant to my vote, but worth bearing in mind).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the creator of the article and I hadn't seen it before today. I trust you'll correct your statement and thank me for doing a refimprove and other fixes to that article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This organization is mentioned in the Copthorne, Shropshire article. The Army Cadet Force has a great looking (I said "looking" I didn't scrutinize)) article. The only issue is whether it's Cadet Force or cadet force. Would a redirect be warranted? It's clearly a legitimate and notable subject. Would that all the articles on Wikipedia were as significant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment mention in another wiki article is about the worst sourcing for a separate article on anything one can imagine. But merge to the shropshire article with a graph or two there might work. I'll correct nothing--- i was talking to bnustudent. As for thanking you, it's still an article without a single reliable secondary source. So, no, thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and I see no notability. Somebody change my mind. I'd be inclined to do {{db-club}}, but given the debate, I'd rather it be here. Can we bring something up for this group, besides some honors issued, that fit the bill with WP:ORG? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I nominated this article for deletion. Newport ACF is simply a detachment of young people, numbering no more than 40. Its one detachment in Shropshire Army cadet force, which is also nominated for deletion. A single detachment, and county force is just not notable enough as an organisation. Wikipedia is not google and its not the yellow pages .. Sorry but this article really should go. If you want to write about the Army Cadet Force, improve that article. jezarnold 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezarnold (talk • contribs)

Delete as per all the other non-notable cadet units that have been nominated before. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that this meets WP:ORG and there's a long-standing convention that individual cadet units are generally not notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Army cadet force[edit]

Shropshire ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per no reliable sources. It's a sort of scouting setup attached to the british army as far as i can tell, but only refs found were its own website, websites of cadet forces in other towns, and references on shropshire govt websites.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Have you had a look at their website? Clearly a well established program. Here's one of their activities. http://shropshireacf.org.uk/Annual%20Camp.htm I don't know why they shouldn't have an appropriate article on Wikipedia. Here's there e-mail [email protected] I'm sure they would be happy to provide a reference for local news coverage of their youth programs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'It is not a scouting based organization it is the other way around and to suggest that it has no reliable sources because it, the british military seems to be one. also i am researching more of the history of the Shropshire ACF so that the page could be enlarged and made to be more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnustudent (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Other way around? You mean its an "organization-based scouting"? I'm confused. At any rate, i'm sure it exists. But i find no reliable 2nd party sources for it which would support an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment i'll note that the "strong keep" above is from the author of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to make a call for a deletion of the branch units it lists, for lack of reliable sources of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I nominated this article for deletion. Shropshire Army cadet force is the parent organisation for several detachments.. They are simply detachment of young people, numbering no more than 40. One detachment is Newport ACF, which is also nominated for deletion. A single detachment, and county force are just not notable enough as an organisation.Wikipedia is not google and its not the yellow pages .. Sorry but this article really should go. If you want to write about the Army Cadet Force, improve that article. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't meet the relevant notability standards at WP:ORG, and there's a long standing convention that individual cadet organisations are generally not notable (the British Army cadets are notable, but few sub-units are). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another non-notable cadet organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle Royale (film). Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mai (Battle Royale)[edit]

Minor character that appears for a few seconds in each film. Has not been the subject of significant coverage. Little out-of-universe context. No third-party references. Propose deletion on the grounds of WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:V Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article about a minor character. Not likely to be useful if redirected, either.--Michig (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm going to side with keeping because Mai is an iconic character related to this franchise, though the article can be improved. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't find any significant coverage. If it exists, then the article could be improved, but I think we need some evidence that such coverage exists to keep this. Otherwise, the character could be adequately covered in the Battle Royale article - the character articles don't seem to go much beyond detailing the plot as it concerns these characters and crufty filler.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's probably significantly more coverage in Japanese... since it had some impact in Japan. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a suitable page on minor characters. This is one of the issue that should be compromised. Except for truly famous or classic works, truly minor characters such as this should not normally have separate articles. DGG (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by DGG, but only if sourcing or cites can be found on this character. If this character is as "iconic" as people claim, this should not be a problem. I fear the article as is is WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because even tho she appears only briefly in the movies, she has a haunting presence that lingers. I for one appreciated seeing this info.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Fine to include this information in parent article(s). No suggestion of notability outside of relation to film. I don't even think a redirect would be helpfulChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- I didn't even know she had a name. I always remembered her as that "creppy smiling girl from Battle Royale. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect I need something more compelling to suggest that this character is "iconic", since that is the sort of characterization that befalls most fictional person bios when they come to AfD. Not sourced. Very little information aside from WP:PLOT. Is there a third party source that attests to the strong presence of this character in the films? If not, we shouldn't have an article on it. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redir - Merge into an article about minor characters from the film if sources for her being 'iconic' are found, or simply redirect if otherwise. — neuro^(talk) 09:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite merge to Battle Royale (film), character not notable outside the film's universe. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by Zedla. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tau kau lizard[edit]

I find nothing to verify this-- possible hoax. Dloh cierekim 15:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Google reports 0 results. --Fixman^{Praise me} 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article is unverifiable and created by an SPA.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per everyone. YOWUZA TALK 2 ME! 16:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under criteria WP:SPEEDY#G12; all text within the article's history was copied from the subpages of http://www.soshiantgame.com/en/ , which displays "© 2008 :: Fanafzar Co"

Soshiant (computer game)[edit]

Fails Notability. I have checked on search engine for this information. There is no press release or anything regarding the game. SkyWalker (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete if i understand a comment below, this game hasn't been released yet and has no media coverage? Non-notable, should be speedy. If and when it's released it might become notable. if so, article can be created then.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with deleting[edit]

Dear SkyWalker, As I mention in the article the game will be ready for release in the third quarter of 2009. So how would you expect to find any information about its release on press?! By the way, here some pages for the Soshiant game’s activities: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=soshiant+game . Babakarj (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't seen any big copyright infrigement on history, someone care to delete it (or tell me where the copyright has been infridged)? --Fixman^{Praise me} 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Librarians Association of America[edit]

Article was created 26 October 2008 and tagged for speedy deletion as advertising or promotional material. Tag removed by creator with no comment. Google search toady for "Iranian Librarians Association of America" returns 3 hits, all wiki, and a search for "Iranian Librarians Association" produces 4, again all wiki. Now, it may be that this is a new organisation that has yet to build up a Google score, but that in itself suggests this organisation is non-notable and should be deleted rather than using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete should be speedy. Non notable, non-verifiable advertising (or perhaps a hoax).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a project for real, but not yet notable.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree that, the speedy tag having been removed, AfD is the best means to its deletion. It still reeks of blatant self-promotion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Zulli[edit]

I declined the speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However there are no reliable sources to verify the material. A Google search finds numerous hits but none are from what I consider to be non-trivial sites. Additional of solid sourcing would save the article but I found none. JodyB_talk 14:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find reliable sources to establish notability of this John Zulli.--Boffob (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)--Boffob (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google finds many sources, and the article is not that badly written. There are worst articles on wikipedia, and the worst thing I can find for this is a big {stub} notice. Search on google for more information. --Fixman^{Praise me} 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, non-verifiable advertising (references to his own website). Google? It's all discursive to either his sites or other hypnosis industry trade sites. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Google find many hits, add one as a reference. Otherwise, move to the circular file... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted at author request, and glad he thought better of it. FWIW, another user with Huggle restored his blanking as vandalism, but I assumed that was a mistake, not a statement it should be kept.. DGG (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Laighin[edit]

Possible hoax or at least made up at school one day. Only 5 Ghits, none reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:[reply]

The Kingdom of Laighin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article was clearly written as a joke by three kids at a middle school. Looks like they missed the opportunity to say something funny about a council whose members are Ronan, Rory and Ross. Go back to working on reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax.--Boffob (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete joke article made up at school by a bunch if kids looking to add to Wikipedia. RedThunder 14:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a "very unoffical (sic) micronation" sounds very WP:MADEUP. Vaguely amusing non-encyclopedic hoax. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Also recommend bundling The Kingdom of Laighin into this. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. McWomble (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as joke/hoax per all above, but congratulate the kids on their flag design, which looks good. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both (G3) — Complete and utter bollocks. There is no such kingdom. I am inclined to agree in regards with WP:NFT. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — tagging article for speedy deletion under G7 as the author is requesting deletion by blanking the page. MuZemike (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is clear, although I suspect that this ultimately may prove to be notable. I am happy to userfy a copy of the article if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalWikiPro[edit]

This article is about a fledgling wiki that violates the website notability requirements, as there aren't any reliable sources about the wiki. the article's creator was the founder of LegalWikiPro and added external links to his wiki from many articles, thus violating the conflict of interest guideline. If LegalWikiPro becomes notable, it could have an article here, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Graham87 13:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly using Wikipedia as a means to promote and establish the company's own notability. That's not what we're here for - this company can have an article once they've been covered in multiple reliable sources. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, no reliable sources, appears to be advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Contains egg sausage bacon and spam. MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an advertisement, trying to build up viewer ratings - which is not what we are for. So want to do {{db-spam}}. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all.. Looks like I stepped in it here. Didn't mean to. When I first created the article I had a discussion with an editor who helped me clean up the article. If you will look at the discussion page, you will see that NuclearWarfare and I had a discussion about this issue (more discussion on his talk page). I say that to point out that I tried to do this in good faith and thought that I had cleared the editorial threshold. As to the issue of notability, you mention that an article is appropriate "once they've been covered in multiple reliable sources." Well, I think LegalWikiPro has met that. There is a post on the front page of LegalWikiPro that notes several prominent legal bloggers and web sites who have written favorable articles about LegalWikiPro. These are the "legal research world" equivalents of reviews in Time Magazine, etc. Anyway...that's my case. Thanks for your consideration. Briefer (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I agree the article in its final form was not a speedy candidate, but the lack of independent sources is fatal. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auditcube[edit]

This was tagged, correctly, as a G11 candidate by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) but has since been cleaned up and reworded so it's vaguely encyclopedically phrased and just about claims notability. Nevertheless, I still have severe doubts about this product's actual notability - I cannot find any reliable-source coverage, so it would appear to fail WP:V and WP:N. It was also created by a user that shares a name with the product, suggesting a WP:COI. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant spam, created by the company that is offering the product. A Google News search produces nothing: [26] and [27]. Fails WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is does not violate G11. --Fixman^{Praise me} 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination, its current state does not violate WP:CSD#G11, which is why I have brought it to AfD. I do believe, as I again said in the nomination, that it fails other important policies such as WP:V and WP:N. Avoiding the 'blatant spam' speedy deletion criterion doesn't make an article OK to include overall. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the article's author, User:Auditcube, was reported to WP:UAA and indefinitely blocked. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only recieves 227 results when I do a Google search for it... YOWUZA TALK 2 ME! 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion of notability. No references. If someone wants to keep it they are welcome to address these issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, based on significant improvements to the original article. I would like to extend my thanks to those who took the time to bring the article up to a higher level. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band)[edit]

Vanity article enhanced by one of the now-defunct band's founders, who also created an article about himself (that was subsequently redirected - the original text is here [28]. Fails WP:RS and WP:V -- the links are all MySpace and YouTube related. I have found no independent verification of the discography in any reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable 80s band, but as google wasn't around in the 80s finding (online) sources may be difficult, but not impossible - I'm sure they've done national tours/ charted etc. I haven't been involved in music band notability debates before, is having songs/music housed in state or national libraries enough to prove notability? Quality of the article needs improving, but that is irrelevant here. As they predate myspace by about 20 years, the previous comment is misleading. The-Pope (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of 80s bands whose notability is easily confirmed. This is not one of them. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More references if you care to check.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] McWomble (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet at least 4 criteria of WP:MUSIC, viz:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".[36] This site seems to verify the discography. (To Lugnuts and The-Pope, that suggests they predate MySpace by 21 years.)
"Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". At least two found.[37] Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop mentions two Top 20 singles.
"Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". I realise this isn't an independent source but it shows one of the band members standing in front of a V. Spy V. Spy gold record. Yes, a vinyl record which clearly predates MySpace. Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop says one of the singles went platinum.
"Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" 13th Oct Australian Music featuring v Spy v Spy
Also 111 items by the band are in Australia's National Film and Sound Archive.[38]

I think WP:LOCALFAME applies too. McWomble (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Links #2 and #3 don't appear to fall into WP:RS criteria. The archive site doesn't prove notability -- it just proves the archive collects everything that's out there. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It proves the that at least two albums on a major label exist, therefore meets the criteria. I thought that about the archive first, but their collection policy contradicts your assertion. They do not collect everything. McWomble (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - band appears to be notable, but article needs reliable sources.--Boffob (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band is notable for chart hits. Web coverage is hard to come by but they get 2 Google Books hits with [39] and [40]. There's a discography here and further coverage here, and this, which appears to have come from Ian MacFarlane (1999) Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop, Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1865080721, and would be a major WP:RS if that's the case. There's more (non-WP:RS) info at rateyourmusic.--Michig (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted by editing the article with the recommended databases at WP:Music as a simple ref. They were published by WEA. In fairness to the nominator, the searches are muddied by the several variations of Spy Vs Spy, V.Spy V. Spy, and other dodges of a possible infringement on the Mad comic strip. This sometimes awful band got frequent airplay and attention, I could not be ignorant of them no matter how hard I tried. Reliable soures will be multiple and easily found. Keep. cygnis insignis 15:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having established notability via WP:Music's recommended sources (and many others) I suggest this nom now be withdrawn. Issues of vanity and COI can be corrected through editing. Satisfying music notability guidelines (also recommended by WP:MUSIC) suggests it may be possible to create a non-COI article on Craig Bloxom. McWomble (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to request that an AfD nomination be withdrawn. This debate will run the standard ~5 days, at which point an admin will close it as he/she sees fit. Tan | 39 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written in the AfD guidelines that suggesting the nominator withdraw the nomination is inappropriate? Nominations can be withdrawn at any time. McWomble (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Sometimes noms overlook something, like the variant spelling of this name, and they demonstrate their respect for other contributors time by withdrawing. This is a good thing, it often precedes speedy closes, and avoids wasting the time of an admin who has to carefully go over the facts and references. Thanks for the AFSA link McWomble. cygnis insignis 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not written in the AfD guidelines that this suggestion is inappropriate. This is why I said it was inappropriate, not prohibited. Yes, nominations can be withdrawn at any time, but that is at the discretion of the nominator and your request is in poor faith here. If an uninvolved person suggested that this be done, perhaps it could be contemplated. As it is, you clearly want this article to be kept, as indicated in your many posts above. Asking the nominator to withdraw the nomination is simply another one of your "keep" arguments, and a poor one at that. Please don't do this in the future. Tan | 39 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That assertion and demand is nonsense. cygnis insignis 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMHO McWomble's suggestion that this AfD be closed appears reasonable - particularly given both the volume and impeccable quality of the sources he's produced. I'm more concerned by the nominator's apparent desire to argue for deletion - which to my mind has the distinct whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about it. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to assume it was an error in overlooking the variant name. cygnis insignis 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume good faith on that part. Notability has since been established and I am editing out the vanity and COI issues. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and shall give the demand the consideration it deserves. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very well known 1980s Australian alternative rock group who released approx 8 albums over a period of some 20 years. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Gene Poole. Eminently notable Oz alt rock group. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This band has clearly established notability, and the nomination should be withdrawn or speedy closed straightaway. This is a clear, speedy, and strong keep, in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withrawn by nominator - suggest an editor attempts to expand/improve the article (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baleshwar Rai[edit]

Former chairman of the New Delhi Municipal Committee - a non-notable organization and chief secretary of Goa - a non-notable position (incidentally with no article or significance). Context is vague:

"1970-batch UT cadre IAS officer"^{[clarification needed]}"
"He had held^[when?] different administrative posts at different points^[where?] of time^{[citation needed]}"

The sole reference states that he lodged a semi-notable complaint to the Indian government - a WP:BLP1E violation, if the all his other accomplishments are found to be un-notable. -Flewis^(talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very encyclopedic and sourced (I will fix the formatting momentarilty) to a Times of India story. Notable figure has held office in India. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: – Egregious reasons given. The nomination is a classic case of systemic bias. I'll counteract the reasons one by one:

The New Delhi Municipal Committee is by no means non-notable: See Delhi#Geography and climate. It's the civic organization of New Delhi very much like the Bombay Municipal Corporation. An article needs to be written, but a red link does not imply non-notability.
A chief secretary is the highest administrative position possible in a state for a career bureaucrat. See Indian order of precedence to determine the status of a chief secretary. He's two positions below a Member of Parliament.
He was also the CEO of the Delhi Jal Board Ref, Presumably the first CEO from the reference July 1998.
As an Additional Secretary Ref, he also finds a place in the Indian order of precedence
Ample Third party independent sources on the subject available for more than one event.
The above two positions and the WP:RS coverage of Rai automatically disqualify WP:IE criteria and as the chairman of the New Delhi Municipal corporation, he automatically qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN.
{{articleissues}} is sufficient instead of deletion.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Dixie[edit]

Article deleted via WP:PROD but immediately recreated. New version did not address any of the concerns. Band does not demonstrate notability; no independent sources are provided. The band also has yet to release an album, so the article gazes a bit into the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search does not show any reliable independent sources that would allow this group to meet WP:MUSICBIO. They may become notable enough for an article in the near future, but they currently are not. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability based solely on future events. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This is the third time this article has been created, and neither of its incarnations provide evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. It should be salted until it does. Blueboy 96 11:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withrawn by me (nominator) per subsequent improvements to the article. Request that the author take heed to the advice on his talk-page and rehash his knowledge of WP:V and WP:RS (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change water to oil[edit]

Grave verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. I added 2 sources (in Chinese) to the article, however the article still fails WP:BLP1E. On a side note, editors may wish to review this discussion as well. Flewis^(talk) 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While potentially interesting, it remains unsourced, thus failing WP:V. A google search for ["Wang Hongcheng" water oil] returns only 12 hits, and so also fails WP:N. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent find with the Science article! I have access, and although not a huge article, it does spend 2 or 3 paragraphs discussing the invention and indeed supports the claims made in the article. I will have another look when I have more time and see if there's anything else in there that can be added to the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article survives, I would also suggest moving to Hongcheng Magic Liquid - seems like more of a logical name. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However a search on baidu.com for "水变油"(The Chinese name of "Change water to oil") returns 59,300. Few foreigners know this. So it is not reported very wide by Western media. Alonso McLaren (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hum, I see that he was Mentioned on a Science (magazine) article[41] (it's pay-per-view, so I can't see it, but google lists it), on an article by Carl Sagan [42] (and repeated the same claims on the book The Demon-Haunted World [43] (spanish version, page 28), and, in the wider context of pseudoscience on China, he appears on the CSICOP's newsletter[44], in facts.org[45] and in James Randi weekly comment[46] (he quotes Sagan's book). Full article from China Daily [47] (a chinese newspaper written only in english, the copy is hosted in what looks like a chinese skeptical group?). I'm suspecting that the only reason is has few sources online is because it happened before Internet was popular, there must have been good coverage on dead-tree sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all issues are manageable. It really needs more RS evidence. Comment: This article may set a record for the number of (mostly unnecessary) templates. NVO (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent case at the time - Skysmith (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edmund F. Robertson and Redirect John J. O'Connor. I ended up disregarding the !votes of article creator as the account was a sock evading an indefinite block. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John J. O'Connor (mathematician) + Edmund F. Robertson[edit]

Non notable personality who owns a semi-notable website. No references, external sources or inline citations for WP:V. Otherwise fails WP:ONEVENT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Please note, article creator has subsequently been indef-blocked by Rlevse) Flewis^(talk) 11:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's his homepage, if that helps.--Brittish incompetance (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MacTutor History of Mathematics archive unless there's reason to think that he's notable for something other than founding this website. WP:PROF may be of assistance. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator has since been unblocked after username change. --Crusio (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both, as per Iain99. No reason that these one sentence vanity plates can't be part of the MacTutor article. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Agree, can be easily incorporated into MacTutor History of Mathematics archive --Flewis^(talk) 14:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll have to do a more careful search later on tonight, but my initial impression is that possibly Robertson is notable while O'Connor is not. In MathSciNet O'Connor only has 10 publications (2 of which are obituary articles) while Robertson has 130 publications, including several books and several volumes where he was an editor. In particular, Robertson has been an editor of all the proceedings volumes of the Groups - St. Andrews conference which is a notable international group theory conference that is more than 25 years old. I also do not believe that the characterization of these articles (even the one for O'Connor) as "vanity" articles is either correct or fair. The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a valuable and well-known site, which has indeed won quite a few awards, is well-known in mathematics and is in fact quite useful for Wikipedia in particular for providing detailed biographical information about notable mathematicians. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson has also written a number of reasonably widely used textbooks on algebra, linear algebra and group theory[48]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since 1997 Robertson is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh [49]. I have added a ref to the article. That seems sufficient to satisfy Criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. O'Connor may not pass WP:PROF. However, is notable as one of the creators of MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. Salih (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robertson, redirect O'Connor, per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't create the article if I didn't think they were notable. Also, it is a fully-notable website, not a semi-notable website.--Just Plain Brittish (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both, since they each individually meet the following WP:CREATIVE criterion: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work …” As far as WP:PROF is concerned, arguably only Robertson passes it, but both meet WP:CREATIVE, which is why I am recommending that both be kept.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robertson, and redirect O'Connor to MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. For Robertson it is fairly clear that he passes WP:PROF: certainly criterion 1 and probably criterion 3 as well. An elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, plus his involvement in MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, plus his long-term editorship of the Groups-StAndrews series, plus his textbooks make a convincing case. With O'Connor, apart from his role in MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, I didn't really find much else. That's not enough for passing WP:PROF and I don't think it is sufficient for passing the WP:CREATIVE provision of WP:BIO either (especially since no biographical-type coverage of him by third-party sources appears to be available). O'Connor really looks more like a WP:BLP1E case and there does not seem to be a reasonable possibility of significantly expanding an article about him beyond the current short stub. Nsk92 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of those cases where there is at least some room for debate, and of course I may be wrong. Nevertheless, my understanding of the WP:BLP1E is that it refers to a situation like that of “Joe the Plumber” – someone that is associated with a big event (in this case, US election), and who is never heard of again. (Of course I am assuming that Joe the Plumber will disappear from sight.) O’Connor is permanently associated, and not by playing a minor role, it appears, with the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. What his article needs, in my view, is some additional material that would make it more useful for someone looking for information about the MacTutor co-creator.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to invoke WP:BLP1E directly here, but I did mean that this is like a BLP1E case in the sense that O'Connor's notability comes only in regard to his involvement in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive and not on other grounds. It is also unlike BLP1E in that MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is actually an enterprise of sustained interest. If a person is only known for one achievement, then we have to decide if that achievement alone is sufficient to justify a biographical article about that person (e.g. if somebody wrote one successful book and nothing else). Basically we have to look at how significant that achievement is in deciding if it confers sufficient notability on the person. If we were talking about a significant invention or discovery, I would be inclined to say "yes". In this case, I am inclined to say "no". The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a very useful and commendable enterprise, but it does not produce new original research or new ideas. Rather, it is a compendium of biographical information about notable mathematicians. I do not believe that this is the sort of thing that WP:CREATIVE has in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have just realized that there IS an article on Joe the Plumber, and a long one at that!--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are however right that "one event" does not apply to cases like this. And if Joe had spoken up and never been heard of afterwards he'd have fit in one event like everyone else who asked Obama a question--it was the major political use that made him notable regardless. DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robertson and redirect O'Conner per Nsk92. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both pass WP:PROFESSOR and WP:CREATIVE.--Just Plain Brittish (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would youperhaps care to explain how O'Connor passes WP:PROF (and also WP:CREATIVE for that matter)? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the second keep vote by Just Plain Brittish in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect O'Connor. I can't add anything to the reasons already stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argylle empire[edit]

This is a hoax. A speedy has been declined - that was for A1, and while this might qualify for G3, per WP:HOAX maybe better bring it here. The names are not 12th-century names, and there was no such "empire." Metz to Antwerp is 150 miles, and to set up one that size would have taken more than 350 "English soldiers" from Caen (250 miles off and part of the Duchy of Normandy). I have spent more time than it deserves confirming (in COPAC, Google books and Amazon) that none of the books cited as sources exist. The best thing that can be said for the author Connorcraig1 (talk · contribs) is that this shows some imagination and is a step forward from his previous editing history, which consists of vandalising Paisley Grammar School where he is presumably a pupil. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - New attempt by this Argylle folk - Skysmith (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wishful Scottish expansionism. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on failed verification of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Amusing hoax. I'd bet that all the people mentioned in the article are students at Paisley Grammar School. Reyk _YO! 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as attack article. It is certainly a hoax, but I suggest that it is also intended to denigrate someone called Elizabeth Swan. Jll (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as notability is confirmed via the consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosby's Confederacy (video game)[edit]

Does not indicate notability, has 3 ELS but no reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-08t10:46z

Keep: I seriously feel pity on you. All those 3 sites are pretty much reliable ooh well atleast the two sites [50] and [51] and this one is a official site and there is more here, here, here, here, here and here. There you go. There is enough notability and i did ask you to use search engine before nominating for deletion.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly acceptable future game stub, the interview and above reaction's to the game's announcement via press release indicate that coverage will build and that notability will be satisfied and then some. There's a difference between an established indie developer announcing a game and some random Joe spamming his latest RPG Maker effort. Someone another 11:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—nearly a weak keep because there is only one independent source cited in the article (Big Download is affiliated with AOL, so they're reliable). Based on the links SkyWalker mentioned, though, there's enough to keep the article around. If it goes vaporware and doesn't get released, we can reconsider the article's fate in a few months, but for right now, it looks like the general notability guidelines are met. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the findings by SkyWalker above. WP:GNG seems to be satisfied here. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All those links above, bar the bigdownload interview, are press releases, which WP:N states are not good for asserting notability. Considering this, I feel the "I seriously feel pity on you" comment is unfair. Multiple coverage is preferred, but we'll see how things develop after the game's release. Marasmusine (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I have said "I seriously feel pity on you" because when that person added the prod and i removed it later on and asking him to use search engines but he did not and even adding bigdownload link he says it is unreliable. The game was just announced and information is coming slowly and plus it is releasing it on November according to their official site. Overall that is why i have said "I seriously feel pity on you". Users just can't simply send an article to afd without researching. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy I linked to states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. [...] any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Challenge 1, 2. I still see no reliable sources cited inline in the article. The "pedia" in Wikipedia stands for encyclopedia - it's not a blog or Usenet. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-11t12:03z
    - Comment: I went ahead and added a development section along with inline citations (one of which, GameDaily, is from WP:VG/S, a list of reliable sources for video game articles) to said section. Is this satisfactory? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insurmountable Risks: the Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change[edit]

I was unable to locate any third-party published reviews of the subject book, or indeed even any material references to it in news articles or even blog entries. Neither link provided establishes third-party coverage. Bongo matic 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass the criteria in WP:BK. Amazon sales rank is about #758,000, and I cannot see that the book has been used significantly in academic studies or covered/reviewed in any independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And make sure not created. This is a grotesquely POV title and wholly inappropriate. Editors/ creators are welcome to include sourced information in the appropriate articles on nuclear power. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, of course I agree with the suggestion to delete. However, it seems reasonable to name an article after the name of its subject book, even if the phrase doesn't have NPOV when considered on its own. Bongo matic 06:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance-Driven[edit]

Possibly an attempt to coin a Neologism, the article lacks sources to establish WP:V. No incoming links from other wikipedia articles only further the possibility of WP:NFT Flewis^(talk) 10:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:NEO, insufficient context in reference to the subject matter. Lacks sources to verify its supposed usage in the marketing field. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not really a WP:NEO, but just an unremarkable expression used in marketingspeak. Article is WP:DICTDEF and WP:OR (for the attempt to call this a business strategy). VG ☎ 17:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article is nothing but an attempt at definition. No suggestion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Бобок[edit]

I doubt the veracity of this article. There is no district in Chicago referred to in Cyrillic characters, and the lack of sources/references only further leads to the prospect of WP:NFT Flewis^(talk) 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An un notable district.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A google search reveals nothing to authenticate this claim. Kieranmrhunt (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone was Bo-bored one day. Montrose Avenue is far west near the O'Hare Airport, Division Street is in the east, and I don't know where Ashborn Street would be. Reminds me of The Blues Brothers, where they listed their address as "1060 West Addison Street", and all the Nazis ran out to Wrigley Field. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. The district has Division Street as its northern border and Montrose as its southern border, but Montrose is actually 4 miles north of Division. Also, there is no Ashborn street in Chicago. Also, Cyrillic characters are not used to provide the English names of neighborhoods in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Assuming that the author meant north when he wrote south and south when he wrote north, and meant Ashland rather than "Ashborn", I must live in this "district" … but, wait, I don't. Deor (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the Devil (book)[edit]

Self-published book through Lulu.com which meets none of the notability criteria in WP:BK dougweller (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author, Guillaume Roos, does a good job of using every resource on the internet for self-promotion [52], but Wikipedia can't be one of those resources. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Verano[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. His name does get a mention in the BBC news article that is linked on the page: [53], but I don't think it's enough. Akamad (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he was THE professor of anthroplogy, OK, but A professor implies the US meaning of 'professor' to mean 'teacher'. Only cited work is as a co-editor; hardly impressive. Delete Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. References do not provide evidence of such. Bongo matic 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep Full professors at major research universities are generally notable, even in the US sense. Toulane is a research university, but whether it is of sufficient distinction in the subject for all of its full professors to be notable is not all that clear to me. And in any case from his web page, he's an associate professor, which are sometimes notable, sometimes not. We need to look at the publications to see whether he is recognized as an authority in his field. I see 19 papers and one major book. Unfortunately anthropology is covered inadequately by both Web of Science and Scopus, so we need to use the incomplete and erratic Google Scholar to see the impact. His book Disease and demography in the Americas published by Smithsonian Institute press, is cited by 52 works there. His articles, between 3 and 11 times each. This subject is not my specialty, so I cannot tell how important it is; the field is however very specialized--Andean paleopathology, and South American academic sources are generally not covered well by Google. Borderline in the absence of further information. Another book or two in a few years, and it would be a much clearer keep. DGG (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well written and encyclopedic. Subject has some notability. No reason not to include it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage in NY Times, BBC News, National Geographic, etc., argues for a pass of WP:BIO and possibly of WP:PROF #7. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO with enough media coverage that is “reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” The media hits uncovered by David Eppstein mention him prominently. For example, the NY Times article states that: “The most newsworthy revisionist finding emerged from the study of human bones by John Verano, an expert at Tulane University.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage noted by David Eppstein is incidental: the news stories are about the subjects of Verano's research, not about Verano himself. As such, he appears to fail notability guidelines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For almost all academics, the coverage we have is less about them and more about their research; the mismatch between the sort of celebrity coverage described in WP:BIO and the typical coverage of even the most notable academics is exactly why we have the separate guideline WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a physical anthropologist, which seems to have lower citation rates than other areas of anthropology. In addition to the arguments above, "John Verano" OR "John W. Verano" gets 243 gbooks hits, so he seems pretty well known. John Z (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring all the personal attacks, accusations of COI (which isn't even a content guideline; it's a conduct one), and incivility, and giving the arguments of SPAs and IPs their due weight, there is only one conclusion I can reach, and it is this one. kur ykh 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker Toys[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}}.

Delete Non-notable company. Article deleted before (April 2007), and nothing new has occurred to change the company's status. References are very weak. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the submissions are made from fans and the data collected is from trusted sources fromarround the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi182 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've been working on the article for a bit, and since 2007 the company has been discussed in the Washington ~~Post~~ Times and had additional coverage in Playthings. Sources include the two mentioned, Animation Magazine and The Record (a long, although old, article about the company), while another three print refs have been identified but not yet tracked down. Generally, they're a small toy company, who seem to have a reputation for not always delivering on their products, but I'd argue that they have enough coverage to meet WP:Note, especially with the dispute they seem to have had with Marvel Toys. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "dispute" with Marvel Toys? Was this a court case? Were any sort of legal papers filed? If I write some angry emails to someone of note, then I am notable for being in a dispute with that person? ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably responded to this below, but while you may disagree with the Washing Times' account, they describe it in terms that sound like a dispute to me. That aside, you've already mentioned that you disagree with their account, which is fair enough - but we need to stick to verifiable and reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I also have been working on this article and have come up with many references. The article is small I admit but has a potential to grow since their current licenses have not been mentioned among other things. This user ShockerHelp was the one who vandalized an article related and is now trying to delete the Shocker Toys article out of spite.--JMST (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your personal attacks on me. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack when looking at the previous article you can see that you vandalized the article to look bad instead of properly adding info or refrences to back up what you added. Now that the article has been deleted and this article was made follwing the rules of wiki you have come here to do the same thing and no matter what anyone adds you state that it isn't good enough. Also deletion can be performed only by administrators. Administrators can also view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions are logged. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it. Why after making changes to the article and then when someone steps in to make the article better you nominate it for deletion along with some unkown IP non wiki user? Explain here and now why you think it fair to remove this article about a well known smaller toys company and leave articles for NECA, Marvel Toys, Plan B toys?--JMST (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Been deleted multiple times before, the article has been beefed up to make it slightly more encyclopedic but most of it is just fluff. Yes the company exist, and yes they have produced *some* merchandise but most of their output tends to be just noise to try and get attention. They released some stick things a couple of years back and since then some very limited run, convention only things. Yes they claim to be imminently releasing Indie Spot but they've said that two years ago. As per WP:Toys the sheer existence of the items doesn't make them notable.Adycarter (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has COI as he wrote an article for another toy company for a competing product [54]. He also was founding memeber for the forums of the minimate product showing employment is some manner to the company he wrote it for. Also his mention of stick things in a condescending manner shows his COI intentions. Fact, the stick things he refers to are the product Shockinis which are still sold today and sold worlwide. He also has stated on various other sites his knowledge and distaste of the Shockini products by Shocker Toys so why now has he forgotten what they are called? To me this is a sock puppet attempt to sway deletion of this article especially with the heavy COI which can be seen.--JMST (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You also have a COI. Its been years since i've had anything to do with any of this, I logged into Wikipedia and was amused to find all this still on my watch list. Im not, nor have ever been employed by a toy company as discussed previously. If Ihave such an issue with Shocker Toys, why did I create, maintain and argue for the esxistence of the SHocker Toys article orignally. I was long ago lead to believe, and agreed with the fact that it is non noatable. Wikipedia is not a marketing site, the fact I wrote an article for what you deem to be a competing product surely is infact a plus, as Im familiar with toy companies on wiki, amusingly I dont even see how they're competing... 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment So if you fought that the article should exist, then why did you mark it for delete and why are you now nominating delete? Your motives seem very confusing and I do not see how having an article on a watch list that has improved greatly is warrented for deletion.--JMST (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI thought it should exist long ago, Editors pointed out it really should't. We argued (look through enough of my edit history and you'll see it). I realised they were right, I logged in now, saw it was still on my watch list and was again up for deletion so I added my opinion. Amusing as this is Im fed up of dealing with ShockPuppets of which you clearly are one. But which one? Geoff? Adi? who knows!/cares?. Icame here to vote in the deletion, which I have done. The article IS better than it was, but its still about as encylopedic and warranted as an article on my collection of uniquely crafted, limited edition snot stained tissues. Adycarter (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AdyCarter you have a right to your opinion. I only think that if you thought it was notable at one time and then were swayed by many false deletes then you never gave it a chance. This time this is being monitored and is getting a fair vote (sans a few socks) and you should see that it does have many noteable points. If you wanted to work on the article with me I would be honored to work with you as you did a great job on the minimated article on wiki.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the sources cited in the article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage everyone to consider the proposed guidelines under WP:TOYS. "A toy or game is not notable simply on the basis of being produced, sold, or marketed." The cited references are all trivial and do not provide significant coverage. A proper reference should exclude "mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Trivial references include "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I've posted online links to two of the cited print sources in the article's talk page under History and References, the article from the Record and the 2007 Playthings article. Please take the time to look at them. They do not include significant coverage, nor does the Washington Times article. ShockerHelp (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick reply: first, WP:TOYS doesn't apply. You want WP:Corp or WP:Note. But even if it did, the refs concerned don't suffer from any of the problems you listed. Trivial is always a tad difficult to interpret, but in regard to the three you mentioned: the primary/lead topic discussed in the Washington ~~Post~~ Times article directly concerns the company, the company features in the title (Shocker standing tall after action-figure flap), and there are multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute. The Record's article is only about the company and quite long, and provides some history as to how they were formed, who was involved and their early unreleased products. Indeed, it was perfect for the first part of the history section. The Playthings article is three paragraphs in a much longer article, and describes what they were to show at the Toy Fair. I certainly wouldn't regard it as notable coverage for any of their products, but I'm less certain in regard to the company as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources do not provide a depth of coverage that is substantial. Trivial may be a tad difficult to interpret, but it clearly applies here. The Playthings article is the definition of trivial. The Washington Post article you keep referencing is actually a Washington Times article, making me wonder how closely you have read it. The "multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute" is really more like a couple of lines, and describe the entire situation as "hearsay at best." From WP:CORP, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." The Record article is clearly local coverage. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry - clearly you're right. It is the Washington Times - my brain must be fried. :) That aside, the line that you're misquoting is "A war of e-mails and emotional releases became a murky swamp of licensed-agreement reality versus "he said" hearsay at best" in which the "hearsay" isn't about the existence of the dispute, but a description of what those involved were throwing around. Anyway, anyone else is welcome to read it and form their own opinion. It certainly isn't enough to hang a whole article on (hence all the other refs), but does seem to speak to notability based on mu understanding of it. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But who was throwing what around? It seems clear in the article that the author did not contact Marvel Toys for a response to the accusations. The "licensed agreement reality" would seem to refer to Marvel Toys having put out their product without any sort of legal difficulties. The "'he said' hearsay" would seem to refer to the information the reporter got from the owner of Shocker Toys about the situation. There is no corroborating evidence that there was any sort of real dispute, at least not any reported in the Washington Times' article. I think this weakens the case for notability, as the company seems to have tried to gain press by manufacturing a controversy where none existed. And the article ends with, "Now, if Mr. Beckett's product actually makes it to shelves this summer, he really can celebrate." Well, he can't celebrate because the product didn't make it to shelves this summer, or even this fall. Shocker Toys wasn't the last man standing, and certainly isn't standing tall, as the title of the article suggests. ShockerHelp (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'll step back and let other editors decide. But put simply, you see it as a manufactured controversy, the Washington Times saw it as real enough to warrant publishing and use as the lead for an article. Either way, it seems enough to warrant one or two lines in the WP article. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I see it as the Washington Times seeing it as not a real dispute, but just a guy holding a grudge against a company for supposedly stealing his idea, despite a misleading headline (as if those are rare). If the article stays around, and if you keep the line in, I think it is important not to suggest that the end of Marvel Toys was in any way the result of any sort of dispute with Shocker Toys, at least not without a reference that discusses it in at least some depth. The Washington Times article itself gives reasons for Marvel Toys' troubles at the beginning of the piece, making me wonder why they chose to conflate their demise with the "dispute" with Shocker Toys. Just for a sensationalist headline? ShockerHelp (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm baffled as to why a single-purpose account like yours could exist to see that the article about your company (which isn't overly negative at all) be deleted from wikipedia. But all the same, please read over Wikipedia's guidelines for dealing with a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't ShockerHelp or a sock puppet start the AFD process in the 1st place? That is what baffles me.--JMST (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm baffled, having read the COI guidelines, that you could suggest that I have a conflict of interest without pointing out any reason for making the suggestion. Instead of throwing around an accusation of COI, perhaps point out what I have actually done that is out of line. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, wait! You think it's my company?! That would be a no. ShockerHelp (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name alone hints that you have a personal affiliation with the company, not to mention all the accusations you have made at other editors in this AfD and at the article itself. Themfromspace (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that accusation is a bit ridiculous. Does your name suggest you are an alien? Or perhaps an astronaut? It's just a name. Please stick to what I have actually done wrong. What accusations made at other editors are you speaking about? Please be specific. I believe JMST is strongly affiliated with Shocker Toys. That is the only accusation I've made. That JMST has written repeatedly that he/she is in contact with Shocker Toys on a regular basis seems to suggest I am right (for example, the next comment). Please read the previous AfD for this article, the AfD for the deleted Indie Spotlight article, and JMST's talk page. I think it is clear that JMST is the same user as Smeagal. Notice the exact same wording used in the discussions. Notice how this matches the writing style of the person(s) posting as representatives of Shocker Toys in so many of the references listed on this article's talk page. I think it is clear from just JMST's use of the plural pronouns early on, that JMST is affiliated with Shocker Toys. ShockerHelp (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am affiliated with Obama's campaign as well? Maybe I am an alien? ShockerHelp your accusations are ridiculous and steadly come after COI is mentioned with you and AdyCarter. Please list more firm reasons why this article should be deleted instead of non-notable as we know there is plenty of notablitly to prove you and AdyCarter wrong. And again I have contributed to other articles other then Shocker Toys what have you done? Why with a name like ShockerHelp have you not helped with the article but only went against everything done to improve it? Are you affiliated with their company and they are just not telling the truth?--JMST (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this article and have verified that ShockerHelp is in no way affiliated with Shocker Toys. I have asked the company and they have said he is a former forum member who was banned as he was under a false name there to start problems. He is also under a false name here which he started during another article called Indie Spotlight to trick editors from questioning his vandalizing and skewing of the article.--JMST (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Non-Notable Company. All text presented by obvious company employee, for advertisement purposes. Unable to provide suitable primary sources. Company does not seem to have released any product advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user is a sock Puppet and furthermore he voted delete based on ShockerHelp being a company employee which is untrue. Furthermore he states no advertised products were released which is also false as Shockinis were sold along with various other convention exclusives. I think that User:58.173.234.63's comment should be removed or not counted.--JMST (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — This has been reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-Notable Company. After reading the entry it talks mostly about products they either canceled, or have yet to produce. I think that fails WP:CYRSTAL? If only product information remained about what was actually produced, a substantial portion of the article should be deleted to satisfy Crystal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbedit (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2008

Comment This person says to delete some of article but marks all of it for delete. That should mean he should contribute his thoughts on how the article is to be fixed on the discussion page for the article not marked for delete. I don't mind people's opinion to delete but when it is by someone who hasn't contributed to wiki or seems confused about their Delete mark that bothers me.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — Meets several criteria listed in WP:SK, including what I think is a vexatious nomination which has transformed into a hotbed of disruption and dispute, and that no one unrelated to the topic has !voted to delete. Multiple verifiable secondary sources are there, and the general notability guideline is hence clearly satisfied. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is now a Speedy Keep WP:SK under the rules of Wiki can an admin close this down and remve the AFD from the article? It says users can but is recommended Admins do the deed.

Sock puppet? Huh? I've since received messages from this JMST person demanding my personal information. Is that considered normal? I have no affiliation with any toy company, or anybody on this site, so I really don't know what this JMST person is on about? I looked up more info on Shocker Toys, their CEO Geoff Beckett makes the same typing/syntax mistakes as JMST. Isn't that a direct Conflict Of Interest, and attempt to use Wikipedia as advertising? I am happy to prove my identity to any ACTUAL Wikipedia staff, but I do not appreciate being spammed by this JMST person in such a hostile manner, just for giving my opinion on something that I thought was open for discussion, in as neutral a manner as possible. Obviously their CEO, JMST, feels otherwise. I'm not happy with this treatment at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus. Not to point fingers and say the article is a WP:SPAM. The AFD is to flesh out through consensus if the company is WP:NOTE. So if you can clearly argue and show why with all the refrences that this is a non-notable company then the that should be in your delete statement not attacking me.--JMST (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong vote to DELETE. Clear case of COI on this article and all arguments against deletion. JMST is obviously the same poster as Smeagol from the 1st Shocker page. He is also Geoff Beckett who is the CEO of Sucker Toys. No one else in the world uses the word 'bias' like he does. The speech patterns are the same. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck. Sucker Toys is non-notable because they have only produced 1 product - the Suckini - in a failed attempt to capitalize on the minifigure craze. They couldn't compete with better products, such as the Stikfa or Minimate, so Sucker Toys tried to bring Indie Spotlight to market. Marvel Toys had the same idea, brought their product out, produced 2 lines and quit in the span of time Beckett is still trying to produce anything from the Indie Spotlight line. One failed toy line produced in 8 years does not make a notable company - unless it is an article about how to fail in every aspect of running a successful toy company.Sybilmpd ( —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC). [reply]

Comment First off I am a woman and Wow and this user has no COI at all or bias against the company. And calling of names, libel and slander is uncalled for in this civilized discussion. I do not think that this Delete from User Sybilmpd should be counted.--JMST (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You aren't a woman Geoff. You're the only person I know who still doesn't know how to properly use the word 'biased'. You also haven't grasped the differences between libel and slander - despite years of trying to threaten people who have spoken out against your antics. Civilized discussion? You're the one calling everyone 'sock puppets' 'bias trolls' and generally accusing anyone voting for deletion of either having COI or being out to get Sucker Toys. All of which are trademarks of Geoff Beckett. Hmm...--Sybilmpd

I have learned to be civil maybe you should also, take a look at WP:CIV.--JMST (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can assume that the admin who closes this AfD debate will be smart enough to figure that out. That person can make allowance for contributions from IPs and from single-purpose accounts who have joined the AfD discussion but not edited anywhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken EJ.--JMST (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So...if I post and edit other Wiki articles, that somehow makes my opinion more worthy of consideration?Sybilmpd

Comment I won't vote because I came here because of a post at RTM by JMST and I respect the message on the top of the page. Don't need to because when Indie Spotlight comes out everyone will know how great Shocker Toys is! People supporting Shocker here need to go tell those fools that Shocker is here to stay! ( http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml ) Worldwarhulk (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shocker Toys is a non-notable company. As seen in all of the references shown, the coverage the company gets is only obtained by press releases or stories created by the company themselves. In 8 years of existence, they've managed to get only a handful of articles covering them, which should indicate how insignificant they are. Few of the articles are specifically about Shocker Toys, just brief mentions amongst other things, of those focusing on the company, it is clear they're only based upon press releases and attempts by the company to gain attention, rather than the fact that they achieved anything noteworthy.

The company is known amongst the online toy collecting community more for the fact that they're habitual spammers of message boards (often as seen here, posting as an anonymous fan) and they try to gain attention by sending press releases to gain coverage to try to appear legitimate. As also shown in the articles, this toy line has been "coming soon" for close to three years. The company tries to entice people to give them money for "pre-orders" for items they haven't made.

I understand that more weight is going to be given to the judgement call of experience Wiki editors, as well it should. But I feel it is worth informing those of you who will make the decision of the kind of company being dealt with here. As others have pointed out, JMST is in fact Geoff Beckett from ShockerToys. A quick look at the language used on the ShockerToys forum where he posts as ShockerToys will satisfy anyone of the fact based on his distinctive language skills. Also, as posted by WorldWarHulk the discussion started on RTM (http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml) by JMST urging people to come here to help vote to keep the page is further proof. The user JMST on that forum has registered the email address [email protected]. Clearly a COI exists.

Comment I do not post on that website nor have I ever heard of it. That is not my post and it looks like anyone can post under any made up name. So as far as I know all of these last votes are COI. Please read above "If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors."--JMST (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Shocker Toys on Wikipedia will be lending credibility and notability to a company which otherwise has none. It would not be in the spirit or best interests of Wikipedia to keep this article.SWH (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability covers two concepts on Wikipedia - are there sufficient reliable, third party sources to write an encyclopedic article about a topic, and is the topic significant enough to have an article? The answer to the first, in this case, I think is yes, because there are enough decent, third-party references to support an article. Everything in the article is currently referenced to reliable, non-trivial sources, so it meets WP:Note (I accept that some articles may be based on press releases, but even if some are, the main one isn't, and others aren't). The second one, though, seems to be where you and other people opposing the article are coming from. The problem is that it involves a value judgment, akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But even if we accept that judgment, I'm not convinced that only "good" companies should have articles, and a good Wikipedia article should be from a neutral point of view, which this one is. Thus the problems that people point out - such as the missed release dates - should be (and are) in the article when they can be verified. (Given that too far on the negative side may also violate NPOV, too). - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPerhaps some of the more experienced editors will be able to clarify, but I would have thought that in order to meet WP:Note the sources should discuss something worthy of notice. None of the articles cited seem to show the company has achieved anything notable, such as releasing notable product, or achieved any sort of notable acomplishment. The topics being discussed (signing licences, proposing potential product) are not notable, as it is something every toy company does. It would be akin to saying a footballer is notable because he merely played a game of football. I agree that whether a company is "good" or "bad" should not sway a decision for inclusion. However in this instance, the larger issues relate to WP:Spam and WP:COI, since the company CEO has proposed the topic. I believe this is where an inclusion would be damaging to Wiki.SWH (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, every footballer is notable, if they played a game at the top level of the sport. (At least that's where current consensus and the guideline tends to sit - although clearly not everyone agrees it should be that way). I can see where you're coming from, but my understanding (others may differ, of course), is that the coverage in third party sources means that both they can be written about, and that others have deemed them worth writing about, which covers WP:Note (as an aside, this isn't absolute proof that they should be written about here, though, hence this debate). As to COI, while I understand that many people believe JMST to be Geoff, I'm still inclined to assume good faith and accept JMST claims that she isn't - however, either way, I think the article itself is neutral, thanks in part to ShockerHelp. They may have proposed the deletion, which is fine, but their suggestions also kept the article from getting too positive as well. At this point it has been through a few editors, which tends to help with those problems. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true regarding the football analogy, but I was picturing just a small time game rather than a game at the top of the sport. I guess in this case we could equate it to a toy company perhaps being notable if their product is sold worldwide in major retailers, as opposed to just making a few things to sell on your own website or stall. SWH (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it a tad more complex. :) Mostly because we just went through a rather big debate to determine the relationship of special sub guidelines, like those governing footballers, to the general notability guidelines. The GNG doesn't talk about the value of the topic, but about whether it has been sufficiently covered in reliable sources. Specific guidelines may, depending on how you read them, talk about value. However, WP:Corp, which applies here, specifically speaks against being biased towards large organisations. As far as I can see, though, they exhibit at major toy fairs (whether or not the products are then always released), do sell in some stores (or so I gather with the Shockinis), and have been covered in trade and general sources. So while they are small, they seem to have attracted a degree of notice. If that is sufficient notice is the purpose of this debate. Mind you, if that means that we are lacking articles on more notable toy companies, then I'm all for more articles. :) This has been an interesting debate, though, whichever way it comes out. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it has been 5 days now and it clearly seems the last votes were made at the last minute to pollute the concensus. So the non COI comments seem to state keep the article so let's remove the AFD and move onto working together to make it a great article. I have already worked on 3-4 other articles here on Wiki and I am looking foward to editing more along with this article to make them better.--JMST (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I respect wanting to take someone in good faith, I believe it is seriously worth noting the evidence suggesting JMST is the CEO of Shocker, as it presents a major issue of WP:COI if indeed it is true. Within an hour of posting on here, JMST has posted on my user talk page, suggesting that they know exactly who I am, due to previous negative views I have expressed about the company (and I'm more than willing to admit to the fact that I have encountered this company on the Fwoosh message board, where I somehow became a target of abuse from Geoff after posting my annoyance at regular delays, however I don't believe this presents an issue of COI for myself, as I have no affiliation with the company) If the allegedly impartial JMST knows who I am in such a short space of time, it would suggest if nothing else that he/she is in close, regular contact with the CEO (the company has 2 employees anyway), enough to be considered a potential issue of WP:COI in my viewSWH (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWH your opinion while it is yours has been all over the internet and I have read about it on the Shocker Toys forums in great detail. I thought ShockerHelp was you but it seems they were not. Why must you come here to throw rocks why can't you just contribute to make toy articles better. You are a toy collector are you not? I am here to have a good time and do something I enjoy which is contributing to a hobby I greatly enjoy.--JMST (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just on that topic before I run away and leave this for others, COI isn't typically an issue for deleting articles. It is, however, definitly a concern when it comes to editing. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but if COI does come into play, taking myself out due to me creating the article leaves only 3 non COI nominations and they are all keep.--JMST (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources aren't the best, but they are non-trivial. The article as currently worded has some issues. The way it is now certainly represents the company as more notable than it actually is. It needs to be pruned.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: Of the !voters above, I count only Themfromspace and Bilby as non-single-purpose accounts. All others seem to have come to Wikipedia (or logged back on after a long time) merely to promote or denigrate Shocker Toys. Let me know the outcome of this debate. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Dobrosavljević[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Novak Dobrosavljević (2nd nomination)

This article went up for deletion on October 12th. It was speedied before a full deletion discussion occurred. The original creator recreated the article on the 16th. I tried to give the user a chance to make the person notable but he really didn't. The show he appeared on doesn't even have it's own article. And it appears as though he hasn't really done much since 2004 anyway. Fails notability. And it could possibly be a hoax as I've found no evidence that this show existed. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, and perhaps protect against recreation. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be G4 not G3. ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable. Good faith effort made to work with editor who created it. Kill this article NOW! Thanks to Woohookitty for making such a good effort to give it every possible chance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you may delete it but please don't put it under rewrite protection because i insure you that this person is notable,i mean almost everyone in that country that is not older than 50 knows about him so i assume if a person in any country has status like this then it is notable.Besides his show is not popular as he is,and yes he is not active in past 4 years but he left a huge mark behind him,there is not much information about him because during the late 90s in serbia internet and computers ware used only in business purposes,most common connections ware 56k modem or 64/128k ISDN.Nole is not just some TV person,hes popularity is equal to Milka Canic's and i see that you have her on en wikipedia. And why are some parts of the article missing?
Regards and respect,
Gulsrb (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided source: http://www.b92.net/info/emisije/ovo_vas_jos_nisam_pitala.php?yyyy=2005&mm=03&nav_id=164516 This is a interview with Nole on TV B92 from 11th march 2005,you can translate it with google. I think that this proves the existence of him and his show. Gulsrb (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator because of notability shown by Icewedge [ roux ] [x] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed header. DARTH PANDA ^duel 15:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarry at La Quinta[edit]

No assertion of notability; the first three pages of Google results show no news, only various listings of the course. [ roux ] [x] 07:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a couple citations. Icewedge (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Icewedge has shown notability. [ roux ] [x] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater (novel)[edit]

No assertion of notability; appears to be copyvio. [ roux ] [x] 07:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the copyright violating text. - Akamad (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There is a review from The Blue Iris Journal listed on the books bn.com page, [55], it does provide some critical commentary one requirement of WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Blue Iris Journal was the only reviewer I could find and I am skeptical about its reliability. Particularly since it is inactive for over 3 years. Does not meet any other notability criteria under WP:BK. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I couldn't find any hint of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revelstoke conjecture[edit]

Delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. Reference is a non-specific interview, not available as far as I could find. No references on google or other search engines. Could not find anything under quoted interviewee name either. LouScheffer (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything either. Sure, anyone can make up such a conjecture, but other people need to notice it and publish about it for it to be notable. --Itub (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per good faith efforts to establish notability where there wasn't any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-verifiable. And extremely hoax-y. --Lockley (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Fire (EP)[edit]

Non-notable EP by non-notable band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Changed to Keep: Nice job Gibb. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is established, esp from the Billboard review, MSN Music review, & the Allmusic review. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the usual notability standards (i. e. WP:N). I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Wily D 13:03, 4 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) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Gibb. And i'm wondering why this was even relisted. seems we have a consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Noble EP. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisted because notability might be affected by the outcome of this nomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Molesky[edit]

I thought this was genuine at first, but subsequent edits by the author suggest this is a hoax (see talk). Googling "john molesky mayor" gets nothing relevant. Closedmouth (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or extremely NN by the RS requirements. The author has also made a series of extremely dubious edits to other pages (I have tagged the talk page for speedy deletion as an attack page). The article also does not make sense as it claims he is the mayor of one hamlet and then a police officer in a different hamlet. Icewedge (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or snowball delete after a reasonable time if no serious objections are raised. "East Meadow" "John Molesky" returns no useful web or news results. Nothing on the chamber of commerce website which does list other office-holders. WODUP 07:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax or NN - either way, delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it, it is not a hoax, John really won the position, the East Meadow Herald has not been published since the win and that is more than likely will cover the victory, and I think they have a website, so you will have your confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankhillftw (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing about it in the Nassau County election results. WODUP 22:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering that East Meadow is just a hamlet, they really aren't even eligible to elect a mayor. Obvious hoax and NN. BackInBlack (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged it as db-vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And it was declined because it's at AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Raccoons locations[edit]

Unsourced in universe plot regurgitation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as element of fiction with no source for notability outside the cartoon show, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creators are welcome to merge information contained in article to parent article, but there is no notability for this subject on its own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to The Raccoons. First of all, the title should be "List of (fictional) locations in The Raccoons". Either way, its just an in-universe list of locations in the show's setting. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomist[edit]

I think it fails WP:WEB. Only external links are website and competitor's website. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, tagged. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baclarayo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dict def of a word with no Google hits out side of Wikipedia([56]), entirely unverifiable. Icewedge (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete Delete What are we waiting for? All that's there is a definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computer-supported collaborative learning. Sandstein 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Collaboration Tools in Elementary Education[edit]

Contested prod. Essay, looks like original research, or at the very least a synthesis. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only whatever can be inline sourced to Collaborative learning. We also have another similarly structured page at Computer-supported collaborative learning which would also benefit from this approach. TerriersFan (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This poorly written piece is wholly unencyclopedic. ~~and doesn't demonstrate any notability. It's also kind of shocking that something written about educational tools is written in this manner.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collaborative learning. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Comments have been noted and applied as applicable. MiShe11e38 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding is that the creator and main editor on this article understands the issues and is working to address them. The article will likely be merged or retitled to a more appropriate subject and will be edited to make it more encyclopedic. I have offered to help achieve this and make the merge happen, so I don't think a deletion is necessary at this point. The issues and suggestions are being carried out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctant to close or withdraw this AfD until the proposed action is carried out, but I am hereby giving my full support to a proposition to merge. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This entire section has been moved to CSCL. I have also worked to clean up the existing information in CSCL. MiShe11e38 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. It works there quite well actually. And other editors are welcome to clean it up and make it more encyclopedic. Good job. What happened to the Intro? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heartland. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of America[edit]

Procedural nom, contested prod. This is a dictionary definition, insufficient evidence of significant coverage of the concept in reliable sources. McWomble (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition; nothing to put here except usage information and a list of mentions (trivia)... not encyclopedic. --Rividian (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland. Novidmarana (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above author.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Seems a logical place to add any small amount of information that may accrue here. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah swetnam[edit]

Found this while RC patrolling, tagged it at first for a COI. Further research found nothing about this person, or any award mentioned hence it fails WP:N and a link to a blog like site indicates WP:PROMOTION. Also note that there is still a WP:COI issue. Marcusmax(speak) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable at best, hoax at worst. Punkmorten (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this person is pretending to be Drake Bell, as all the characters in the article were played by Mr. Bell. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete with salt Time wasting hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sokolowska[edit]

Speedy deletion was refused based on a claim made in the article, but I can still only find 8 unique google hits related to this individual, and it is totally unreferenced. I have tried searching via Polish google, and have received similar results. role^player 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a couple of weeks to allow time for the article to meet the rules.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Julia who? Seems as though every up-and-coming someone seems to want to rush to Wikipedia as long as they do something they consider remarkable just to have an article on themselves. This is not a phone directory of all minor entrepreneurs. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing in article suggests notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of alternative medicine[edit]

Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a repository of loosely-connected topics. Arguably, WP:NOT#FAQ also applies.

Let me expand on the second point a minute, as it's perhaps less obvious. Alternative medicine is a huge, diverse field - each aspect of Alternative medicine has its own jargon, and there's very little overlap. The glossary makes no attempt to deal with this, instead providing random collections of definitions from whereever, ranging from "Index of articles on CAM" (A list of links, filed under I!) Various other sets of links appear somewhat randomly throughout, as it doesn't actually stick to defining terms, but also seeks to duplicate some of the alt-med category trees. Then we get random interjections (Asklepios, Lifestyle), really really obscure therapies that don't even have a Wikipedia article or very little of one, (Bioecological medicine, Group modalities, plus Tibetan eye chart is a one-line stub, and Grahamism redirects to Sylvester Graham, in which article you will find none of the information listed in the glossary) and so on.

While there are probably some subjects that might benefit from a glossary, alternative medicine is perhaps one of the worst choices for such an undertaking. It's far too broad and too disconnected. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is a huge category, unsuitable for a list. RayAYang (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. It is also not neutral in its support for these beliefs, wording, etc. It already is categorised, and that's how this should be done. Verbal chat 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also List of branches of alternative medicine which covers the same material without the commentary. Verbal chat 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of branches of alternative medicine which covers the same ground. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would also argue that Wikipedia should not be a glossary, but that is an extension of policy that will need further discussion. Currently, we clearly ban dictionary entries, but seem to allow "Glossaries". The difference between a dictionary and a glossary is subtle ... To my mind, dictionaries define the words, while glossaries explain the words. To get back to the article in question: dispite its title, the bulk of the article consists of nothing more than dictionary definitions of various alternative medicine terms. In the few cases where the article actually acts as a "glossary" (ie it actually explains a term, as opposed to simply giving a definition of it) a seperate article can be written (or already exists) for the term. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment... I note that the page has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. I do think that that is a better location for the information. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have lots of "Glossary of..." articles, simply place it in the search bar to see that. AfD is not for cleanup, if the current state of the article is poor we can improve it, but the subject/form of the article is surprisingly not unusual for wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep, dictionaries do not usually have glossaries, so WP:NOT#DICT doesn't apply. However, if it's been transwikied to Wiktionary, it may be adequate to include the wikitionary pointer to each article which has this in the #See Also section, and remap all links. Pure deletion would lose significant information of benefit to readers, even if the article is deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument here is that a Glossary = a Dictionary... and as such, WP:NOT#DICT certanly does (or should) apply. I am not sure what your comment that "dictionaries do not unsually have glossaries" even means, much less what that has to do with WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it's just in a few navigation templates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep glossaries are appropriate content. Essentially they are related to templates or lists, and serve for navigation. We may need to specify this somewhere. DGG (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, if this version is newer than the one there already. For some reason, my {{dict}} was reverted because dictionaries are not glossaries??? 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the issue here... are dictionaries and glossaries the same thing or not?... From the discussions on the talk page, it seems that the consensus at WP:NOT#DICT is that there is some sort of difference... but I can not find any place on Wikipedia that spells out what that difference actually is. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICT doesn't say anything about not creating glossary pages; it says we should not create dictionary entry pages. The difference is simple: a dictionary entry defines one word, while a glossary is a list of definitions (plus other differences between a glossary entry and a dictionary entry that are not relevant here). Glossaries may be kept per WP:LIST, like DGG says. However, like others have commented, the scope of this glossary may be too broad to be useful. I have no comment regarding that. --Itub (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... if I get this, you are saying that Wikipedia can contain dictionaries (or articles that are essentially mini-dictionaries), but should not, itself, be a dictionary? I am not sure if I agree with that distinction. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concern: I note that this article also has serious WP:V and WP:NOR concerns... the vast majority of the terms being defined in this "Glossary" have no citation. Yet another reason to Delete. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, since the creator and a major controller of the glossary was our thrice indef banned User:Mr-Natural-Health/User:John Gohde, who attempted to control and twist all alternative medicine subject matter to his own ends and even bragged about it. -- Fyslee / talk 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of just using the List of branches of alternative medicine. Commentary is unnecessary. The articles serve that purpose. The List serves a valuable purpose, since one editor has single-handedly gone and deleted most categorizations of alt med articles from the Category:Alternative medicine. While being in a subcategory does serve as an excuse to do so, inclusion in the main category is still allowed in many cases. Right now it's difficult to track down all articles that are properly classified as alternative medicine. -- Fyslee / talk 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep might need to be renamed or modified but not deleted. Trickrick1985 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way modified or renamed? Thanks, Verbal chat 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT as suggested above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of branches of alternative medicine. Most of the entries in the glossary are modalities and have entries there. The terminology unique to each practice should be treated in the relevant article or family of articles. The terminology of classification is far too inconsistently applied across alternative medicine to make a coherent article. We could just repeat everything the NCCAM says, but the subcategories Category:Biologically based therapies &c. serve the encyclopedia better. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unclear why it would be more clear to rename it but if policy insists we do so then rename away. the article as is is well organized and useful. To me - exactly what Wikipedia is - not what it is not. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeneCosta[edit]

Contested ProD, non-notable local politician, fails WP:BIO#Politicians and WP:BLP1E, ~~no sources~~. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used a lot of sources. I live in the region where Gene campaigned, so I'd like to see this remain. He was on the local newspapers, radios, and TV. Is there a problem with them not showing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) — TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He got a lot of coverage for being 18 and running after all. If I could have help making these source links work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small-town politician who ran and lost. No particular sources other than suburban local paper; not in Google News, where you'd expect to find this week's losers listed. And, believe it or not, 18 year old candidates are not all that unusual, let alone notable. Rklear (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's in the Dallas Morning News, one of the largest papers in the country. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/031308dnmetelexfilings.4df6d97b.html TheBTMANIAC (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- My mom could receive a passing mention in the Washington Post; that doesn't justify inclusion of an entire article about her here. MuZemike (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dallas Morning News article is a list of everyone in the DFW area that filed for city council or school board. It mentions Costa; it's not *about* him. Rklear (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That one isn't but the one I list below is. - Dravecky (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ran for a purely local office and lost. RayAYang (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:POLITICIAN. WP:RS attention comes from running for office and most of them are trivial, including the Dallas Morning News cite mentioned above. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are two articles, one in the Lewisville paper and one in the Dallas Morning News, where Costa is the direct subject of the article. This, plus the other coverage, just pushes him across the general threshold for notability. (I've done some cleanup on the article, added references, and added categories.) If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to "Gene Costa" instead of its current errant name. - Dravecky (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I refer to above are:

Eakin, Dan (March 11, 2008). "Gene Costa, 18, files for Highland Village mayor post". Lewisville Leader.
Parsons, Jay (March 23, 2008). "18-year-old mayoral hopeful has some points". Dallas Morning News.

These are not "passing mentions". - Dravecky (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they're still along the lines of a press-release. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Wikipedia is not news. The subject needs to be of lasting interest established by discussion in secondary sources. Rklear (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those reads anything like a "press release" and both are exactly the sort of third-party coverage from reliable sources that the standard requires. - Dravecky (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — I disagree with WP:NOT#NEWS as this is not trivial coverage. However, the sources indicate BLP1E. If reliable coverage (via independent sources of course) can be found regarding this person besides from the mayoral election, then I'll gladly flip-flop. MuZemike (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject clearly has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Citing BLP1E would only be useful if seeking to redirect this article about a candidate to an appropriate article about the election ("cover the event, not the person"). Also, it should be renamed to Gene Costa as noted above. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N calls for coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. While newspaper articles can be secondary, the kind of direct interviews with the subject cited here are really primary sources. They can supplement, but they are not a substitute for, secondary coverage. Rklear (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A newspaper article is a secondary source. It will rely on primary sources, but it is itself a secondary source. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A third place finisher, not a major party candidate. Any coverage is for the fact that he's only 18, but this is the sort of human interest trivia that is not notability, no matter how many sources from that area cover it. It's still not encyclopedic. This is what results when we count sources, instead of looking for actual importance or significance. NOT NEWS and ONE EVENT was intended to deal with things like this, but if it isn't clear that they do keep this out they needs wording with some more precision. DGG (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Third-place is no mark of notability, no matter what ephemeral 'man bites dog' story the local newspaper writes about it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG says it perfectly. RMHED (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orangemike. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D (The Energy Never Dies)[edit]

Back again under a slightly different title. Previously deleted on several occasions (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (3rd nomination) for most recent). Nothing appears to have changed in the meantime. References cited are forum and blog posts - themselves admitting that the information is only rumoured. Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL and arguments in past AfDs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Still doesn't address the problems. Might be time to break out the salt shaker. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Violin Diary[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}}.

Non-notable self-published book, not even available on Amazon.com. ~~Page contains numerous external links to non-existent pages in an apparent effort to falsely fluff up its importance.~~ bd2412 T 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong about the external links being false - the original author used incorrect syntax, so they came up as errors when I tried to visit them. I have now fixed them, but I see nothing that convinces me that the work is notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we're a step in the right direction. Thanks for fixing it up. You have proven yourself noble. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Perfectly Notable. I received a copy of this book from the bookstore I work at. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are tens of thousands of non-notable books in bookstores. What is it about this specific book that makes it encyclopedically notable? Has it been on any best-seller lists? Received a Pulitzer? Been in Oprah's book club list? bd2412 T 03:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  - There seems to be a lot of listings for books on this encyclopedia that werent anywhere near the bestsellers list, seriously though, there is no legit reason for flagging my article. Melia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It not anyone's fault that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MuZemike (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's real nice, but totally subjective. Voters should disregard above comment. If you were told to come here by User: BD2412, I suggest getting a conscience. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just bought this book from a bookstore in Maine and if that doesn't legitimize the existence of it than I don't understand this website. 72.73.119.146 (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 72.73.119.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Being able to buy the book at a bookstore does not justify inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In defense of the 72.73 (and so forth), how about the fact that this book was discussed on the Early Show and that they interviewed the author? Geez, what is wrong with you people? Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, I've been following the back and forth postings between Melia and MuZemike and its disgraceful on both of your parts. This was inappropriately flagged and I believe it's worthy of an encyclopedia article. Especially since they had a long commentary about it on on television, which I believe that Melia mentioned. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Woodyallenfan2004 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- I am simply citing a common deletion discussion pitfall. What else am I supposed to do when blatantly attacked? MuZemike (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, I apologize. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note to closing admin that Woodyallenfan2004 has about a dozen edits on Wikipedia, and therefore may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. bd2412 T 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Fails notability criteria for books. Not only is it not listed at Amazon, I have trouble finding any such book on Google Books, or any reference on Google News. Google Web search yields a paltry 4 results, one of which is a Wikiquote deletion discussion, reading of which yielded the interesting tidbit that the book is self-published. References in the article itself either come from the book's promoters, or a blogspot posting. I conclude that a self-published book without any published reviews, is not suitable for Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You either keep it or you delete it, I don't think that fact that you typed STRONG should matter anymore than my keep. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously doubt this will help: The Violin Diary is listed in Other Works. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remember that this is not a majority vote. Deletions (or "keeps") are not granted by means of a vote. This is a discussion pertaining to whether this article should be deleted or not. A closing administrator weighs in the arguments and makes the appropriate decision from there. MuZemike (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't whether the book exists, it is whether it meets our standards for notability. For a book, these can be found at WP:BK. It needs to meet at least one of these criteria:

1. it has been "the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." It clearly fails this one.

2. Winner of a major literary award. It fails this one.

3. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Again, fails this one.

4. "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Fails this one.

"5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." And fails this last one.

In addition, this book is self-published, and "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". I can see no justification for calling this book notable, it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:BK and WP:N. Fails notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any self-published MUST have iron-clad sourcing if it's going to meet notability requirements. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Notability.--SkyWalker (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without passing judgement on this article or the book itself (which I'm sure is quite good), but it's self-published, the references provided are blogs (which are generally not considered to be reliable sources), and it does not seem to meet any of the WP:BK notability criterion. Every book article is held to these standards, and I don't see why this one should be an exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per RayAYang, Dougweller and Lankiveil. And MuZemike is quite correct: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. freshacconci talktalk 12:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scant evidence of notability – or mention – beyond the author and publisher's own sites. (There is one three-paragraph blog entry by an individual with no apparent literary or media credentials.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as per above. I don't think anyone contests it exists. That's not relevant, thought.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can Wikipedia encompass the sum of human knowledge if it doesn't include borderline notable books, as one would call this? Should this get removed, I will withdraw my work on this site and remove and images I've donated. This is insulting, not because you flagged the article I put so much work into, but because of the ignorance of the editors. Amelia Nymph (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You are free improve the article by moving it in your userpage for ex: User:Melia Jansen/The Violin Diary after it passes wp:notability you can move it to mainspace. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems you guys have figured out exactly how to get your way, this teaming up against Melia is just wrong. 66.108.167.71 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.108.167.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment No one is teaming up with the user. The article fails certain Wikipedia policies--SkyWalker (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Out of spite" is not a valid reason to keep. MuZemike (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This self-published book clearly fails WP:BK. Not even close. Ignoring or arguing against established notability criteria is not constructive: Wikipedia is just not the right venue for introducing new authors. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — User:Melia Jansen has been blocked for blatant incivility and harassment towards other users. MuZemike (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for 48 hrs. Anyways the person has left wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:BK: dubious publisher, not held in any libraries (no OCLC number on worldcat.org), etc. VG ☎ 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable book, clear fail, clear delet.Theseeker4 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any criteria per WP:BK. It has an ISBN, a few reviews, and that's about it. The book is also self-published via Lulu, which is indicative of non-notability unless notability can be attributed from other sources. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The book is not listed in worldcat. The author is not listed in worldcat. The claimed author of the published review is not listed anywhere Sometimes a self-published book can get popular/notable despite such indications--but the very few comment on the web sources given, and the total of 10 ghits for "violin diary" norcross as a search string, show very clearly otherwise. This is one case where I would object to moving the material into even userspace unless some indications of possible notability were given. If in a few months I'm wrong, of course, that's always possible. But now I would suggest a rapid close to this to avoid serving indirectly as publicity. DGG (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:BK and snowball close per DGG ukexpat (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No suggestion of notability in long advertisement of an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's obvious to anyone outside of the small world of Wikipedia that there is a serious bias against Amelia Nymph and her article. The insulting teaming up against her and the article in question has caused yet, another editor to give up on this "encyclopedia." If that's what you want to call it. To want to create a database with the sum of all human knowledge, as Wales once said, isn't possible with these practices and I highly suggest new reform is needed. Yes, I have few to no edits and I don't really care, this is just ridiculous how you guys have treated her hard work. 74.64.120.155 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Note — above IP has been blocked for block evasion. MuZemike (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no bias against the author or her article, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has standards such as Notability (books) which subjects for articles must meet, and this one doesn't. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK Alexnia (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article creator has mentioned on User talk:Melia Jansen a desire to blank (delete) the article, due to the a youtube comment/conversation with the book's author. I do not have a link to that youtube conversation to see if it's valid or not. With the large number of delete votes, and the lack of contributions to the article, we may be able to interpret this as a loose CSD G7/SNOW delete. Anyone want to close early?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She sent me the link - www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQjbC2dPPb0 -- article creator and book author are pretty clueless about how Wikipedia works, I don't know if it is worth commenting on Youtube, probably not. Author accepts unpublished books can't have articles, but also claims if the book isn't endorsed by corporate America it won't be allowed, and that article creator just got blocked for arguing about it. dougweller (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riddler's Moon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Riddler's Moon

Unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:NF. Non-dropframe (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When even a short list of actors in the film includes 6 people notable enough for their own Wikipedia pages (and, I might add, actors whose name are immediately recognizable by any TV or movie watcher), the film is obviously notable. Clearly the article needs work, but that's no reason for an Afd. --Kickstart70TC 04:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : See above "keep" Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ STRONG Keep. AfD nomination is flawed as nom failed to follow WP:ATD, and the most cursory of searches found plenty to show notability. This article should have been tagged for expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason for speedy keep. MuZemike (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes notability. Needs expansion and i have done enough to beautify it. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; this article conforms to the Wikipedia policy. -- IRP ☎ 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molina Cigar Company[edit]

I don't see how this 2-year old cigar company meets the WP:CORP notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first paragraph fails to establish notability while the second paragraph seems to be POV commentary about a product, which also does not establish notability.Theseeker4 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "Founded in May 2007 ... privately-held ... founded by Luis Roberto Molina (who) has smoked cigars since he was sixteen". DELETE NOW! Not a shred of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sliwinski[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:BLP. Could be redirected to Love Arcade if that article does not get deleted. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP of an individual of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Disambiguous Page (RMHED, you knew damn well I would figure a way to make this complicated. ;) Seriously, this is likely the answer. Assuming the band he was a member of passes AFD (my guess is yes, they did release an album on a major label) then it would ok to just change to a disambiguous page. In the event that they didn't, then he doesn't have enough notability as a stand alone bio and a delete is in order. Then recreate the page for a different Tony Sliwinski, since I found tons of reliable sources for a doctor with the same name. This is why I would say disambig instead of a redirect. If it does go disambig, just ask and I will put up a stub for the doctor page, and yes, with sources. It appears the doctor does a lot of Erectile Dysfunction work and is easy to source. If we switch Tony's instead of a disambig page, it likely should be deleted to remove the history first. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete While my above idea would have been valid if the band was notable, it was brought to my attention that they are likely NOT. Now a delete is in order, and then recreate the article with the more notable doctor. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Schibeci[edit]

fails WP:BIO, notable information can really be included in SEN 1116. Also seems a bit WP:FANCRUFT Michellecrisp (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:26, 1 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) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep After some searching, I found several links to his interviews from different sources, added a couple of quick weaker refs, but found enough when looking to convince me that he would be considered notable in Australia. Not a super star, but notable enough and fairly well known in his field. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these references you've found seem more to prove he exists rather than meets WP:CREATIVE as a radio commentator. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this person probably warrants no more than a short mention at the SEN article. The references provided are very weak and don't come close to establishing notability in my opinion. Reyk _YO! 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no notability and references in article are ~~a joke~~ not good.ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, lacks 3rd party sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is marginal, but if there's no consensus to delete after 12 days, it's time to default to keep and move on. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Lato[edit]

I've declined a speedy on this article because this biography asserts notability but may not pass WP:BIO. According to Kasnie (talk · contribs), this article has been "deleted for not meeting notability guidelines on Polish Wikipedia and should likewise be deleted from English Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:16, 1 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) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of keeps only because he placed 5th in Idol and was also on Big Brother, which clears wp:oneevent, and approaches multiple instances of minor celebrity. Likely, this could be sourced better, but that is a tag issue. This is admittedly marginal, but the threshold appears to be passed. Or he is at least sitting directly on top of it. Maybe the notability is more obvious to those in Poland or of Polish descent. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dennis, it is not. Delete per above. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets AFD listed, then relisted TWICE, but no one has an opinion until they get a chance to tell me I'm wrong ;). DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just didn't see it before, I was very busy moving back then. Sorry ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- game show contestants are generally not notable, even if they have been on two game shows. A quick Google search yields a lot of facebooky and myspacey links, but nothing that would satisfy the reliable secondary source criterion at WP:N. The mob from the Polish Wikipedia got this one right. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many weeks on Idol and Big Brother aren't the same as showing up for a 30 minute shot on Wheel of Fortune. I agree it is still very marginal, but the comparison really doesn't apply. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable to Polish tv audiences. Has appeared on two different major shows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no, not really. There are audiences and audiences. This is after all a country of 38 million with loads of folks viewing very different stuff. Notability is, if at all present, in the lowest levels if you consider this. And outside of tv - the person's just not notable at all. Addendum: if I may call a recent example of a similar case for the courtroom to consider. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:BIG says the number really doesn't matter, it is the coverage. I would have to disagree with your logic in this case. I would also disgree comparing it to other cases via WP:EXISTS. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The other case was a person that just reached another standing on Idol. I stand by my !vote. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and non emerging either StarM 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Reagan[edit]

Non-notable porn actress. No independent reliable source prove any notability per WP:PORNBIO. Seems to be WP:COPY, but I'm not sure. Tosqueira (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tosqueira (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements by Epbr123. She has more than trivial coverage by AVN. Plus, I've seen her naked in person... a lot. Take that as a disclosure or just sheer bragging. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although much improved, article still fails to state why she is notable. And no, the AVN "Fresh New faces" cover doesn't qualify under WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N, which is better than passing WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does she pass WP:N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.255.198 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the significant, reliable, independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - According to WP:N, multiple sources means that it is presumed to satisfy notability, but it is not guarantee. Still does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO which is the specific consensus about pornographic actors. Tosqueira (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and IMO it still ain't enough. As WP:N says, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I respect that opinion. What counts as "trivial" is highly subjective. But in my opinion, an entire article devoted to her, plus lesser coverage in five other articles, is more than enough to satisfy the "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" clause. Also, although I don't expect it to carry much weight until proven, she is likely to receive an AVN Award nomination in a couple of weeks. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For people trying to weasel out of WP:N, remember that Wikipedia:Notability (people) says "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Juzhong (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epbr123 & Juzhong. Mathmo ^Talk 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires (song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single in US only, never released commerically at any stage Paul75 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 5 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, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, wasn't on an album, nothing else to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GHV2#GHV2_Megamix. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHV2 Megamix[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only. Paul75 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I have added in the info from this page to the GHV2 page where it is more appropriate for this article. JWAD (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GHV2 because User:Jwad has merged some of the information from this article into GHV2. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Dance - Single Edits of Album Remixes[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo release only. Pointless article with no references, the information can easily be assimilated in the You Can Dance page. Paul75 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the information can be listed on You Can Dance. That said, I think it would be best if the article's contents were merged in some way with You Can Dance. --icorey (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability criteria for albums makes clear promo-only versions are generally not notable, and articles that are litle more than a track listing may be appropriately merged if possible. This promo version scored an arguably notable chart hit in February 1988, but all other references to it are in the context of the main You Can Dance album which was released on the same day. All of the information in this article already appears in the page relating to the mainstream album of the same name. Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fat Pig[edit]

unsourced and suspected conflict of interest: article created by User:Anna_kaise, a single purpose account who also posted the band's image on commons, and edited by another IP editor. There are no indications as to how the group passes any of the criteria of WP:BAND in terms of nation-wide tours, or independent review of albums. WP is not Youtube or myspace. 148 Ghits -other than the band's own youtube/myspace links, the vast majority of hits are generic in nature. OINK! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MUSICBIO. Fails every single criteria present. ThePointblank (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThePointblank's observations. The only sources provided are youtube videos. Definitely not notable per WP:MUSICBIO. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - generic title and per nom. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails music, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy McCommish[edit]

Does not meet biographical notability standards. Since the article uses a pen name for the author of a column with a narrow audience, there will not be any reliable sources. —— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just 18 non-wiki ghits for the author, none of which show notability; zero gnews hits. Searching for the column gives lots of hits, but few about this column.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 5 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) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-verifiable, probably non-notable. Unsourced.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Ed. It is non-notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unsourced, unencyclopedic article that appears to be copyvio from "Source: American Scouting Digest, 7001 St. Andrews Road, Columbia, SC 29212 Source: United States Scouting Service Project, Inc."ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jadiel[edit]

Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Lo Mejor de Mí, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 5 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) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article clearly establishes subjects non-notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-series[edit]

Non-notable record label. No in-depth, independent coverage provided, none found. I found several passing mentions, but nothing to indicate this is a notable label. TN‑X-Man 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 5 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) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and lack of interest in fixing article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and possibly Speedy: NN company. --Ragib (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signuno[edit]

VfDs for this article:

closed as no consensus

This is an article about a language nobody speaks described on someone's Geocities website. The proposer of the subject this article is about is "anonymous" because all he did was post it to Geocities. Fails WP:WEB in all sorts of ways. Shii (tock) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First of all, it's not a language. It's a manual coding of Esperanto. Even though I've worked on the article, I have to say that I can't see how it's at all notable. As trivia it's not even interesting. The one thing that might be of interest, the manual alphabet, is already included at Esperanto orthography. Then there's the silliness about handing over the "rights", when there are no rights possible over languages and scripts. kwami (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"delete non-notable, non-verifiable, no sources except its own website.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the good faith efforts of my fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infighting[edit]

This article consists of a dictionary definition and "case study". A previous editor has commented that "I still think this is a bit unencyclopedic". In essence, the definition may have a place in wictionary (though it is not very accurate) and the case study may be an event worthy of its own article. However, without the case study (which is an entirely random example) this is just a dicdef. The article is far from encyclopaedic and reeks of an essay and original research. Emeraude (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author citing "case studies" is WP:OR - the case studies do not come from WP:RS. Per nom this is a dictionary definition flesh out with original research. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:49, 5 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) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic as such could become a WP article one day but in its present shape it is hopeless. The definition at the top -- "Infighting is a term normally used in political parties and sometimes in religious organizations to describe dissenters from a hegemony" -- is unsourced and idiosyncratic.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Articles that are presently definitions but clearly stand for notable concept like this are justified as stubs. Only unexpandable one with no potential for articles should be deleted as dicdef. The case example is however dubious content here and does give the appearance of the article being inserted only for that. DGG (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As per discussions. Keep vote suggests "could" be made encyclopedic and notable. When it is let us know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - good work, people. DS (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Fire[edit]

Non-notable, only refs are from the band's site, the label's site and a page promoting the band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the usual standard. I see no reason to deviate from that here. Wily D 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maybe I'm going totally nuts, but [62] Google search seemed to turn up mostly refs to this article. Perhaps after deletion, we should redirect there as well. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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