Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

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 merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode One (The Office, Series One)[edit]

Non notable unreferenced episode. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles are not as good as they should be, but having done a quick google search, each episode is notable enough for an article, IMO. I'm not at home or using my own computer at the moment, otherwise I would add references myself. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Information needs to be verifiable, and it is. The episodes themselves are sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of notability however is a reason for deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - TV episodes are inherently notable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to which guideline? Even WP:NOTINHERITED says the opposite. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. And I'm not going to argue about this with you; you know as well as I do that they're notable, or you wouldn't even be advocating their inclusion the main list. They can have their own articles for the same reason they get a separate, comprehensive listing on Wikipedia: TV shows have at least some inherent level of notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. - Exactly. There are no policies and guidelines, and your blanket reasoning is included in an essay named Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please also refrain from putting words in my mouth; I do not know as well as [you] do that they're notable (I don't live in the UK), and even if the episodes were individually notable (proof anyone?), I'd still argue to summarize their plot in a list until they satisfy for a WP:SPINOUT without violating WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have missed the point. The page you keep pointing out to everyone is an essay, but the page that says the articles can stay is called WP:V. It's a pretty well-known policy, and it's the only standard that has to be met. If you don't think they're notable at all, why would you support their inclusion on a list? List items have the same standards for notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"; the request to add third-party sources to establish notability has been virtually ignored for 15 months (some would say because there are no such sources), so you can draw your own conclusions for the articles from the comment you just made. Anyway, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise also shows consensus that lists do not necessarily operate under WP:N, a view I share for the time being. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And you're welcome to your opinion. You stated it below, and that's sufficient. When it becomes policy, let me know. My point - based on policy - is that reliable, third-party sources can be found. There's nothing that says they have to be cited in the article. They just have to exist somewhere. Again, that was my original point: They're out there, and you can go find them if you want, but nobody is required to cite them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is, it's not my WP:BURDEN to find and add sources, it's yours. My main point is also that the articles consist entirely of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT; cast lists don't offer analysis). Since no-one seems to be willing to fulfill his burden, I suggested merging over deletion; what is your solution? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BURDEN is about providing proof for questionable material, not for establishing notability. Quit trying to wikilawyer your way through this - I didn't start editing yesterday. The point is, it's nobody's burden to add sources. If there's something specific you are questioning, use a {{fact}} tag. These are TV shows, not biographies of living persons, so they don't need to use comprehensive citations. If someone wants to, that's great. There is plenty of coverage from the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph for them to use. But nobody has to add it. Not being sourced is not a reason for deletion, as long as it is verifiable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added {{fact}}s to specific instances that I doubt, per your suggestion, and have also added a {{plot}} tag (did you read my last comment?) to the pilot episode to stimulate article improvement. Time will tell if that's effective, or if they'll just continue to be ignored to support merging as the better option. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!) (but tags were removed for the pilot in March[1]), the tags of the others were removed in prod attempts[2] and by IPs[3] and no one noticed or did something about it). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. The lack of episode titles and the existance of the US version make it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. The pilot episode may have a bit more potential though for obvious reasons. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are likely aware of WP:ITSNOTABLE, will you provide the sources please? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. The articles on individual episodes have many problems and do not show why they are notable to have seperate articles. TJ Spyke 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list article is less notable and also has no references - the supposed solution makes matters worse. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Office (US TV series) episodes is a featured article so I can't see why the UK list can't be the same.

A better example is the article on the [equivalent US episode]. Notice how that has lots of references which establish notability. The UK original made plenty of impact - that's why it was remade. Your contention that these episodes are not notable is patently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Spyke didn't make lack of notability an issue but not showing notability. Since no-one so far is willing to add impact information (if it exists for all episodes), why can't the plot summaries as well be covered in the LoE? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the first series is to be kept, can the episode titles be changed to the proper names? The first episode is called Downsize, this is the name given on IMDb. If it has name instead of Episode One I think we should use it. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - any editor can change the name of an article by moving it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kafziel and Matthewedwards; also, each of these episodes in the UK first series were templates for the first season of the U.S., German, French, etc. versions of the show. Very likely that with a little work on the part of the people generally involved with wiki'ing The Office, the pages can all be sourced adequately. That's my .02 anyway. JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Poor quality fork on non-redirectworthy title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas'[edit]

An article for this already exists. WadeSimMiser (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does another article already exist, but it looks like a fan site also. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant with Jonas Brothers and the individual brothers' articles. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered by Jonas Brothers, and Jonas already exists as a disambiguation page. No point in having an article titled with the apostrophe.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Three (The Office, Series Two)[edit]

Again, another non notable episode unreferenced. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!) (but was removed by an IP in April[4] an no one noticed or did something about it). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Lack of episode titles makes it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other sister nominations - a confusing mix of group and single nominations. Lack of notability cannot be inferred from the lack of references and the nominator has made no case that this is not due simply to lack of effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ANU Law Revue[edit]

Delete-Retrieves 20 g-hits, none notable http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22anu+law+revue%22&start=20&sa=N , having been to a show I severely doubt it possesses notability. It consists of 3-4 nights a year showing the equivalent of the local, amatuer misfits in drag, who get high off the fact that they are performing, and people are watching them. A place for (bad) amatuer comedians to go and die quietly, which has minimal audience (sold out doesn't mean alot in the context of a 3 night show in a tiny theatre), and doesn't even approach the bootlaces of notability for a play. It should go the same way as the Qld one here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Queensland Law Revue, and if anybody knows more about the other revues sub-linked to the page below, they should consider whether the articles also deserve an AfD JJJ999 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale provided by nominator --Matilda ^talk 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian National University -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge, and it's inappropriate anyway because it isn't significant enough to merit a merge to what is in reality an unrelated page. The University doesn't run the Law Revue, a collection of students do. There is no value to a merge that forces absurdly tangential content to a real page.JJJ999 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable event for the largest university in that country. Dream Focus (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think ANU is the largest university in Australia and I don't think it has nmanaged to be shown that this is a notable event for ANU - if you wish to maintain that assertion, please provide some sources to back it up. --Matilda ^talk 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, not only is it not the largest university (though it is one of the 8 largest/sandstone universities), but that fact has no bearing on notability of an event that a rag tag bunch of misfits who happen to go to ANU participate in.JJJ999 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the logic of dream focus, it would mean that an event at the largest country/corporation etc is notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable outside the university, or for that matter students/staff of the university who are not involved in the revue. these kind of events almost never get reported in mainstream media. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Orderinchaos 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Two (The Office, Series Two)[edit]

Another "The Office" episode which isn't notable and is completely unreferenced. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!) (but was removed by an IP in April[5] an no one noticed or did something about it). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Lack of episode titles makes it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Lack of references is a reason to improve the article per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode One (The Office, Series Two)[edit]

This episode isn't notable at all. Doesn't even have any sources. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Lack of episode titles makes it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These episodes are extremely notable as the show was a big hit and few episodes were made. To pick one of many examples here we have a scholarly paper on business ethics which, inter alia, discusses episode 2 of season 2. The lack of such references in the article is quite normal and, per our editing policy, is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb. My same rationale applies for all such nominations of The Office here on AfD.ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear web A7, no evidence or asserion of notability for the website. TravellingCari 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Black Online[edit]

Contested PROD. This is an unremarkable fansite, which doesn't meet WP:WEB. The awards this site is supposed to have received are not from well known publication or organisation. Deadly∀ssassin 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Claudia Black - perhaps. Non-notable per WP:WEB. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources, not enough to merge in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~-delete- she is prominent enough that surely sources can be found. This isn't the best article, but perhaps some time should be given for it to get more sources. What is the membership like? It could be significant.JJJ999 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)On further inspection, it fails notability.JJJ999 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she might be notable enough, but the question is whether this website is. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~SPEEDY Delete although Claudia Black may be notable and verifiable enough for inclusion this article is just spam for the non-notable website.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - web content -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:SNOW is applicable. (non-admin closure) Ruslik (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want to go today?[edit]

Delete article on forgettable ad campaign. The article itself says response was "lukewarm." __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that with today's perspective this may be considered by some 'forgettable' is not a reason for deletion. At the time it was a milestone both in Microsoft's development and in the history of computer promotion. Further, the page has the reliable and independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Contains multiple sources, notability is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- clearly notableJJJ999 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability is permanent and is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources for what was Microsoft's groundbreaking first international image campaign. Notability has nothing to do with fame or how many people remember something or if the response was lukewarm. There is no policy reason offered nor any policy justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While Wikipedia:Notability addresses articles on companies and entertainment, it is silent regarding advertising campaigns. Several mentions in a trade publication may prompt a presumption of notability, but are not a guarantee. "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."

Although I still think the article is about a piece of media ephemera, expensive and "groundbreaking" though it may have been, prompt responses here show a building consensus to keep, which I won't argue with. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this a withdrawal of the nomination? TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Give it some time for the ones who may not be watching right now to chime in. It may be worth a footnote in Microsoft's history, but I don't think every <metonymy> advertising jingle </metonymy> merits an article. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being a 'footnote' it is a campaign that resonated in future years not only in computing[6][7][8] but in many other spheres.[9][10][11]. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you go looking, you can find places where this buzz-phrase got recycled. And yet, it comes nowhere near the wide notability of "Where's the beef?" The question remains: where to draw the line between a notable item and a foot-notable one? I'm still willing to call this one a footnote. Carry on, __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if it's forgettable? Offending Angels is apparently rather forgettable (given that it earned tons of horrid reviews and under £100 at the box office), but it's notable. Likewise, this has enough sources to prove notability, whether forgettable or not. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple, independent and reliable sources. A milestone in the history of computer advertising. And why does a campaign being received as "lukewarm" make it worthy of deletion? Many miserable campaigns are notable, and many successes are definitely not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Killers Live[edit]

Unnotable DVD that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Hasn't even been released yet and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. was redirected back to artist article per the music guidelines but IPs continue reverting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The CD/DVD compilation was released on Oct 7th. This DVD is from a notable band, and is on a major label (Warner Bros). WP:BAND states In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC reminds you that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - same applies with WP:BAND. May have does not mean that it DOES have, so unless there actually is significant coverage in reliable sources, it is not notable no matter who put it out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the quote from BAND as a secondary source. My argument is still that the major label release, coupled with an official release by a notable band satisfies WP:N. You have to admit you were mistaken in your assertion that the DVD had not been released. There are plenty of reliable sources if further research is done. It would be highly unusual that a notable band would put out a major label release that wouldn't pick up the requirements for notability. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I presumed the date in the article itself was correct. And no, the DVD being an official release by a notable band does NOT satisfy WP:N. Sources do that, and press releases by the producer/band/etc promoting itself does not count. Where are the significant number of reviews, articles discussing the DVD, etc? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, it's easier for a band to satisfy notability than for that band's album. That seems a bit backwards. I don't have a vested interest either way - I'm very satisfied that the Reuters source is quite reliable, and stand behind my original position. Starpulse? or MTV or MTV again. There is plenty of coverage of this DVD. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a band can satisfy notability easier than their individual works. And the Reuters article is a press release, which is RS but does not establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently notable at least as far as the Wall-Street Journal is concerned. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Coleman[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- a sad story does not entitle you to a wikipedia page.JJJ999 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cant' even tell if she's an animated character, a live action character, or a real person acting in a show. minimal, if any notability. Would need serious secondary sources talking about her, if she's real, and many more if she's a cartoon. ThuranX (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disguised spamming account seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Microfinance[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a non-notable corporation, masquerading as information. The article was created on October 7 by User:70.171.215.119, who has been spamming links to the company in various places. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not even expound on what research microfinance is or what it purports to be, but simply appears as a place holder for an external link to a non-notible corporation as previously mentioned by the nom. JavierMC 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic article about a non-notable "theory"/thing made up one day... which isn't supported by significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources independent of the subject and if it was a tad more obvious an advert would be speediable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Source Science Project[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a company, masquerading as information. The company is not notable and its nature is very nebulous, perhaps venture capital but there is really no way to tell. The article was created on October 7 by User:70.171.215.119 Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails notability google results. Mostly self-owned websites or self promotion, no third party content. JavierMC 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete absolutely fails notabilty, no 3rd party references, no substantiating facts, notability is not a relative concept, see wp:n, agree with JavierMC - DustyRain (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a relative concept, but that notwithstanding, the article that has been marked for deletion seems to describe the organization in a fairly matter-of-fact way. If it were an advertisement, it seems to me that they would have gone further to make the organization sound like some sort of gift from providence.

70.171.215.119 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capatism[edit]

Another editor's Prod notice was removed so I'm bringing this to Afd - Appears to be attempt to create a neologism - only appearance of this word found looks like misspelling in a public comment below a news item [12] Hunting dog (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JavierMC 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced even in the sources provided. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — reeks of soapboxing. MuZemike (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been speedied but definitely unsourced, non-notable and a neologism per Lockley. Mvjs Talking 10:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Akradecki. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry:purge chronicles[edit]

Advert-like, and how-to guide like. Hacked together, messy and unreferenced. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. No third party reviews. Editor even states it is in production and has many bugs. No wide release. I'd even suggest a speedy delete. JavierMC 22:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Crystal ballin' seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Real RocknRolla[edit]

Delete. The Article doesn't meet notability criteria for films given in Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films.2C incomplete films.2C and undistributed films since I can find no proof it has even begun principle photography. raven1977 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. Seems like this sequel was a tease, but it is not at all guaranteed to actually take place. A brief mention can be included at RocknRolla. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Erik. Until shooting starts, info on this project belongs at RocknRolla. Cliff smith ^talk 23:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 such location exists; most likely a typo of Gold Beach, Oregon seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Beach, California[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this is a real place: it's not listed in the GNIS, it's not on Google Maps, and with a Google search I can't find any websites (except an apparent Wikipedia mirror) that refer to it. The author may have been confused, thinking that Gold Beach, Oregon (which is almost in California) was actually in California; but if it be so, there's no reason to redirect, as it's a rather implausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it seems to be a mistake. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. MvjsTalking 09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bipped... seicer | talk | contribs 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 2[edit]

This article about the sequel to Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) has been at AfD before and was closed as speedy delete, G3. A Google search for this film returns many results that this film is no longer a hoax and will probably be made, but I don't feel that the film meets the notability guidelines for films. The film is set to be released on March 9, 2010. After scrolling through the first couple pages of Google results, I can't find enough reliable sources to allow it to pass WP:NFF. Delete ~~and salt~~ with no prejudice to recreating in the future when there are enough reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid Chipmunks. 207.210.136.250 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Salting" generally refers to fully protected a deleted page from editing in order to prevent its recreation. Generally, if we don't prejudge against recreation, we wouldn't protect the page. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: True, but if you take a look at this article's deletion log, it's evident that the article will be recreated multiple times before this film passes its planning stages. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted the request for salting because of Cliff's comment. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources to verify that the film is in production yet. There's already a section at Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)#Sequel for this project, so this title should be a redirect thereto until we get confirmation that production has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^^^ says it all. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thee Ungodly Hour[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. Entire article is sourced from a fansite. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album needs to go until it has been talked about in media. As for the Artists... I'm considering AfD for it as well. Not sure if there is RS to support it's notability as well. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From WP:NALBUMS - Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. From what I can see there are no solid citations or references that would constitute "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, or at best something made up one day; also WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf catching[edit]

WP:MADEUP. Clearly a joke page. KCinDC (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessarily a joke (who knows, people might do this to be silly), but if it's not a joke, it's no better than something made up in school one day. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence it isn't a joke at this point. Time to rake this article up and throw it on the compost heap. MadScot (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cary The Label Guy[edit]

Bassist for a number of bands, with their own notability concerns. I was reverted when I redirected this page to his band Fusebox Funk, which I already thought was charitable. Lack of significant coverage for himself in third party sources, mostly it's just mentions for his bands. I prefer deletion but would consider a redirect to one of his bands. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: COI as well as NN. Does not meet WP:music but beyond that seems to be a conflict if interest going on. Aside from small clean ups to the page I took a look at the user histories of the main editors: Teamxrsx, Otisrsx, IP 75.92.76.62, and IP 96.26.170.142. I see their only contributions to Wikipedia have been to promote Cary and his band. (As an aside you will see Teamxrsx has also had a rather large hand in Fusebox Funk along with Polyrhythmic. (Side note - The Fusebox Funk page was given a CSD on July 7, 2007 but Teamxrsx removed the tag. Another tag was placed on the page July 13, 2007 however Polyrhythmic simply blanked the page. Blanking was reverted but the they removed the CSD tag again. The page was again tagged for CSD on July 10 however seems to have been declined. I see another CSD with a date of August 1, 2007 but not sure where it fits in as it comes up in July) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments: Just to break down the actual content of the page, COI aside. The methods used to determine notability are described at WP:GNG. It is consistent with guidelines at WP:music which breaks it down further. The basic guideline is, in order for an individual to have their own non-redirect Wikipedia article, a person must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. On the article in question there is a sub header named "Press coverage". The first four links are to articles in the Florida Times Union and none of them are about the subject nor do any of them even mention the subject, thusly not meeting "sources address the subject directly in detail" criteria. Those links should not even appear on the article page. What follows are links to an Electronic Press Kit (EPK) (that is not for the subject of the article), two links to Warwick on artists who use their products (one is a link to a list which contains Cary Jordan's name and the other is to a short "Artist Profile") and a link to Bass Player Magazine, which will not show you any article on Cary. (However there is a section in the magazine named "Introduce Yourself" in which bass players can write a bio about themselves and submit it. Cary is in that section) Everyone of those fails the criteria based on what is not allowed: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. The only other link listed under "Press coverage" is to a website that no longer exists. This whole section does nothing to prove any "Notability" as described in section one of WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The rest of the article is mainly a repeat of the same "official" links being repeated and placed under different sub-headers. The article does not meet any of the notability guidlines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cary The Label Guy has a number of third party coverage, including being featured in Bass Player magazines Oct 2008 issue. His band was not covered in that feature, only Cary. Cary is the bassist for several bands and has been on several albums. This article was deemed acceptable for inculsion several months ago. If there is a problem with the article, please let me know so i can fix it. Thank you. --Teamxrsx (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The COI issue is important and there is nothing anyone directly involved with the band or yourself is allowed to do per Wikipedia policies. Also, "featured in Bass Player magazine" is not fully accurate - "featured in an advertisement that was placed in Bass Player magazine" is. There is a huge difference. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a article about Cary in Bass Player Magazine. It's in the Introduce Yourself section of the magazine. There is a Ad as well, although, i'm not sure when that was pressed. What does COI mean? --Teamxrsx (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bass Player Magazine, Criteria for being "featured" in the "Introduce Yourself" section: If you’d like to introduce yourself to the bass community, send a 300-word or shorter e-mail to [SNIP] with the subject “Introduce Yourself” and the following info: your name, hometown, number of years you’ve played bass, a description of your main gigs, your bass and rig, day job, why you started playing bass, why you play bass today, a “lightbulb moment” (a realization that changed your playing), how anyone anywhere can hear your music, and where people can talk to you on the Web or otherwise. [SNIP] And to answer your other question: COI = Conflict of Interest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. The magazine has to pick who they want to feature, right? A feature is a feature. You are arguing semantics at this point. It IS significant third party coverage. Also, where is the conflict of interest? --Teamxrsx (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your definition is completely wrong. This is not significant. Significant implies multiple coverage in various 3rd party sources, secondly, this mention is trivial, and isn't even a real article. Secondly, did you bother to read the entire policy? Significant third-party sources which are independent from the subject. This means that in order for this mention to meet WP:N, it must be in a source which is not talking specifically about bass players. Unfortunately, the single source you provided meets no part of the policy.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per my argument above.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding removing tags, i never removed any tags. The article was deemed within guidlines for inclusion, so the mods that were handling the article removed the tags. The Fusebox Funk article is not the article in question, so i'm not sure how that pertains to what IS in question.--Teamxrsx (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is, Teamxrsx, that you are a single purpose account who appears to be on Wikipedia for no other purpose than to promote Cary and his bands. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band article. There are no reliable sources to establish notability outside the band. A self-submitted introduce yourself article isn't something that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits to other articles, regarding music instruments. To say my Wikipedia account is only to promote Cary and his bands is simply not true. I can understand how this may seem to be the case, but again, i have made other edits with my account. The reason i have not made more, is simply because i don't feel comfortable with wikipedia yet and wanted to spend more time with it before i start editing a ton of articles. About the account "otisrsx"; i forgot which account i was using and accidentally signed in with this account. If you notice, i have only used that account once, then realized my mistake. Also, i am not associated with the band in any way. Say, for instance, the Bass Player Magazine article is not sufficient "thrid party coverage"(which is questionable), the other coverage Cary The Label Guy has received, was deemed sufficient back in July. I have been asking for help on how to make the article better, so please, instead of deleting the article, allow me to make it better, using your recommendations. Back to the Bass Player Magazine coverage. I don't know why a self submitted article should be discounted. There are many, many instances where press releases are used in the media(which are self submitted) that lead to articles and press coverage. This should be no different. The fact is, BP magazine had to pick who and what they decide to cover. They obviously felt that Cary was worthy of coverage, or they would not of covered him in their magazine. I don't know the exact data, but i'm sure they get thousands of submissions. --Teamxrsx (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to be full of flowery language about the subject, little material citation, and a great deal of (self-?)promotional material. I see no serious assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage is completely third party. If Cary had paid for the endorsement to Bass Player Magazine it would be considered self promotion. Does the entry link to the BP magazine article? If so, why is that not considered substantial third party coverage. There are thousands of artists pages..what makes this one different? -p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.10.200 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, a single article is not substantial or significant coverage, as called for by WP:N.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. I have, in reviewing this, decided to file Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Teamxrsx. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much publicity does one need in order for it to be a 'significant' amount of third party coverage? -p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.10.200 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than a single article in a single magazine. Please read WP:N.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of comic book superpowers#Heat vision. Of course, anyone is free to take further editorial actions with respect to this page, which includes recreating it with expanded sourcing, changing it into a disambiguation page, or merging the content that was there. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat vision[edit]

This is an expired prod that I declined to delete, because it's inevitable that there would be further discussion. Orginial nominator's rationale was "Heat vision does not meet wikipedia notability standards for a work of fiction. Essentially the topic does not seem to be covered in any secondary sources. (The single reference on the page is to a primary source.) The article could essentially be summarized in a single sentence in individual characters' articles in a section about their powers." This is a procedural listing, I am taking no position at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each fictional "superhero" has a different variation of "heat vision" so there is no sense in an article covering them - it should be contained in the main character articles. On its own "heat vision" is not notable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I made the original prod and stand by my original assessment. Khalfani Khaldun 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of comic book superpowers#Heat vision. (Emperor (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment perhaps a dab might be in order with links to the superpower, infrared vision and thermal imaging.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes that looks like a good option. (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Create DAB per Lenticel/Emperor Artw (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of powers. That article's a mish-mash of trivia, fancruft, and poor writing. It lacks reasonable citation and real-world content. ThuranX (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Our Neighborhood[edit]

The notability has been raised as a concern during its GAN. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a premier video album that received at least 2 mentions in reliable secondary sources, done by a notable band. I'm not a music buff, but this is only the second video album I've seen, and I would think that in and of itself would make it notable. The other video album is Rob Zombie:Past, Present, Future DVD; which more or less is a collection of videos for the accompanying CD. While I can understand the fail on the GA, I can't see why it should be deleted. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paranormal Skeptic, as well as the article clearly meeting having charted on a major sales chart. It may or may not qualify as a GA, but it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Black ngold29 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources, and it was number 1. I think thats enough to give it an article. Jakisbak (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, are you kidding me? Do you have something against the Slipknot project or something? Just because these articles may never become good articles does not mean they are not worthy of their own articles. This is a DECENT article, why would a stub article be worthy and not this? REZTER ^TALK ø 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to make this issue clear, so at least it cannot be bought up against during GAN's. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly is a notable video album, per the above and during the time I worked on it. Gary King (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot Demo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It has been suggested during a GAN that this article may not be notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first AfD just ended yesterday and I still feel the same way. As stated in that discussion: "This demo has recieved "independent coverage in reliable sources" from MTV, as well as coverage two books about the band which are atleast second party coverage. This article has better coverage and referencing, not to mention length and verifiability that the vast majority of demo articles on WP. Not to mention the band's notability in itself; if it were from a band that has had no sucess, then I wouldn't be so supporting, but Slipknot has debuted in the top five of the Billboards and many other countries' charts multiple times, we should do well to present their full history." Black ngold29 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to comment that I do not feel the nominator has allowed "a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again" as should be done per the WP:DP. Black ngold29 20:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Articles that don't have a clear consensus are quite often relisted twice, but the first nomination was only relisted once. Wouldn't it be reasonable to treat this as a second relisting? Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is notable, the album has several mentions in reliable secondary sources, ad infinitum, as per the same stuff I said for their other album deletion. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said before, in the last Afd for this article, I have created a page for this demo on wikia.com. They have a wiki dedicated to the band there. I am one of the few contributors trying to expand that wiki, but I made an article for this page there. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't believe that other Wikis should have any effect on Wikipedia; their existance is irrelevent and I don't see this as a legitimate grounds for deletion as there is no deletion policy concerning other wikis. Black ngold29 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Hunter[edit]

Non-notable failed political candidate, fails WP:BIO. RGTraynor 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be plenty of references to establish notability. Just because a political candidate didn't win an election doesn't mean they aren't notable. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: From WP:BIO: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Of the four independent sources presented in the article, two discuss the local Green party's chances generally, one is a letter to the editor taking umbrage at one of the other sources, and the final one discusses Hunter's platform should she be elected. None are about Hunter. Do you have any reliable, substantive sources about Hunter to proffer? RGTraynor 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - How about [13], or [14], or [15] or [16] or [17]. All are independent, reputable sources that reference Jen Hunter and/or her candidacy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't mention her at all, two mention her name only once in a heap of other political info, and none are genuine "substantive" sources. It is not enough to "reference" a person. Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." RGTraynor 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nut... is correct in saying that losing candidates can be notable (after all, Theodore Roosevelt lost a US presidential election!), but unlike some other losing candidates, Hunter doesn't pass notability critiria otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided don't give sufficient evidence of lasting notability, only passing coverage of a candidate who was subsequently not elected. Terraxos (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails non-trivial reliable sources. -Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election per established consensus for unelected political candidates who aren't independently notable. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that. RGTraynor 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (no redirect) lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not independently notable. Candidate who got 10% of the votes, far from being elected. (see Ottawa_Centre#2008_federal_election). --Soman (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. Might as well point to where we have info on her. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat, with redirecting as a second option, and deleting as a third. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat.Nrswanson (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global leadership[edit]

Essay, pure WP:OR and WP:SYN violations. RGTraynor 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the Nominator on all points. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article claims to be a lecturer at the University of Liverpool whose students "do not believe things now exist unless they see it on Wikipedia". Here's a tip for you, Webofculture (talk · contribs), that might help where your discussions on RGTraynor's talk page have not: Your students — presuming that you are who you claim to be — won't be any more enlightened by this article. It is waffle, from beginning to end, that contains not a scintilla of explanation of what global leadership is. That's why it was nominated for deletion. It isn't even a good start for an encyclopaedia article. It tells the reader nothing at all. If you want to get an encyclopaedia article covering your discipline written, you start with a few sentences that explain, to a general readership, what the discipline actually is (along with citations pointing to sources using which the article can be verified and expanded). If you really are a published author on this subject, and someone who makes a living teaching people about it, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in writing a paragraph that briefly explains what it is. Presumably you've already done that in your book, and presumably as an expert in your field that lectures on it you can briefly describe what that field is in coherent, waffle-free, English. That is what we want. That is what will make a stub. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last two paragraphs of the "article" were copy-and-paste from a copyrighted Web page ~~whose host and author have no connection to the University of Liverpool~~, so I've removed them~~, as I doubt that this article's creator can claim authorship of the text~~. What's left doesn't even qualify as a dicdef. Deor (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've just noticed that the Web page's text emanates from someone who "teaches global business courses for several leading international educational institutions such as the University of Liverpool and Southern New Hampshire University" (must involve a lot of commuting), so I've stricken parts of my comment above. Unless Webofculture establishes rights to the text and releases it under the proper license, it still doesn't belong in the article, though. My "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. I'm not heartened myself about how just about all the Google hits for "E. S. Wibbeke" or "Eileen S. Wibbeke" are either from book flogging sites, blogs, Wiki mirrors or run the exact same self-promotional text. Reed-Elsevier doesn't publish textbooks from outright charlatans, but we're not their advertising arm, either. RGTraynor 23:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Moses[edit]

Non-notable actress, only two very minor roles since 1980. Fails WP:BIO. Tevildo (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I am saying "delete" because the guidelines currently specify an actor must have had "significant roles in multiple notable" productions. As it seems she has only been in one network (PBS) show the article should be deleted. The article also seems to be relatively unchanged (except for being vandalized more than once) since July 2006. I am saying "weak" for an unrelated guideline issue, but still, I feel, relevant to this. Musicians need only to have had one release on a major label to be "notable" and if the release sold 5 copies it would still allow for the artist to have their own stand alone article, even if it were a stub as this one is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the more general guidelines on notability. Not everyone that has an entry at IMdB is important/significant enough for a wikipedia article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

And what happens if someone DOES edit this page further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.196.150 (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2014 (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 redirect to List of Gundam Wing mobile suits. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Sandrock[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the article's talk page, there was allready a consensus previously to merge the article with List of Mobile Suits of Gundam Wing; it just seems that the merger was never done. I propose that we honor that consesus and merge the article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge should be done before this AfD is closed. Personally, I think it should redirect to Quatre Raberba Winner rather than the List article, since he's the only character who uses the fictional suit in question. JuJube (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of Gundams in Gundam Wing 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.200.131. The Merge target suggested by Nutiketaiel is for mass-production suits, not Gundams. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gundam Wing mobile suits with other articles/lists on mobile suits. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A previous AFD established that this article should be merged. As nobody has seen fit to merge it in that time, it is clear that the content is not wanted either at this title nor in a list. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor Gundam Wing mobile suits. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OZ-13MSX1 Vayeate[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I propose that this article be merged into List of mobile weapons. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, probably weak delete I wouldn't know the first place to start with this one. No secondary source is going to use either "OZ-13MSX1" or "Vayeate" or both to describe this. SO text string searches for those will result in...not much. Ditto for book searches. Hopefully someone more familiar with the content will be able to dig something up, thought I doubt it. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points raised in the nom: N, RS and PLOT issues. Eusebeus (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of Gundams in Gundam Wing 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suits of Gundam Wing, since this is not a Gundam. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gundam Wing mobile suits with other articles/lists on mobile suits. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EndGame[edit]

This comic storyline not establish notability. It is just made up of plot and some junk at the bottom, which seems to be a mix of OR and trivia. TTN (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on all points. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Delete from me also, for all those reasons. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to dab page Endgame 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius: 25 Years Later[edit]

This comic storyline not establish notability. It is just made up of pure plot. TTN (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long lasting plot line indeed, but there's very little verifiable info to merge, and it wouldn't really be sourceable outside the comic proper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have WP:SONICRUFT yet? We probably should, this is a great example of the sort of thing which does nothing for a general purpose wiki but would be good for something a bit more focussed on in-universe synopses. treelo _radda 20:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. The Sonic fans will otherwise recreate. A list of characters NOT in it? That list lacks Huckleberry Finn, Ahab, Clark Kent, Benjamin Disraeli, and the stinkbug caught in my window this morning. Fry that article. ThuranX (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Future Century mobile units (which is the target of the redirect to which TheFarix linked). Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Army[edit]

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G Gundam Gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article doesn't cover the Death Army so much as the individual unit types, and so a merge doesn't hurt the material. --Gwern (contribs) 16:11 17 October 2008 (GMT)
Merge per above. MalikCarr (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDG-009X Devil Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Pretty much just a giant plot summary, which should be merged (along with all of the other scattered plot sections in the other mecha pages) into the main page. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G Gundam Gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GF13-017NJ Shining Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main page per nom. Most of this page is under plot - Why is the plot section of G Gundam under this page and not the main page?!? After reading the plot in the main page (the entire half paragraph), I still had no idea about the anime; mainly because the ACTUAL plot was in this page. Really confuses me why the plot for G Gundam lies separately under the mecha pages... -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G Gundam Gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GF13-017NJII God Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Again, mostly plot that should be in the main page. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G Gundam Gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Again, mostly plot that should be in the main page. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G Gundam Gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321. MalikCarr (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICON A5[edit]

~~Fails to establish notability. May also fail WP:Crystal Ball~~ Waterden (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Striking delete and changing to Keep in light of improvements made by the creator. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a valid subject for a page since it has recently been receiving lots of press. I will update the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceywilly (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more to the page. I do not believe this is a "crystal ball" page since the airplane is already being flight tested and taking orders.Spaceywilly (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw the nomination given the massive improvements by the author. Its a good article. Waterden (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well no, it's not a good article as such, but it's now certainly worthy of inclusion in the 'pedia. Let's say it's a jolly adequate article. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9 by Orangemike , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandulon Mixtape Vol.1 (Rey El Grandulon album)[edit]

Non-notable mixtape by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Why the hell can't A7 apply to albums by red link artists? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if anybody can come up with a criteria for it. Mixtapes are pretty much non-notable be definition even from established and famous artists, but a mixtape from a redlink? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not provide any information to show that the album is notable enough for it's own article per WP:MUSIC#Albums. The parent article on the artist who made the album deleted September 29, 2008. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with TPH. Why can't A7 apply??????? What's the process for putting a case forward? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I typed that without realising that TPH has already got the ball rolling. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somehow, somewhere, in a parallel universe where Wikipedia makes sense, this does qualify as CSD A7 speedy deletion material. JBsupreme (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may not qualify as A7, but it does qualify as A9. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). --Itub (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArtRage[edit]

Contested prod. Fails notability. No third party sources cited. No third party sources found - although sources would be difficult to locate on the Internet as "ArtRage" appears to also be an art festival. GDallimore (Talk) 17:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added five third party sources. Contrary to the nominator's claim that they would be difficult to locate, a Google news archive search for ArtRage Ambient worked well enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Now up to nine sources, most of them in third-party publications that are themselves notable enough to have articles here. That seems a clear pass of WP:N to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There seems to be a core of notability here... being bundled with Microsoft and Wacom tablets is a pretty big deal. There are sources, but it's best to search for Artrage +tablet instead of just Artrage alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't even know where to begin with this... seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Presley[edit]

None important individual, other than his blood line. Also rather promotional article. Nothing of interest here. — Realist² 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited. Also looks like advertising. Shsilver (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non notable and have tagged it for speedy.Waterden (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy request. I would prefer to see this discussion continue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability does not automatically transfer through family. --Pmedema (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! This is simply a work in progress. It is a fun trivial fact that Ronald Presley is related to Elvis. I would have to argue that notability can be assisted with who you know and who you are related to. Ronald’s connection to Elvis is nothing more than interesting trivia. This article is an attempt to document a local artist here in the South East who has played in Zenkil since 1998 and who now is using his talents to promote Death and Thrash Metal here in Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. This is not a promotional advertisement for Ronald, but I just wanted to put this information out there so that fans could eventually add more comments and to learn more about this artist. I did not realize that this site was created to censor articles that some folks deem as not notable enough. I thought this was a tool to get to learn about artists, musicians, and people who make a difference in the world no matter how famous that person is. This article was created for those fans that want to read more about this metal-headed Presley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnbham (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace exists for that purpose. Currently the only thing that makes this figure noteworthy is his bloodline, it is not enough. OK, so he places music, so do I. I want a page of my own too. — Realist² 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there's just no material to demonstrate (or reliable sources to verify) any sort of notability that would meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The article leads with a reference to Elvis, has some personal biographical (not career) details, and mentions that he's in a band that does not appear to be well known. --MCB (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails the WP:MUSIC as well as the more general guidelines as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not myspace, facebook, a fan gathering site, webhost, nor is notability inherited based on who you are related to. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not myspace, facebook, a fan gathering site, webhost. AlwaysOnion (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete qualifies as CSD A7 as a completely non-notable person. JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The author himself describes the article as trivia and a fan site. I concur this is not facebook or myspace. Seems like an ad or fan site.74.73.176.161 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No WP:BIO notability criteria met. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE, THE WP:SNOW HAS FALLEN LONG ENOUGH, I'M WADING IN IT. JBsupreme (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, France is not Nauru, and there is the possibility for expansion here. Black Kite 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France–Kosovo relations[edit]

Yet, another article created for bilater relations. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Nauru relations Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the precedent of the Nauru article, wouldn't it be better to redirect this to International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo? There's no question that this is a real topic, and (on the odd chance that something more significant happened between these states) it could potentially be expanded into a decent article, so I don't think it helpful to delete the article entirely. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No legitimate basis for deletion is given. Article establishes notability. (Please provide a little more than a link to an afd of a deleted article next time.) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article explains why France–Kosovo relations are far more important than Kosovo–Nauru relations. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article we learn that France has an embassy in Kosovo and Kosovo in France. That's all. A new section came today, if someone cleans POV expressions like "Learning a lesson from the impossibility of reaching a negotiated solution, France recognized Kosovo's independence" maybe the article establishes notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We learn from the article that France was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo's independence, and we know from general knowledge that France has far more diplomatic clout than Nauru. This makes the comparison in the nomination frankly ridiculous. Any concerns about the precise wording of the article are matters for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the addition of the section probably yes. When I nominated it was only the first paragraph. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information was in that paragraph. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information about both the recognition and the embassies is duplicated. Already exists in International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Check the table. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of a long list of arbitrary X-Y relations articles created for no apparent reason. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I think we're done here. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Non-notable athlete... seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Simpson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page somehow survived AfD once and I'm not entirely sure how. This player fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. He's a 16 year old junior league player in Canada. He has not played at the highest level of hockey in Canada (which would be the NHL), he is a junior league rookie. He has not played in the highest amateur level of his sport - that would be the Canadian national team/international competition. Most of the articles we run across that we have to delete are junior league players who were drafted in the third or fourth round and have not played in the NHL. From what I gather in this article, this kid is a rookie in juniors. All of the rationale from the last AfD is faulty. Smashville^talk 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. The last AfD seemed to have misinformed comments that formed the backbone of the keep movement and had a strong sense of crystal ball to it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major juniors is still junior hockey. No call-up to Team Canada, still years away from the pro draft...this article is a few years premature, assuming he'll make it far enough to warrant one later. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Article can be recreated if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Very strong precedence that players at this level at not prima-facia notable. Some examples of deleted articles since July include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I am surprised the hockey project didn't pick up on this debate the first time around. Most of the keeps in that debate seem uninformed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has been very well established that simply playing Major Junior hockey is not enough to pass either Wikipedia's guidelines or WP:HOCKEY's own. Recreate if this individual wins a major award, is a first round draft pick or plays pro. Reso lute 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails hockey notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I understand the ideas argued in the previous AFD, but they're insufficient. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resolute brought up the reasons I usually bring up. Patken4 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE - The article has been recreated, as such, I've unarchvied for a second deletion. ThuranX (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has NOT been recreated. I simply moved Kent Simpson (ice hockey, b. 1975) to Kent Simpson, seing as how after the non-notable Simpson was deleted, we were left with only one Kent Simpson article on Wikipedia. If this is an issue, just let me know. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nurmsook is correct, I did not read it thoroughly enough. Looks good as stands. ThuranX (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to another title which is about to be deleted, so this is a pointless discussion. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green day untitled eight studio albu[edit]

article about a future album, failing wp:crystal and wp:music, as there is little concrete information known about the album -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typoed title, WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Using my magical, spirital powers, I predict... seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green day untitled eighth studio album[edit]

Future album articles ~~supported only by blogs~~ ^without any hint of an official title^ are a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and should be deleted. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Waterden (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete it now! For reasons above. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just delete. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's supported by articles published by Reuters and MTV News, rather than by web logs. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's fine for a few lines in the main Green Day article, but a separate article is not necessary at this stage, and will likely just become a posting ground for fans to post every minute update. As per WP:NALBUMS, "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I don't think this is the case yet. Good job finding better sources though! Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've added an more reliable reference - an article from BBC online - but it still doesn't amount to much yet. IMO albums should never get articles until they at least have a confirmed title. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Hammertime in the snow! MuZemike (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Click to Jesus[edit]

Unreferenced, WP:Notability (toys and games) . --The Firewall 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania Charts Company[edit]

Like the Philippines Hot 100 (see the AfD) and Hot100Brasil (see its AfD), here is a chart that asserts its own notability without really being notable or verifiable. There are also other problems. First, it's listed on a Lithuanian blog site. Second, it was created by User:Lithuania Charts Company, who then spammed his site onto various song pages (see the contribution history). Third, there's nothing on the homepage other than its own charts. There's nothing stating its methodology or history. Just listings. A search in Google shows either mirror pages of the Wikipedia page, various music/fanpages using the link, or other pages on blogas.lt. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

SKS2K6 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not a notable chart, not officially licensed, no information. It could just be someone randomly assigning chart positions for their favorite songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2007), Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2008) and Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2006). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Looks like a case for the spam blacklist as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone make sure that the Lithuanian chart positions are removed from articles as well? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 snowing already, I think. Black Kite 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Ball[edit]

Non-notable sport apparently created last month at some user's dorm. Pak aran 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and non-cited stub. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as non-notable game (product I guess). An (less detailed) article on the same topic has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion_nomination. VG ☎ 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before. Students make up ball games to play in the hallways and corridors of their dormitories, and they come to Wikipedia to document what they made up one day, often naming themselves and their friends as the supposed inventors and authorities for the game. See Hall Cricket (AfD discussion), Corridor cricket (AfD discussion), and Cambridge corridor cricket (AfD discussion). Like all of the rest, this is unverifiable, and on the face of it downright false. No, these people were not the inventors, just last month, of a game where players throw balls into cups. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up after school one day. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious a WP:NFT case as you'll ever see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic things made up. Thinking this could even be speedy'd even --Pmedema (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious WP:MADEUP. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT--Cube lurker (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mogulus[edit]

Article about web content with no independent reliable source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching through more than 100 Google search results, did not find anything notable. Certainly the article on its own doesn't suggest notability. Bongomatic (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although the secondary source cited does not in itself substantiate notability, there does seem to be a good deal of secondary sources available for someone wishing to expand the article. It is sufficient for a stub. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as is, article is WP:SPAM. Investment reference is good. Delete and allow 2nd submission when the person puts some EFFORT into the article. - DustyRain (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Investment reference is "good" in the sense that it has relevant info, but it just can't be used to establish notability, per WP:N, as it's a press release by a company with vested interest in the subject of the article.--Boffob (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Creekwater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

From the initial AFD: "Non-notable rapper, article is sorely lacking references. Artist has released mixtapes but no actual albums, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. If artist becomes notable some day in the future, article can easily be re-created." The AFD was closed as keep with the admin adding "I'd support a relisting for deletion if the article's deficiencies are unaddressed after a few months"—no substantial changes have been made to the article since then (January 2008) and his debut album still hasn't been released. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Allmusic source checks out, and he was on a compilation with Eminem, but besides that I'm finding no sources unrelated to the compo he was on. If there was one more source I might say weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, a search for "Bobby Creekwater" turns up 74 articles. A few of them are borderline-trivial mentions, saying that he participated in Detroit's Hip Hop Summit Action Network in 2006. The vast majority of the non-trivial mentions relate to the album Eminem Presents: the Re-Up. We could redirect to that article, but one problem is that there is verified content that would not fit neatly there. But, more than that, I think this artist actually passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1, with not just the multiple mentions related to that album, but also the Allmusic source, and a review in Newsweek for his recording Anthem to the Streets. I've added several citations. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Countdown Singers[edit]

Only notability claim is that they record cheapo sound-alike dollar store versions of songs. They are clearly prolific, and a couple of their albums have Allmusic reviews (note, however, that their label doesn't have an article and seems to fail WP:CORP), but I'm finding no major sources besides Allmusic's terse reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the company name, per my comments at the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hit Crew. They've had chart success and have sold loads of albums, but since there is no real "band" per se, an article at the company name makes more sense. Madacy is apparently the US's biggest independent label and it's kinda surprising we don't have an article on them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I own several of the albums listed. Apparently, they are successful enough to keep putting out sound-alike albums like these, even after paying the writers their fees. Who knows, maybe someone who has an al bum or two would like to know what other albums they have made and when they look here, they can see all the albums they recorded. I say keep. Itsmyright (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:NMG. No issues with the move. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier 126 Heliport[edit]

Non notable heliport. Nothing to merge to. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notice of this discussion was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. -- Undead Warrior ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as a stand alone article. It could be worth a mention in List of airports in Oregon if that article is expanded to include all other private facilities. (Or the article List of heliports in Oregon if that was created.) Bottom line, just as every elementary (primary) school does not have enough notability to warrant an article, every heliport or airport will not gain notability just by its existence. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I see no notability nor any encyclopedic value in this entry. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree; while there are some subjects that are inherently notable, heliports are not among them. There is nothing to say about it beyond its existence; therefore notability is not established. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artcle does nothing to establish or even attmpt to claim notability - for a private Heliport, existance is not enough for a stand-alone article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irkutsk-Crash Area[edit]

Bullshit, maybe g3, In Speedy Deletion 1 day but was never deleted AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 so tagged. Nonsense/vandalism. Author placed a {{hangon}} before the speedy was even up, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. The entire article: "Near Irkutsk in Russia the airplanes have their own Bermuda-triangle. Many airplanes goes down there. Including Aeroflot Flight 593." It's not Bermuda, it's not a triangle, nothing disappears, but other than that, it's an apt analogy. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike Condition Zero: Source[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CRYSTAL. Appears to be a hoax. Valve has not announced such project. If they have had it would be announced on all gaming sites. SkyWalker (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (borderline A7) per a lot of things, including lack of verifiable sources, indiscriminate information, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and as the nom suggested a possible WP:HOAX. Oh yeah, crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. I don't think its a hoax, but its more than possible—I can't even find an official mod site—but this has to go, no notability, no verifiability, very crystal ball-ish. Not to mention misleading, as the game certainly is not developed by Valve. -- Sabre (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: project fails WP:NOTABILITY and appears to be trying to predict a product not announced yet Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sole source, this page on their developer wiki, appears to state that (1) it's being developed by fans, not by Valve, (2) it's nowhere near release, and (3) as such, most of the details on this very article are incorrect, or at least incredibly wishful thinking. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40 Greatest Men of Country Music[edit]

None of these are notable programs. The only sources are from CMT proper or press releases announcing the show's debut, followed by the actual lists presented by the show. Granted, CMT is a fine network, but these were just one-off lists, and who knows what criteria they used to determine who is the best? There's almost nothing that can be said about these shows besides that CMT aired them and that they gave this list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per TenPound. Programs of this nature -- the "100 ____est _____s of all time" -- abound on television, particularly during sweeps months. They're cheap to put together, they sell well on ad time, and there's a little bit of suspense over who the "X" network will declare to be #1 at the moment. Because of this, it's a certainty that CMT will do another set of these in a few years. It's entertaining, but it's not encyclopedic. I think I've seen the greatest singer of all time selected many, many times. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can add nothing to Mandsford's excellent synopsis. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McKenty and the Spades[edit]

A Canadian music band. I declined the speedy deletion due to the presence of this source which I added to the article, and which indicates the existence of some reviews. As a self-confessed idiot when it comes to music, I am uncertain if this passes WP:MUSIC. (Neutral nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artist and albums, which I've added to discussion. That one source is all we have, and I'm finding nothing else at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate band from Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Please do not delete. User talk:Peterirwin
Delete: By only comparing the guidelines set at WP:Band to what is currently out there on the band, they do not meet the criteria for "notability". I do find minor mentions is article, minor in that it is either a listing of upcoming concerts or reprints/variations of a press release for the tour. I also can find reviews of some of the albums However all of this combined still does not fully meet the "Notability" guidelines. As a comment I will say the singer (not the band) won The Peterborough Folk Festivals Emerging Artist Award in 2002, which, according to the description of the award, gives the winner a "showcase spots on the festival weekend, a guaranteed spot on the festival main stage the following year, a Sonicbids account, and a trip to the Ontario Council of Folk Festivals' annual conference in October. The award is granted to an artist by the Artistic Director based on assessment of skill, dedication, and artistic merit." Not a major award as defined by the guidelines, but not fully non-notable either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention the albums: the two you listed, along with one you didn't, Restless Soul (album), do not even come close to meeting the criteria for notability (WP:NALBUMS) and should be either Merged into the main article (If the consensus is to keep) or Deleted (if the consensus it to delete) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A legitimate band from Peterborough; yes. A notable band from Peterborough;no. Delete the lot. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Musamies (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a band that toured with two of the finest Canadian artists of all time (Matthew Good and The Tragically Hip) should be deleted and not considered notable. The article will be improved to meet Wikipedia regulations but certainly should not be deleted. Clearly none of you have any idea of music notability, so please do not delete at this point.User talk:Peterirwin —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web based file managers[edit]

This table comparing seemingly arbitrary traits of web-based file managers (it's hard to see why the first public release date would be relevant even to someone comparing these items) fails to assert notability. To the extent that such an assemblage of data would be appropriate anywhere, it is WP:NOT in an encyclopedia (maybe a software review site or somesuch). Bongomatic (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mostly original research. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research that is unencyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I made the article to address what I thought was a lack of information about web based file managers from the main file managers article which also links to a comparison of file managers article. Comparison and contrast between different software packages in the form of "Comparison of..." articles is something that has seemingly been accepted. I do need to cite my sources, of course. However, I see no reason for the article to be deleted so long as the sources are cited. Archer1742 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article directly complements the comparison of file managers article. Archer1742 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stifle and Pmedema. MvjsTalking 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good god. seicer | talk | contribs 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sisters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Tagged for cleanup since December 2007 with "It lacks a clear purpose". The list is hopefully incomplete, and if it were complete, it would be miles long. I mean, we've got everything from the Brontë sisters to SHeDAISY, for crying out loud. Also, the list is unsourced, indiscriminate (that's the big one), and furthermore, there's no List of brothers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 1-4, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Good lord. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see where it is a spin off of any parent article so as it is right now it is a very open list and does not seem to serve any purpose. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the two sisters (or more) don't even have to have any professional relationship to appear in this list, so it really is utterly unfocused. I could just about conceive of a narrowly defined list of sisters being of value, but this isn't that list. (And before someone says "improve don't delet", I wouldn't know where to start to actually narrow the list, since it's got no obvious intent right now)MadScot (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the Hammer has it. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If these can be grouped by list, please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hip hop singers (2nd nomination). JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of hope was expressed in the previous AfD that it could be a good article with time. Well, time's passed and it's still not a good article. Accept that this isn't going anywhere, it's really not necessary, and let it go. JuJube (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No sensible reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the proviso that I'm willing to userfy on request if anyone wants to attempt to salvage any of the content for use on Polish-German relations or any other article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic conflicts in western Poland[edit]

The article does not even match the title, and what's worse, the title cannot be matched because of its ambiguity.

"Western Poland" - where is that supposed to be in a covered period of 1000 years? Poland's borders changed quite often, there is no constant western Poland. What 100 years ago was western Poland is now Central Poland, another 100 years ago it was East Germany. To adapt this part of the title to the article's content, one could change it to "Greater Poland".
"Ethnic conflicts" - the article does not only describe ethnic conflicts, but also, in an unbalanced way, historical demography and religious conflicts of Greater Poland. When it comes to ethnic conflicts, the article mainly consists of a section that describes the Germanisation attempts of Prussia in the Province of Posen. Other supposed conflicts with Germans are mentioned "by the way". Not mentioned are Polish-Jewish or any other conflicts.

Next, the article consists - as far as I see without exceptions - of content forks. The main sections are forks of Counterreformation, Germanisation and Prussian Settlement Commission, the other statements are covered in respective articles either.

I see no point in starting to "improve" the article, neither in keeping it at all. (This note is copied from Talk:Ethnic conflicts in western Poland - no discussion or even response since Sept 22; article is orphaned, not taken care of for quite a long time and apparently not watched/cared for by anyone Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as original research in it's current form. The extremely brief introduction states that this article concerns "Polish-German relations" (a broader, but more concrete, topic than the actual title), and then gives about one paragraph each to that topic in a variety of different eras. There are three line citations, which is always a good thing, but the problem here is an underlying assumption that there is a multi-generational link between each era on the topic of ethnicity and ethnic relations. THAT assumption is not cited at all. Do I believe that people who have lived in the area of modern day Germany have had encounters with people who lived in the area of modern day Poland? Of course. Do I believe that events between those peoples in 1565 have a direct relationship to events between such peoples in 1820? Maybe, maybe not. Causality is always a challenge for historians even with the most detailed and extensive research, which is not the case here.

I'm certain there are numerous published works tracing the historical development between peoples of those two general regions. An article on "german-polish relations" needs to assimilate those published works and present a topic based on them. This article has not, and there's no evidence it has even attempted to do so.

Delete with no prejudice to recreation if a concrete article can be written, with a clear topic and backed entirely by sources that relate to that topic. -Markeer 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information to Polish-German relations per Piotrus below. Good catch, hadn't seen there was such an article, and most important, has references to secondary works on that exact subject.-Markeer 19:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Polish-German relations. Quite a lot of the content seems salvageable and would be a good expansion for that stub.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The merger proposed by Piotrus seems reasonable. I only would welcome addition of several solid sources to support all controversial or debatable statements. Kpjas (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the uncommonly cogent observations by the nom. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does rarely match its title. Parts of the content may be reused to improve the article Polish-German relations. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skäpperöd. The article shouldn't be used as a basis for Polish-German relations as it would turn it into a "1000 years of conflicts" article. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. Too poor to merge. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. greg park avenue (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale and comments to statement above moved to talk page Skäpperöd (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-delete for now, but an article of that nature is possible to create, detailing the long millenia of ethnic struggles within Western Poland and Germanisation of local people, reverted in XX century.--Molobo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedExpress Urgent Care[edit]

debatable notability.. not clearly asserted Versa geek 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:CORP not enough third party sources to establish notability. bordering on advertising. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is not blatant spam, so I've declined the speedy tag placed by Alexius. A Google News Archive search returns a number of third-party, reliable sources about this company, allowing it to narrowly pass WP:CORP. Some are from: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Register-Herald, and another article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Operating in multiple states, etc etc. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The essential information in this article is all ready present at the most commonly proposed target article. The additional information is unsourced. I'm happy to userfy for anyone interested in working on this in user space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doonesbury Icons[edit]

Excessive plot detail and original research. No merge is necessary, as whatever material has merit is already at Doonesbury. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the material offers some insights into the choices behind the political character stand-ins, but nothing that couldn't do with a condensation and merging into the main article. JuJube (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Doonesbury. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merge everything that is sourced and referenced. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Merging unsources material would severely damage the target article, why would anyone want to do that?Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant information. Doonesbury is a political strip, of course they'll use "icons". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article refers more to the practice of using floating inanimate objects that can speak in place of political figures. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - most of the content seems to be reasonable; whether it has an article to itself or not is not something I have a strong opinion on. As with most articles, it needs sourcing better, but I don't think it wants getting rid of. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Herbythyme , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James ashford[edit]

Notability is not asserted. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is asserted, but simply doesn't bear any scrutiny. Links only to school website, starbucks where he works etc. This page is cleverly written to get around a speedy on bio, nothing more. --Ged UK (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not asserting notability. A quick look at the contribs of user:Jamesthefool tells a familiar story. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'd say that extremely vague and/or obviously ridiculous assertations of notability shouldn't be treated as assertations of notability at all. Bottom line: articles like this aren't worth five seconds of our time, much less five days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As the assertion that he's 'The Right Honourable' is patently false, I think we can class the creation of the article as vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Fish Ride Bicycles[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with very little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed with the addition of a single reference. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice title, but no sources to verify so much as ONE track from it. Again, what's the rush? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystalballery that fails reliable source policies --Pmedema (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Flossed Out[edit]

Non-notable bootleg EP with very little media coverage. Prod removed on the strength of one online review and a New Yorker blog post about the band that doesn't even mention the EP. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for albums entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a bootleg. Nothing more to say other than that the citation from the New Yorker is a personal blog, not an article that was in the magazine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lee (college football)[edit]

Non-notable minor college football coach, no substantive, independent articles about him, fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.

I am also nominating the following related articles, also for non-notable head coaches at Belhaven College. A fourth coach has gone on to coach Division I football, and is not being nominated at this time:

Ravenswing 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I took the liberty to remove Walter J. West from the above list because the article has been restored as meeting WP:ATHLETE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as it seems, he played in the NFL, thus qualifying as having played in a "fully professional" league. Ravenswing 23:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. While I expect there's probably a token level of verifiability here, there is no real substantial notability, and there seems to be a growing level of precedent that articles of this type are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE for not coaching at the highest level of amateur sport. -Djsasso (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that not coaching at the highest level isn't reason for deletion. Please see WP:BIO... If he had done so, it would be a reason for inclusion. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep additional sources, significant as second African American coach in history of conference, and "college" is the highest level of the amateur sport (comments above show a bias against the NAIA). One does not compete for four years in the NAIA and then "move up" to NCAA of any division.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The NCAA, which has established "Division I," "Division I-AA", "Division II" and "Division III," seems to disagree with you; NAIA competition is a cut below that. (If citing the widely acknowledged fact that NAIA is the lowest level of intercollegiate play for four-year schools constitutes "bias," I'm certainly guilty!) Other sources have indeed been added to the Lee article, but the vast majority being trivial mentions confirming that yes, he is indeed the Belhaven College coach (an undisputed fact for which no fewer than four cites were added in the last couple of hours). One article was added from a small town weekly that goes a little more indepth ... but is about Lee's wife. Ravenswing 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply if the NAIA was "below" the NCAA, then a player could play for four years at the NAIA level and then "move up" to NCAA but that is against all regulations in the two governing bodies. Both the NAIA and NCAA recognize that four years of college football play constitute the highest level of amateur sports competition in American football. Granted NCAA Div I FBS is more "popular" and more "wealthy" but "popular" does not necessarily mean "notable".--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being below does not mean there is the ability to move up, being below means that you are not playing with the best of the best. The whole point of the "highest level of amateur competition" is that the players involved are the best in the world. Not the best at their particular level. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't move up after playing four years of Division III either; what's your point? Different sports and organizations have different strictures (for instance, the "highest level" of amateur play in hockey isn't college hockey but major junior), but none of that, nor any measures of wealth or popularity, obscure the universally recognized fact that your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team. Are you seriously contending otherwise? Ravenswing 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is my point: that the highest level of amatuer American football is college football, be it NAIA, NCAA DIV III, NCAA DIV II, NCAA DIV I FCS, or NCAA DIV I FBS. I know, I know, you and others disagree...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you win explicit consensus for that view, then obviously that would change things. Ravenswing 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional. You can't just lump all college levels in and say college football is the highest level, college football is divided into levels, just like junior hockey is in hockey for example. They are all still junior hockey, but the skill levels are different. Highest level is in reguards to higest skill level, not "as far as you can go level" -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that not only we can consider all college to be the highest level , but that we must. Why? Well, 1) There is no specific "skill division" from the governing bodies in question: one doesn't "try out" at the NCAA headquarters and they say "you can't play here, try the NAIA or maybe Div III" 2) while any player may not get a scholarship at a Div I school---or make the team at a Div I school, there are many players who choose NAIA or DIV III for their reasons when they had the option to play at a "larger" school 3) The partitions between the NCAA divisions are based not on skill level of the players or teams, but by factors such as number of sports at the school, enrollment, and amount of scholarship money available. 4) The NAIA (at least in the past) did not have as stringent of academic policies as the NCAA and therefore there were many players that went to the NAIA by choice to gather more playing time and exposure for the NFL draft 5) Players from lower levels are drafted into the NFL after completion 6) In the past (and some would argue yet today) racism played a huge picture--the historically black colleges and universities were often held in "lower esteem" by the press simply because of race, 7) "the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional" is addressed at the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Amateur, 8) "your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team" is a generalization, blanket point-of-view that has been proven incorrect through both junior varsity and varsity games at the collegiate level when teams play across divisions and even when NAIA teams play NCAA teams (both now and in the past) 9) even if #8 were true, the "quality" of the play is not the issue, but the "level" of the play. If we went exclusively on "quality" there would be several professional teams that would be cut AND that would violate WP:NPOV because the editors would be making judgements about the quality of play. Oh, my I'm getting tired of making points here...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one compels you to do so, but you're still arguing against all consensus, on Wikipedia and otherwise, and fact. For instance, let's take the 2008 NFL Draft. Out of the 252 players drafted, only five came from Division I-AA (the first at #66), five from Division II (the highest at #140), and two from Division III (the highest at #203). That's the top sixty-five players, and 240 out of 252, from Division I schools. Not a single NAIA player was drafted. Let's move ten years back to the 1998 NFL Draft. Once again, not a single NAIA player was drafted, and it's a near-Division I clean sweep; only four players through the first four rounds were from I-AA or Division II schools. If there's anyone out there other than you who think that NAIA play is comparable to Division I play, they're not NFL general managers or scouts. Ravenswing 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave with this thought: There are NAIA players that make it to the NFL, and not all are drafted--some by free agency, some go through CFL or indoor leagues first. And certainly way more NFL drafts come from NCAA Div I. But if that's the rule, then we can remove the academy schools because none of their players enter the NFL draft... at least, not until they have fulfilled their service requirement. And some top college football palyers do not enter the NFL draft but instead pursue other interests. All I'm saying is that college is the top amateur level. Wanna hone it to just NCAA Div I FBS? Okay, how about the top conferences then--say the BCS shoe-ins... or maybe just the teams that win the top conferences... or maybe just the national champoinship team. We can go either way on this, and all I'm saying is make it simple--college football is the highest level of expression of the amatuer sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really blows my mind that you can't see there is a quality difference, its not hard to understand that the best players get offered scholarships etc to the Div-1 schools therefore making the quality of play higher in Div-1 because most of the best players go that way. There is no point arguing with you about though because its clear you won't change your mind. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there wasn't a quality difference, I said that it doesn't matter if there is or is not a quality difference because that quality is a point-of-view, which Wikipedia works so hard to avoid. Also, WP:ATHLETE says nothing about "quality of play" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is where your argument is flawed, the level difference is provable, even the naming scheme itself supports it. The ultimate highest level one can achieve is to play Division-1 ball. The whole point behind that part of WP:ATHLETE says the highest level of amateur sport, in otherwards the point were you cannot find better competition. No one in their right mind would say that playing in the lowest level of college ball is reaching the pinnacle of amateur football. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not flawed, merely your understanding of it. And that's likely my fault for not explaining it well enough. But if I give too much detail, I get chastaised. Anyway, you are confusing "quality of play" with "level of play"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you equate failure to agree with you with failure to understand you? We understand you just fine. That being said, you're making a crucial error in claiming that Wikipedia's NPOV rule means we can't cite a subjective qualitative difference. It's true that we cannot make something up and declare it to be a fact. Want to bet I can't come up with fifty reliable sources saying, indeed, that Division I college football is the highest possible level of college play? (Hell, I bet I could come up with five hundred.) Ravenswing 01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because even in your last paragraph, you fail to express an accurate response to the argument. If you understood the argument, you wouldn't be discussing anything about "quality of play" because that is not the argument I am making. Instead of responding to my argument (that all of college is the same "level"), you are responding with a different argument (that Div I is separate from NAIA because of quality of play). This is Ignoratio elenchi or "Irrelevant conclusion" which is "the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question." I concede that the quality of play at Div I is higher than at NAIA. What I do not concede is that they are different levels, primarily because the governing bodies do not concede that they are different levels and this is reinforced based on the eligibility requirements of 4 years of college football play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to express an "accurate" response to the argument? We are under no misimpression as to what your oft-repeated argument is. What's inaccurate with "Neither we, nor the outside world in general, agree with you," and what's so starkly incomprehensible with "And here's some evidence for that assertion"? Ravenswing 04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's inaccurate because you keep arguing over quality of play, and that isn't the measure of which I speak.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more stuff please consider recent changes for Norman Joseph--several very prestigious accomplishments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does seem that Joseph's teams have been quite successful in NAIA ranks, but then again, someone must win games down there. It's still not the highest level of amateur play in football. Ravenswing 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please read the article. San José State University is not NAIA but Division I NCAA, where he became noted as one of the best offensive minds in the country.

Reply: Please read the source. Joseph was not the head coach at San Jose State, but the offensive coordinator, and the quote - in an uncredited team preview on an unaffiliated website - is "He also turned San Jose State into one of the best offensive teams in the country during his two years as their offensive coordinator." Ravenswing 20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's a pretty good source. The first 3.5 paragraphs are about Joseph and really only about him. That's significant coverage in my book. At that's just one of the sources. IMO, it meets WP:BIO and WP:N. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Each appears to meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm not seeing how WP:BIO isn't met as this seems true for all of the above. Help? Hobit (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The general notability criterion elaborates: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Of the independent, reliable links about Lee that are actually accessible, he is the subject of none of them. An article about the most recent football game quoting him is neither about him nor constitutes substantive, detailed coverage of him. Ravenswing 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it's the VSN articles you consider to be not reliable? I'd say that given "The NAIA supports VSN; however, the views expressed through the Victory Sports Network, it's web sites or other media operated by VSN are not those of the NAIA or its national office." it is a close call. They claim editorial independence. Given the VSN articles, GNG is trivially met. Further, it is reasonable to expect that local (and fully independent) newspapers would have coverage about the local coach. Certainly our local coaches all have had write ups on them.... I'll stay with the keep. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, no, I don't have a problem with the VSN links; it's not that they're not reliable. It's that they cover Lee's team, not Lee himself. GNG can't be "trivially met"; either the coverage "address[es] the subject directly in detail" or GNG is not met. Ravenswing 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) \[reply]

Did you see [18]? It is an article almost purely about him and his family. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the one I previously cited as being about his wife's medical problems. Ravenswing 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's about how he deals with coaching and having a wife with said medical problems. I mean the only reason the article is there is because _he_ does what he does. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highsmith and Lee. These coaches are simply not notable enough even in their own level of sports, and RGT outlines some serious problems with the sources, as he has done before, on the articles (Haslam et al.) he referenced. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Paul McDonald. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind and Drmies. Unfortunately, the CFB notability standards are so far below the consensus at WP:BIO that way too many people pass. I appreciate Paulmcdonald's passion to retain the articles, but he should put his energy into ensuring that those few coaches who are genuinely notable have their articles kept. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the first part of WP:BIO seems met. Again, http://www.victorysportsnetwork.com/article.php?articleID=1546 looks good to me, and the rest are certainly "multiple". Hobit (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment up to 23 sources now, plus 7 more on the talk page to review for potential inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question all this time, I thought notability was a policy. The pages all seem to say it is only a guideline, like Wikipedia:Notability (people) which includes WP:ATHLETE... If it isn't policy, why all the fuss? (am I reading it right?) I get chewed out for using a project notability essay... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Surely you do not have difficulty telling the difference between "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" and "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." That aside, the horde of new sources are just more and more trivial mentions, the same that accumulate like barnacles on any sports team, and just seem like an attempt to bury the issue under a giant mass. Just like three times zero still equals zero, twenty-three times zero isn't any larger. There is still not one single independent source that is a biographical article about Lee ... not about his wife, not about a player he's coached, not about his team, not about the prospects for the (then current) season, not a mere reiteration of won-loss statistics or how well Belhaven did in last weekend's game. Ravenswing 04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked a question, I wasn't looking for ridicule. The way I see it, WP:ATHLETE is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a large group of people who are not close to the topic and have not discussed it in length, where WP:CFBN is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a small group of people who are close to the topic and have discussed it in length. As to the "horde" of new "barnacle" articles, why in the world would not such a large assortment of articles from so many different sources not be an indicator of notability? Gobs upon gobs of other articles on Wikipedia have far less sources yet have remained after AfD discussions. And this isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, this is "other stuff exists and has remained through AfD" which is another way of asking, are you sure that the real reason you want this deleted is not just simply because you don't like it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as Paul Mcdonald--Parthian Scribe (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korn 9th Studio Album[edit]

Yet another "future album" article. No name, no tracklist, no release date, no source. Fails WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC. We need a speedy category for these. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HAMMER. Again I ask, what's the rush? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — stand back, folks, it's WP:HAMMERTIME! MuZemike (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation. --Allen3 ^talk 14:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smite this with the aforementioned WP:HAMMER, per above. Cliff smith ^talk 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contains no information, and appears to be just a fragment of a template. --Hew (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no verifiable information, and contains some original research. I believe this should have been tagged with a speedy deletion template, instead, because it is substantially the same article as before. I would also like to note that WP:HAMMER is not an official guideline, and articles should not go AfD due to it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On The Inside Looking Out[edit]

Non-notable download only album. Needs substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to be closely related to another download only album from the same artist, From The Ground Up (Dizzy album). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Dizzy (rapper) as a plausible search term, although I see his notability isn't exactly there either, but hey..... article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hello Control. Optionally redirect. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rapper is up for afd as well, so I'd say this fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Prelude[edit]

Delete non-notable modification for a video game. Sourced only from blogs Mayalld (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What blog?. Does this this and this and this looks blog to you?.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the sources do look blog-ish to me. Mayalld (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yea right. Even blogs are reliable if it by reliable sources --SkyWalker (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing to suggest that the sources shown exercise any degree of editorial selection in respect of the reviews that they publish. As such, they are not reliable. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life and GameSpy are run by IGN, itself run by News Corporation. IGN and GameSpy both exhibit editorial control, and Planet Half-Life does to an extent as well, although its more of a fan site run by IGN staff. Whether they seem bloggish to you or not, GameSpy and IGN sources are accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia as evidenced by their near omnipresence across Wikipedia alongside GameSpot, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. -- Sabre (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect to Portal (video game). Yes, sources are reliable, however, unofficial user modes are rarely given their own articles unless they get considerable wider coverage (otherwise, I can tell you we'd have a lot more user mods out there). The pack has been added to the Portal page already, and needs no more coverage at the present time from what the above sources give currently. --MASEM 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Masem, I don't know what more else is needed. If they are reliable sources the article has right to be here. Their website says that Valve has contacted them.They even said that some newspaper and Channel 4 were talking about this mod. Modders deserve attention. They are doing a lot of hard work and their deserves more encouragement. Look at Valve for example they even started bringing out mods on to their distribution system. It says a lot. Seriously what is wrong is adding mod in Wikipedia?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The typical video game article will have the following four sections: plot, gameplay, development, and reception. I have not played Prelude, but from what I've read and seen, there's no change in the Portal mechanics, so there is essentially nothing there. I'm not sure how much plot can be gotten into; given that it is unofficial, one has to be careful to presume that it is prelude to Portal, so there can't really be much there. Development as best I can tell can only be sourced to the developers themselves and thus this will not be a significant section. And from the reception standpoint, we're not going to have anything like sales (# of downloads maybe), but the reception itself as best I can tell is simply the levels are harder than Portal. There are notable sources for an article, yes, but I think the overall quality of such an article, pending new sources that may arise, is not good enough to have as its own article; two sentences can cover everything this article states presently in the main Portal video game article. This is the typical case with any user-generation modification of any game in terms of WP - its release may gain a brief bit of notability, but lasting notability is not guarantied (see WP:NTEMP). Not that there isn't potential for this to be more significant in the future, but given the typical pattern of user-mods, it likely won't; if it does, great, we can expand it. --MASEM 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, WP:NTEMP contradicts what you say: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence". According to that, there's no such thing as temporary notability or unguaranteed lasting notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I meant WP:NOT#NEWS. --MASEM 12:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability asks for siginficant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the Gamespy and Planet Halflife sources provide it. Additional interest displayed by the Kotaku piece, Softpedia, Rock Paper Shotgun and Wired demonstrate that interest is being shown and further sources are likely. The developer has been interviewed twice at least, which allows for some development info. The only thing which magazines have consistently covered which isn't off-the-shelf is mods, mainly for FPS games, and they've done so for years. The gaming world has gone bananas for Portal and here's a mod which takes as long to complete, has 400 lines of dialogue and may involve cake. Chances of it not getting covered in mags? Realistically, nil. IMO the sources present are enough anyway, but when there's that much potential for more deletion seems like throwing the baby out with the other baby. Someoneanother 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there is interest, but given how fast the gaming community moves and that the game has been out for a week and the coverage seems to have died down already, what is out there in coverage is most likely the bulk of what we will see. This doesn't prevent us from talking about it on the Portal page - there's no significant size issues there yet, and there's no reason that we can't make a new section about it, but as a standalone article, it is likely going to be very stubby. It's not an issue of notability, simply article quality. --MASEM 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What an excuse. So if it dies down. It should not be there?. What sort of excuse is that?. If that is the case half of the article in wikipedia has died down and must be deleted and/or should be merged?. Masem you are one who deleted Portal Prelude references in Portal article saying it was not relevant and now you want this article to be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before the map pack was released, someone added a very long (relative to the rest of the article) section on PP, which basically sourced the mod's website. I think at that time there was a Kotaku article mentioning this, I can't remember - but as a unreleased mod it no way needed about the 6-8 sentences it was getting. Now, the mod did get released, and more reliable sources (wired, RPS, at the very least, and the gamespy review) expressed the interest to make it completely reasonable to add the mod to the page - in one or two sentence - it is completely worthwhile to talk about because it's not just a random Joe User map pack. Again, my argument is not because there isn't notability for this, but that you are going to have a difficult time making this article any better from the lack of any other reliable sources that I have seen, at the same time having coverage in the main Portal article will make both topics better. --MASEM 12:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. Notability is not really an issue here, Skywalker and Someone another have both provided sources displaying notability. The problem is more what really can be said about the subject manner, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be that much as this is at the end of the day a glorified map pack. Rather than deletion, a redirect to Portal (video game)#Critical reception seems to me to be the most reasonable course of action, along with the addition to that article of the sources produced here to produce a quick and concise summary of the subject. -- Sabre (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of redirect?. It was added on Wikipedia when Masem removed it. Here is an excerpt

So, Ok... we actually got into the Wikipedia, at least until someone named Masem decided that it was not relevant to the article. After time goes by the traces would disappear. I have seen this happening in lot of Wikipedia articles. Let it be separate. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the sources are reliable, then the article remains. Simply like that.MRFraga (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon X (Exiles)[edit]

Let's get a couple of things out of the way to start with. This is NOT an article about Wolverine = Weapon X. This is NOT an article about Weapon X, the programme that created Wolverine (Just so people don't get confused).

Ok - this is an article about the weapon X team who appeared in the first volume of the marvel Exiles series. They have never had their own series, they have never appeared anywhere else. They only exist and exist as a counterpoint to the Exiles *within* that series. The existence of this team is covered in the (awful inuniverse) Exiles series and only needs to be described in real world commentary in terms of their contrast to that team. All of the sources are primary and will remain so because this little known team has never been the subject of the depth of reliable real world independent sources that we require to construct an article don't exist. And if they don't exist (and they don't), neither should this article. All required detail is already covered in the Exiles article. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather try and save the article for now and see how it goes - flag concerns and see what out-of-universe material can be found. (Emperor (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

there isn't any - They are mentioned in a couple of interviews when they were created on newsarama but that's about it - they are not notable outside the context of being supporting characters for the exiles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Emperor, or merge and redirect into Exiles (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Per above. JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Emperor's comments. --Mrph (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G10 - attack page/negative unsourced BLP). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schuler[edit]

A Biography of a living person which is sourced entirely to a Facebook profile. I can't find any reliable sources that mention this ball boy - a position which seems unlikely to provide the kind of coverage from which a verifiable article could be written. Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't this have been speedy deleted? A ball boy is definetly not notable and facebook is not a reliable reference source. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is unencyclopedic trivia, no evidence of notability, no reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quite aside from that there are a number of attack page elements, this is an A7 waiting to happen. RGTraynor 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleartext[edit]

This article I don't think has enough to stand on it's own. Propose deletion or merge into Cryptography or similar article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has come to my attention via a message on my talk page. I created the article and so can be seen to have bias, but I expect that the reasons for which I created are sufficient to preclude its deletion in any case. The concept of cleartext is important in cryptography and communication security. Perhaps especially for those new to the field who have not yet learned to think in the necessary cautious (which is not quite paranoid -- despite opinions to the contrary by outside observers). The concept was not adequately covered in any crypto corner article when I created the article, and my review of recent articles I have reviewed has shown no improvement in this respect.
Objectively, the article has several links to others, is also linked to by other articles, and is referenced to an external source. It is not, however, merely a Wikitictionary candidate unsuitable to WP, as the article has context useful to readers (especially those new to the field), which content would be unsuitable to a dictionary.
Hence I suggest that it is sufficiently encyclopedic to be retained. It is certainly a small corner of an uncommon if important topic, but deletion on those grounds would encompass a very large number of article.s As WP is a virtual encyclopedia, the cost of retaiing the article seems minimal in comparison. Socially, it has not occasioned edit wars nor community disturbance so it hasn't earned deletion points on those grounds either.
I suggest retention. ww (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the article is propounding an idea that doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia: that plaintext and cleartext are somehow two different things. I did a Google Books search to see what I could find. I looked at the first 80 books that came up. They ranged from HIPAA security handbooks through treatises on the legal aspects of cryptanalysis to encyclopaedias of computing. Only one even implied that there was a difference between plaintext and cleartext: ISBN 0471381896, a book on programming in Visual BASIC. All of the others stated that plaintext and cleartext were the same thing. All of the encyclopaedias and dictionaries had entries along the line of "cleartext: see plaintext" (examples: ISBN 0792384253 page 216, ISBN 0750696001 page 589, ISBN 0618714898 page 57, ISBN 0309054753 page 355, and ISBN 0442006497 page 366).
  So the question is: How is this content verifiable and not original research? What source do you have for the notion that there's some distinction between cleartext and plaintext, as you have written? Your sole cited source is the use of "cleartext" in ISO/IEC 7498-2. But that standard is well known for alternative terminology, such as its use of "encipher" and "decipher" instead of "encrypt" and "decrypt". A thing defined in ISO/IEC 7498-2 by an alternative name is not different to the thing named by the common name. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems different enough from plaintext to merit a separate article. By my ueaidrntsndg, caeerlxtt is txet taht has been eyrcntpetd, but taiirllvy so, so mhuc so taht the eyernctpr mghit not hvea beoerhtd. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accessed this article to help me out in the middle of a translation. If that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, then what is? I am well aware that experts in any area can argue things out until the cows come home, or at least until they reach consensus as to what content is necessary (which is what talk pages are for). But in the meantime, non-experts need a handy encyclopedic reference. The article is referenced, linked and clearly expressed, or to put it in other words, a good Wikipedia article.--Technopat (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Snodgrass[edit]

Biography of a living person that appears to fail WP:BIO. I don't see any significant coverage in news or books; just a few passing mentions in art and drug-related articles. Article hasn't expanded past a stub in a year and a half, and was tagged for no notability since April. There just don't seem to be any reliable sources to expand this page or establish any notability at all. In fact, a good amount of it ("innovator", "health and safety trained") reads more like a resume than a biography. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to assert notability. Bob has one of those names that is a bit of a minefield to google, but narrowing it down reveals only passing mentions outside of wiki-esque sites. The claim that he is "prominent" in his field isn't supported by the article on Glassblowing or the List of glass artists, never mind anything outside of WP. In fact, a brief look at some of those mentioned on that list demonstrates the level of notability that this article fails to convince me of. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snodgrass was a well-known member of the Grateful Dead's entourage, and an influential (if low profile) character. That he is omitted from the cited list simply shows the dichotomy between fine art and popular art; note the distinction Wikipedia draws between "violinists" and "fiddlers," even though the instrument is the same. The article will require finding print sources to reach full length, I expect, but there is certainly enough information online to indicate notability. For example, [19], "It all started with glassblowing legend Bob Snodgrass. He was the visionary artist who first experimented with clear borosilicate (or Pyrex) by adding powdered metals, thereby creating "color-changing glass.". Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I understand the disctinction you're trying to make regarding fine and popular art, but I don't think that has any bearing on the subject's notability (or on the inclusion criteria of that list - you'll see that a few of those artists certainly would disagree with the label of "fine art".) If his notability can be proven with reliable, third-party, published sources then please add them to the article, because at the moment there are none of any kind supporting the article's claims of the subject being a "prominent" glassblower or your assertion that he is an "influential (if low profile)" friend of the Grateful Dead (which is going have a hard time against WP:N, anyway). OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It is not appropriate, bordering on the uncivil, to cast behavioral aspersions at those who disagree with you or point out the errors in you arguments. You claimed that google searches showed no significant coverage, but I found an article in about 15 seconds and cited it. You claimed that his notability was not supported by the list of glass artists, but in terms of the criteria for that list, he would not be included regardless of his notability. Given your failure to make any genuinely relevant points, you would be better advised to strike your poorly informed comments than to attempt to chastise those who provide more accurate, relevant information. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on there. I didn't claim that his notability wasn't asserted by that list, I claimed that it wasn't asserted as there is a complete and utter lack of sources in the article, nevermind sources that may meet WP:RS. My nod to that list was questioning the assertion that he is prominent in that field. If that isn't the field that he's prominent in, then feel free to clarify this on the article (with sources). And please, please be aware that WP:AFD is a place for discussion, not a battleground; I wasn't casting "behavioral aspersions" on you, merely responding to some of the points you raised in an effort to forward the discussion. Please can you try and keep a level head, and focus on how the subject meets WP:N and WP:V so that the article can be improved if possible? :-D OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Minos, it was reasonable for OBM to point out that your feelings about fine art vs. pop art on Wikipedia are not relevant to this AfD discussion. He did it in a perfectly civil way. Your reply, on the other hand, wasn't so civil. He never called you "poorly informed", and he didn't say you "failed to make any genuinely relevant points". Let's not turn this into something personal. If sources can be added to the article to establish notability, I'm sure we'd all be happy to close this with a unanimous keep. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO, and the lack of references throws up WP:BLP concerns. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1 - article too short to identify context) by KieferSkunk. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement service[edit]

Dubious definition for a neologism. VG ☎ 11:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing of value here. Deb (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced dicdef, and not a clear or useful one. JohnCD (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Defined as the (abstract noun omitted) of software applications and/or hardware level of (abstract noun omitted) with the business (abstract noun omitted). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to subject-oriented programming (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper/J[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hyper/J

Gets a few mentions here and there, but given that this software is discontinued, it's unlikely that substantial coverage will emerge. VG ☎ 11:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good compromise solution would be to merge it with Subject-oriented programming. If you don't mind, I'll do that and turn "Hyper/J" into a redirect page. --Antonielly (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds reasonable, especially since subject-oriented programming doesn't have any concrete details. VG ☎ 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Can we considered the discussion formally closed? :) If you say so, I'll remove the "request for deletion" tag and turn Hyper/J into a redirect to Subject-oriented programming. --Antonielly (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. reclosing after enquiry. I missed that awards had been added and subsequent votes were to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Kay[edit]

Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. VG ☎ 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all the basic criteria. Deb (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO.--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - no evidence of notability at all. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails PORN BIO and lacks notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep She passes WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO due to her award nominations. Note to closing admin: the award nominations were added to the article after the first three votes here were made. Epbr123 (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep she technically passes WP:Pornbio due to the award nominations, but they are both group (3+) scene nominations which is as weak as it gets for awards. Also that's literally the only content in the article. 0 usable xbiz, avn, or gnews returns. Karina Kay interview on google similarly yields nothing of worth. I'm a staunch defender of the criteria, but this is a nearly useless article with little hope of improvement.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent example of why I think the PORNBIO criteria is flawed since it should only be winners that are notable. Jack Napier is a hell of a lot more notable in the porn world than her but it looks like his article is going to go down in flames. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as vandalism, and I doubt that this had a snowball's chance anyways. The page was a how-to page describing a morally and legally dubious scheme to make more money housing foster children by suggesting ways to spend less on their care. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fostercash[edit]

no evidence word is used or notable. possible hoax. prod removed with no reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 - blatant misinformation, so tagged. Guest9999 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced neologism, I can find no evidence that it is in use, article seems to be using it to try to make a point. JohnCD (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible. WP:SOAP violation, and arguably an attack page. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plano East Marching Contest[edit]

Article about music contest that does not establish notability through reliable sources, instead describes the rules/judging process in future tense as they are probably written (something that matches the rules that would accompany registration forms), making it promotional and possible copyright violation. Boffob (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources writing about this contest. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author of article has admitted (in good faith) conflict of interest and that the article was written to promote the contest on my user page. The latter would make it candidate for speedy deletion.--Boffob (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Waller[edit]

Not notable; suspect COI; kinda reads like an advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if sourced. Probably important award is asserted. Has the nom looked for sourcing? DGG (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See the article talk page for information on the likely COI violation, which raises suspicions that this article is little more than advertising for the subject. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications; the COI is highly likely as well. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This confirms that he was part of a group nomination for an Oscar. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - needs better sourcing, but a nomination for an Oscar is notable. The summary on Google news for this article behind a pay wall says Directors Pleix brought in-demand cinematographer Garry Waller (Ford ... "For the high-speed photography portion of the shoot we used the Phantom V9 and V7 ... so there is recognition amongst peers in his industry. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close discussion promptly. There's no doubt Waller was nominated for an Academy Award. There's nothing that would lead a reasonable person to believe Waller had anything to do with creating the entry, although is seems likely that someone who works on a project he also works on did. But even if he had, I would think that Wikipedia is unlikely to be harmed by a horde of Academy Award-nominated creative professionals writing their own entries here. When was the last time anyone said, "Yes, he was nominated for an Oscar, but he won't be in the big leagues until he has a Wikipedia entry?" Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Bridger. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex Software[edit]

This ad-like page cites three references:

what appears to be the Texas tax certificate for the subject company (but is locked)
an award site that doesn't mention the subject
an award for a website that appears to have been produced by the subject company (but it's the content, not the production, that appears to have won the award, as the subject company is not the recipient of the award).

It is not notable. Bongomatic (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a business specializing in Web-based software solutions for business customers. In other words, they fit the profile. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS to support notability. As for it being spam, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - sources don't establish notability and the advertising is just barely on this side of blatant. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GreyCat (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. MvjsTalking 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing is Believing (global initiative)[edit]

Blatant advertising. Is this charity notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Can be redirect to episode list at editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lula's First Barbarian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lula's First Barbarian

This article was redirected last year but an editor chose to repeatedly restore the article with the justification "These episodes don't need to be reverted, they follow the wikipedia guidelines". He also removed cleanup templates with the words "This was in the episode, according to the wikipedia rules and guidelines they don't count as original research". I, however, see major issues with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:OR. I could find no useful sources in the first Google pages, and nothing on Google Books and Google Scholar. I fear discussion or redirection outside of AfD will not result in objective results.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (didn't check Google for each one though, as I expect similar non-results):

(Episodes with Annie-Award noms are not included for at least having a claim of notability.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All They're all noteworthy, as all the other wikipedia pages on certain show's episodes. --AKR619 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you demonstrate the notability of the episodes ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), I'll agree. Otherwise your comment ignores my deletion rationale and also appeals to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't assume that a talk p. discussion would have no useful result. For at least some of this, the amount of information episode list seems to be sufficient, and I at least would have said it on a talk page if asked. DGG (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since AKR619 is the only editor to edit these articles, and since I already know that his views are not supported by policies and guidelines (see his comment above) and that he is willing to push his views through edit-warring (see the article histories), no, discussion would not have lead to any useful results. Especially since no sources seem to exist. No potential => no justification for article => AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. There is no chance of these episode articles being sourced, they're just plot summaries full of OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unsourced OR. As a second option, redirect all to List of Dave the Barbarian episodes and protect the redirects. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dave the Barbarian episodes. Articles essentially consist entirely of OR and would require being rewritten from scratch to meet our standards, even if the episodes were notable, which they appear not to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Payne. Merge or retarget redirect at editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Payne[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll add additional references and perhaps expand the article, at the time of creating the article I was inexperienced with Wikipedia therefore reluctant to create an article that followed the guidelines to the letter. The article provides no information regarding the plot but rather the character's relationships with other members of the cast. The external links provide sources for many of these claims however I will add citations to be more specific. UniversalBread (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge like the other characters into Tyler Perry's House of Payne. The section on the characters there needs to be expanded, but I do not think the show is of the same cultural importance as some of the others we've been considering, and may not justify separate articles for even the principal characters. DGG (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we where to create an additional section for characters on the main article it would certainly be too lengthy compared to other sections. If the deletion of the article is indeed mandatory an additional article for information regarding the fictional characters should be created.

Wikipedia guidelines haven't exactly made it clear as to what makes a telivision character "significant" enough to warrant its own article, and really there seems to be a double standard. Characters who appear very rarely such as Meg have their own article (as well as any other character on that show), which--ironically--offer very little information rather than plot summary.

I'm not excusing crappy articles with the existence of multiple other mediocre articles, however this makes it difficult as to distinguish what is required for a character to have their own article. Ella Payne is a key character on the show; if I where to significantly improve the article I doubt a merge would be necessary. UniversalBread (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, no reliable sources == nothing to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. House of Payne already covers this character, nothing to merge (most of it is series overview and character blood relations). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the sources seem suitable for it to be a section of a combination article. They meet WP:V for the purpose--primary sources for uncontroverted material like this are accepted. DGG (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Papa Lazarou. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Drop[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Papa Lazarou and redirect. it's just the name of his disguised identity. This nomination seems not to have taken account of the particular characteristics of the subject of the article. In this case, none of the above is really relevant, just that there is no separate notability from the "real" character. And if any character article would have been an obvious merge without coming here, it's this. DGG (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Papa Lazarou, with optional merge, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Papa Lazarou, with optional merge, per above. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a search the nominator was able to find proper sources for notability so I'll take it as a withdrawal, being a stub isn't much of a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wasserman[edit]

not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Perhaps not, but it would help to have some detail of why you think so. DGG (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ack! I did a Google search before I posted this AfD, but I must've mistyped because I just did the search again and found enough in the results to indicate that this person is at least more notable than I thought. Still not much of an article, but... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Viera- Newton[edit]

Non-notable DJ. External links / refs quoted do nothing to confer any notability on the individual. Fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article was recently deleted and was almost immediately re-created. Csollinger is trying to "hide" all this by adding a blank space to the title between the hyphen and "Newton." Check the deletion log for "Harley Viera-Newton" and you'll see what I'm talking about. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rendell[edit]

This article about a photographer does not provide any evidence for notability, such as the winning of notable awards or any independent commentary. Grahame (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. </smallUser:Grahamec|Grahame]] (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Jenafalt (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence provided around notability, and hard to find any via usual sources. I also note that the subject appears to have contributed a deal of the content. Murtoa (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable fails WP:BIO and all that. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubtlessly a skilled photographer, but would not appear to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Xymmax (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwire (rock band)[edit]

I suspect this is a hoax as this article appears to be (in name anyway) a recreation of an earlier article that was speedily deleted on October 11 for lack of notability. Even if this isn't a hoax (I'm assuming here), I think this article fails WP:MUSIC as the article clearly states that their album is due out in 2009. I get no Google hits for this band or Donahue Records which is the record company they are supposedly signed to. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Doesn't look like a hoax, just an article about some kids in a band that has played at their parents parties. Donahue Records could be Riley's dad. no claim to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged: we really don't need an AfD for this. No assertion of notability. Their performance record is "They have performed at a work party for Cole's dad and his company" and "They have just recently played at a barn party booked by Brady's dad." Rather more than that is required for WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Hermes (Ars Magica)[edit]

There's no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional organization. Notability isn't inherited from Ars Magica, and this article is mostly plot summary. I didn't seek a merge as I don't think there is material worth merging to increase the understanding of the Ars Magica article beyond what is already present there. The prod I placed was removed, so this is why the AfD is here. --Craw-daddy | T | 06:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 06:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article does not cover this subject, & some coverage is necessary for proper encyclopaedic coverage of Ars Magica. Merging is an option, but the main article is already large. Tachyonuk (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really more information necessary than what is already at Ars Magica#The Order of Hermes? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep - at the bare minimum there would need to be a list of the Houses Tachyonuk (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably trimming the main article slightly. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tachyonuk, or merge and redirect to Ars Magica#The Order of Hermes per Percy. BOZ (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tachyonuk. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pz10.com[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 – page blanked by main contributor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable web site. No third-party sources to back up claims of members or traffic. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Original author has a conflict of interest as he is the owner of the website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of third-party reliable sources does it for me. There are some assertions that may make the article notable, but after my own search, there are just no reliable sources to verify these claims. Even with these claims, it is hard to tell whether they are truly notable (being the first Indian-based website to break the top 4500 websites?, the No. 35 Indian web portal?, etc) The lack of sources, combined with it reading like an advert, and it failing WP:WEB and WP:CORP, means I endorse the deletion request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Even if we accept the really weak claims in the article as 100% truth, they're not notable in the slightest, though there is a certain charm in claiming to host "stomach-churning jokes". Note that the article is also a pretty blatant advertisement that even slips into first-person at the end: "...we work continuously to keep up and bring in more creativity". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Eligible for a Spammy award. MuZemike (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now eligible for speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 with this edit. My edits to the article were not substantial, but would prefer that another admin close this AfD and delete the article since I was in contact with the original author regarding issues with the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Deer[edit]

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT. Claims of being "most popular female character to come out of Disney Afternoon" is completely unsupported and no sources found to back it up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without going into detail about why this article makes me lose faith in mankind, it's really just another character from just another Disney show. Maybe merge to the appropriate character list article? JuJube (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gimmie a break... Themfromspace (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute? Yes. The subject of much Rule 34? Yes. Subject of any sources? No. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Horror Sounds[edit]

Seems to fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Speedy tag removed by the original contributor, and I don't feel like warring with him/her. VG ☎ 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article reads as a press release and seems pretty blatant adverting. The article does not present a valid reason for notability, either as a company (production company based in London), as an indy record label (both of their debut albums have been best iTunes sellers) or for the two album they seem to have put out. (Does Wikipedia even allow iTunes or other online sales for albums to be thought of as "notable"?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyDelete - fails as per WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:V - DustyRain (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author: This is a specialist company whose products are used for entertainment purposes at costume parties. People wish to know who they are and what they do because unlike a pop artists, there is no public face. I considered this wiki entry as a public service for the many people who are interested in this form of entertainment. I did not remove the deletion tag on purpose - it just disappeared, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.164.221 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtheatre[edit]

Local kids theater company in Canada. A google search provides links to a ton of organizations called Youtheatre, and none of them appear to be this particular one. Not notable. Also WP:COI; prod removed without comment or fix. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI advertising of a nonnotable theater. Themfromspace (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, really blatant WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Written like an advert, and non-notable to boot. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Okay, kids, break it up -- the show is over (literally!). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A good discussion that, in the end, had no !votes to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Centre[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mall is a mall is a mall... Would anyone care to dig through these sources [20][21][22] to establish some special notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequent these malls, and I can imagine that Pentagon Row, the other mall that I flagged at the same time as this one, might have garnered an award, as one of the newer livable smart-growth outdoor malls with consolidated residential space; I'll take a look. But this one? It's a nondescript building with a homely interior with a CostCo, a Marshall's, a Linens and Things, a Best Buy, a Borders, a Chevy's, and (surprise!) a Starbucks. No way there's anything remarkable about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying you flagged Pentagon Row for deletion and will now investigate whether it's notable?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Part of the dynamic of these discussions is that someone might make a point that someone else hadn't already considered. It hadn't occurred to me before to think of it in terms of having won an award. Originally I'd been thinking in terms of, "Gee, it has a Noodle & Company, a Baja Fresh, a Hallmark store, and a Harris Teeter. How does this distinguish it from 50,000 other shopping malls in this country alone?" In fact, the realization that there might be something I don't know about how shopping malls are judged de facto for notability purposes (not de jure—there is no operative notability policy specifically for shopping malls on Wikipedia at the moment), as well as leaving open the possibility that someone might make some points in favor of keeping the article, is why I didn't just request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the article is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", so WP:CSD#A7 wouldn't apply anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A shopping mall isn't an organzation (a company or a segment thereof)?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's pretty clearly a building or structure.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But despite that Delete this place doesn't meet the notability standard there either. The Pentagon Centre in Chatham,--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) UK might though...[reply]
        It isn't clear to me. Anyway, note that while the (proposed!) buildings article doesn't mention malls, it mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria" That's only true for chains and we're talking about shopping malls, not chains of shopping malls. In cases not related to chains it goes back to the same criteria as for other structures.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny, OK, I missed "chain". But then, a chain of hotels or restaurants isn't a building, structure, or landmark, so it's awfully strange that they bothered mentioning them at all. But it doesn't matter: if offered it as the consequence an *even if* the buildings criteria apply. I still don't think of a shopping mall as primarily a building. In fact, in the case of Skyline Mall (discussed in another AfD) it isn't *even* a building, and the same goes for the Crystal City Underground—obviously, since each is just part of a building. Finally, I note again that regardless of whether Wikipedia has yet to complete a policy on malls, what seems obvious to me is that if you can go by the local press, then every single shopping mall on the planet is notable. The whole point of notability criteria is to distinguish those things that are truly worth taking note of from the rest. Any definition of notability for some particular class of things that results in all members of the class being notable is a worthless definition.—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relisted on the grounds that while there's back and forth, there doesn't appear to be consensus. I think a few extra days could bring consensus, so not closing as a no-con. TravellingCari 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree entirely with the nominator on this one. The subject of this unsourced stub doesn't need an article. Delete Master&Expert (Talk) 04:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See comments above. (I don't think anyone's taking the contrary position.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Yue[edit]

Non notable martial artist, page seems to be a promotion of the martial artist. Abstrakt (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reason. Abstrakt (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks to me like this person would be notable if there were a secondary reference for the competitive achievements mentioned in the article. Bradford44 (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep concur with above comment ~~but presently no verified evidence of WP:N~~ and given the circumstances the source below is acceptable to me.. JJL (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be no web lists of chinese wushu champions. Is Kung Fu Magazine an acceptable secondary source? jmcw (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the references from Kungfu Magazine to the article. jmcw (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive balance[edit]

A couple of Google hits use this phrase in connection with the concept of "an eye for an eye" but if this were the standard name of an established legal principle I'd expect to see it used in references and analyses all over the place, so I suspect it isn't an established term. Besides that, the article is unreferenced; one of the external links refers only to punitive damages, an entirely different thing; and the other external link has the words "punitive balance" in a context entirely unrelated to the sense conveyed by the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I place a prod tag for the same reasons - 78 ghits, none of which seemed related, and neither two links were relevant. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commonly accepted name is mirror punishment. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth a redirect, the term doesn't seem to be at all notable, and we have an article on the concept under its normal name. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott "Tracker" Cameron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scott "Tracker" Cameron

Article about a Non-notable character, filled with nothing but Plot summary. No references, all OR. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Not enough is written about these characters to support references for a meaningful article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the combination article, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. I see no reason given for not redirecting. I agree that they are not at this point worth separate articles. I see no attempts to discuss a redirect or a merge , either. DGG (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Note Wiki[edit]

Article written by author publicizing his own neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly a promotional page. No indication that the concept is notable besides the originator's paper. VG ☎ 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — neologism. MuZemike (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Only 3 google hits, 1 is this article, the other 2 are related to this program [Tomboy (software)]. No hits on Google news, Scholar, Books, Groups, or the blog search. The 1 yahoo hit is a false positive. The fact that the originator of the concept seems to be the creator of the article eans there isn't any evidence that anyone besides him thinks this is notable. It seems to be a new concept, so may become notable at some point, but it isn't now. Silverfish (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthevampire (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate, please? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - basically what everyone else said. its spam. the writer of the wiki was the person writing the page.--Billthevampire (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Krikorian Airways[edit]

This could be a WP:HOAX, but will WP:AGF that it isn't, however, there are no sources to give it WP:N, and there is also a conflict of interest in that the person who started the article is mentioned as owning this 'airline'. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure if it's a hoax or not, but I certainly couldn't find any reliable citations to verify it. Delete regardless of whether or not it violates WP:HOAX - if it's real it's not notable, plus the conflict of interest.Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:CORP. No notability at all on the net in searches. Apparently no official codes issued. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a WP:HOAX to me. An airline would surely have a website. I see no coverage of the "purchase" of Atlantis European Airways. MvjsTalking 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Austrian Airlines lists press releases on their website. No mention of any such codeshare ('cordershare') as claimed in article. MadScot (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarEmulator[edit]

per WP:CRYSTAL. Non-notable software add-on to a non-notable MMPORG. Also, the add-on has not yet been completed or released and I could not verify the project exists after several searches. Newsaholic (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a blatant advertisment to me. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would have voted to save but the release date description changed my mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also contains some processed ham. MuZemike (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TomStar81. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJAX[edit]

The article is in no way notable. I did a Google search for "CJAX" and the only things that came up that relate to the framework were the official website and this Wikipedia article. There has been no talk about the software by reliable sources, and there seems to be little evidence suggesting that this will change soon. — ^Fatal Error 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. There should, however, be an article on the radio station, or a redirect if the radio station is currently branded under another callsign. 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no encyclopaedia value. Wikipedia is not the place for large example code snippets on a non-notable product. MvjsTalking 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. Looks like CJAX link would be more appropriate in some list of AJAX engines. --GreyCat (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 -- Y not? 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tully Rinckey PLLC[edit]

Fails WP:COMPANY, lacks notability. Founder may be notable but that notability doesn't transfer to his company. Original creator appears to have COI issues as well.Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Keep in mind this will change, but it does seem to meet WP:V and if these awards are real I can see it compete in WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Wells (musician)[edit]

Many issues with the biggest one being a Conflict of Intrest. Full details can be read by reading the talk page: Talk:E. J. Wells (musician)#COI Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because this is a clear conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I see no proof of notability either here. Soundvisions, you have put in quality time. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponry of Blade[edit]

Unencylopedic. The character is notable, but his weaponry is not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and over the WP:OR line, also probably conflicting with WP:NOT. If possible transwiki it to the Marvel Database Project but they might not even want it - it seems more the kind of thing suitable for a fan site. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: That's not to say Wikipedia shouldn't have lists like this, so much as I mean Wikipedia shouldn't have articles dedicated to lists of items that are overly trivial and could be better listed as part of another article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We should probably consider merging the more notable parts of the list into the characters page. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Delete Scratch that, there already is a section that covers the weapons. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article looks pretty well fleshed out. It looks like a decent sub-article of Blade (comics)#Equipment. And it looks too long to merge into Blade (comics). There are comics, three films, and a TV show to write it from. When speaking of vampires, the methods used by vampire hunters to kill them are worth noting. --Pixelface (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is: how do we know he uses a MAC-10 or USP Match in Blade 2? There is no source for it which would imply someone has watched the film and thinks that this is what those objects are. I am just plucking those out but you could substitute every weapon for the examples because without sources it is original research. Obviously there are other problems (as Master Expert points out it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but that is the glaring one for me - unless there is some massively clunky exposition naming every weapon or there is a book called "Weapons of Blade" this is all based on someone's opinion (it may be correct in most cases but without reliable sources it is just guesswork). (Emperor (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unnecessary level of in-universe detail for an encyclopedia. There's already a section in Blade (comics) with a good overview, as there should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over the top in-universe detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there's potential for improvement, otherwise merge relevant material into Blade and redirect. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by TerriersFan and sandboxed. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kopachuck Middle School[edit]

Middle school with no assertion of notability. A redirect to Peninsula School District was reverted by the creator. Either delete or protect the redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peninsula School District#Middle schools. This was first prodded, then redirected then AfDed whilst a new editor was expanding the page. I think that this is bad practice - new editors should be guided and allowed a chance to establish notability, first. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I admit I acted in haste, the creator made a suggestion on my talk page which seems sensible to me: he is to expand the Peninsula School District article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem that we have now is that he is busy adding a whole bunch of unencyclopaedic detail that will have to come out :-( Sigh! TerriersFan (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all of it, from what I've seen. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's just taken it out ... . TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Westerman[edit]

Non-notable game designer; no references to third-party reliable sources given. Links given in References section all describe projects and websites that he is involved in, rather than the subject himself. Judging from Google and Google News, which are all passing mentions of the subject in unreliable sources if not unrelated altogether, references that discuss the subject in detail are not likely to be forthcoming. Resoundingly fails to satisfy notability criteria for biographies. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~provisionally~~. I'd like to see the awards specifically be sourced, but the rest of it needs better sourcing as well. If reliably sourced, this article will pass muster in my book. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are for websites he setup or run and therefore shouldn't be used to prove the subject's notability. Just because YouTube or Google are notable websites does not automatically make the people who designed them notable. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I find that reasoning specious. Further, my index of suspicion climbs when an AfD nominator argues with "keep" !voters. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources for some of the awards to back up the claims.Charlie allnut (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've struck the "provisionally" from my keep on the basis of the additional sources found. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seems to pass WP:BIO given that there exist two reliable secondary sources about this person. MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? All the ones given in the "References" section are not about Westerman himself, they're primarily about the award-winning websites he's been involved with. Only brief mention of the man himself is given in all of them. Nothing substantial enough for a separate biography. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a resume puff piece. The only verifiable info is that he worked for those companies, and that those companies got some awards. Notability is not inherited to that extent, and the awards are of the pay-me-to-give-you-one variety (see Webby_Awards#Criticism). VG ☎ 06:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm kinda iffy on this one, but I think a WP:BLP article needs more than just an IMDB entry and what I presume to be him talking at an industry convention as sources directly related to the man. Many of the given sources don't even mention Westerman, and this source puts him in a not-unique position. Nifboy (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas with The Judds and Alabama[edit]

Yes, it's by two notable acts, and yes, it charted on Top Country Albums. But I'm finding absolutely no sources for it anywhere. 27 Google hits, no Google News hits, absolutely nothing on Allmusic, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who wrote the article and I think Delete will work until someone can find some sources. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's always nice when an AfD regular happens to be a subject matter expert. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bowditch[edit]

~~Non-notable~~ professor of mathematics of unknown notability. Article says 'known for his contributions to geometry and topology but no examples of notable contributions are provided. As written, does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria in WP:PROF. (Google pulls up his bio and little else.) Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I think sometimes people don't realise what 'professor' means in the UK. It means he was/is a head of department at a university, at least in his previous post. He has plenty of mentions in scholarly papers [23] and some credits in books [24]. He has proven some sort of theorem or something. Maths isn't 'trendy' so might not get in the papers etc but is still an encyclopedic subject, if anything even more so. Sticky Parkin 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit a bit of ambivalence here myself. In general, we don't include (or don't seem to include) professors unless they have some particular theory or finding attributed to them that is notable. Counting the number of papers is not a great help since the lay editor cannot judge the quality of the journals in which they are published. There are many an academic with a long list of publications in second and third level journals who would appear notable by the standard of publication count. The same applies to credits in books. Since we, as lay editors, are not in a position to judge the quality of the work, we tend to rely on either an independent description of the notability of the work or, with some luck, professional awards that are notable. In this case, we don't seem to have either. Anyway, I'm curious to see what the rest of the wikiworld thinks and would particularly like to see what standards we should apply in the case of university professors. (Note: Here, in the US, a department chair, as in head of department, means little.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information only: In the UK, the title of professor does not imply the person is (or ever was) head of a university department. As discussed at Professor#Most other English-speaking countries, there's some inconsistency in academic titles even within the UK at present. There are over 30 professors in the Warwick math dept—see their staff list. It is one of the top maths depts in the UK though (certainly top 5 i'd say). Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: In most UK universities, the single rank or title of Professor equates to full, or possibly named, professor in the US. It happens that one or two, including Warwick, have gone to the "three-tier" model. At some universities it is or was true that only a professor would be a head of department, usually regarded as a rather more senior position than it is in the US. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above user. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the way it is now. Professors I have no problem with, as long as they've done something--but that 'something' needs some cold hard evidence, and this article does not provide any. He is 'known' for things: known by whom? Not by anyone that I can establish, and the author's burden is to prove that he is in fact known. And RegentsPark, we are not actually given any of the work, so we couldn't possibly judge it. Was this written by one of his students? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as it stands now. Does not establish notability. Being a UK professor is not enough to establish notability per WP:PROF. --Salix (talk): 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article has improved just about enough. --Salix (talk): 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not only fails to establish notability, but fails to mention anything of interest. Why was this article created in the first place? -- Dominus (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the guy who solved the Angel problem? Geez, why doesn't it say so? -- Dominus (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brian Bowditch is actually a very well-known figure in geometric group theory and hyperbolic geometry. He has papers in Inventiones and JAMS, but he has other papers that are cited more, like the one in Duke with over 100 citations on Google Scholar. Warwick is a fairly strong math department, and his professorship is an indication of his status. But his work stands for itself. Recently, he proved the angel problem, which while from the viewpoint of his entire corpus of work is not that significant, it is a pretty famous problem and notable achievement in its own right. --C S (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find evidence he satisfies any of the criteria of WP:TEACH. The only one he might meet at present would seem to be criterion 1, namely "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". This is certainly not demonstrated in the article at present and the {{notability}} template has been in place since June, which seems enough notice to do something about it. MathSciNet reports that "Brian H. Bowditch is cited 484 times by 270 authors" (subscription req'd), topped by 53 for the 1995 paper in Duke Mathematical Journal to which C S refers above (see Wikipedia:TEACH#Notes and Examples for reasons to prefer this count to Google Scholar's). Based on MathSciNet's citation counts, his h-index is 13 (13 papers cited at least 13 times each) and his g-index is 20 (top 20 papers have been cited an average of 20 times each), which seems respectable for a maths professor aged 46 or 47 rather than outstanding. His proof of the angel problem is covered in that article, and while it's certainly worth including there, and I don't think that proof alone makes him notable (the angel problem is hardly the Riemann hypothesis after all). Qwfp (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the citation record, which is relatively high for mathematics, certainly more than the average. The importance of a scholar is judged by that. That is the key way in which other scholars in the field show the notability, and we just mention it. I find it incomprehensible that after finding this record, the person who found it said it didn't matter. Full professor at a major university is normally notable- -even if not head of dept. That too shows the opinion of colleagues about the notability, and it is they who judge. One does not have to do work like solving the Riemann problem to be notable. Notability does not require fame, or we;'d be a very small encyclopedia. But I hope someone who knows enough to do it properly will quickly upgrade the article. DGG (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am on a wikibreak and travelling at the moment and will not have time to work on the article for a few days (I did not know that the article was created until I saw this AfD). I am a geometric group theorist myself (look at the WP articles I had written listed on my userpage) and I know Bowditch's work personally quite well. He is in fact a notable mathematician both in geometric group theory and in geometric topology. The articles Geometric group theory and Bass-Serre theory already mention, by name, some of his important contributions: the JSJ-decomposition theory for word-hyperbolic groups, his work on boundaries of hyperbolic groups, and his work on relative hyperbolicity. In geometric topology he is also a prominent name, particularly for his work on the curve complex, the study of the Teichmuller space and applications to 3-manifolds, Kleinian groups and mapping class groups. The high citability results, in GoogleScholar[25], and MathSciNet, demonstrate this convincingly. Let me also mention that a substantial number of his papers have been published in the toughest and most prestigious math journals, such as Inventiones Mathematicae, Acta Mathematica, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Crelle's Journal, Duke Mathematical Journal, and others. The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, and when I get back from the break I will do that, but it does deserve a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Bowditch had given an invited address at the 2004 European Congress of Mathematicians [26], also a significant sign of distinction. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another note: Bowditch has been awarded[27] the Whitehead Prize in 1997 by the London Mathematical Society (technically, a "Junior Whitehead Prize", which means for someone at most 15 years after PhD, but nevertheless a notable award). Here is a quote for a detailed award citation that was published in the Bulletin of LMS[28]:"His deepest work is on the asymptotic properties of word-hyperbolic groups. This work simultaneously generalises and simplifies recent work of several authors, and it already has many applications. In one application, he develops a new theory of groups acting on dendrites. Building on previous contributions of G. Levitt, G. A. Swarup and others, this led him to a solution of the `cut-point conjecture'. This recent work also yields a characterisation of word-hyperbolic groups as convergence groups. Bowditch has solved several major problems in geometric group theory using methods that are elegant and as elementary as they can be." Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the award and the other less extraordinary, but still non-trivial, notability claims are sufficient to meet WP:PROF, which is a pretty stringent standard (compared with, say, WP:ATHLETE). VG ☎ 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The invited ECM address makes it easy. Richard Pinch (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changed from nom.) Seems notable enough now, with the independent prize and the solution to a specific problem. Clearly, the deletion process works! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Keep--the article has improved, though it still needs editorial work, and if the guy is as great as Nsk argues, then those references need to be part of the article, not just of the AfD discussion. Good work, RegentsPark. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 In retrospect, I probably should have just wiped out this nomination instead of fixing it, but I was trying to WP:AGF on the nominator's part. The organization in question is clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Word Fellowship[edit]

Nominating for deletion due to the following points:

The very inception of the article appears to be based on some sort of personal grudge by the creator of the article, who in the first AFD discussion admitted himself that the subject was not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
An accurate article cannot be written on the Living Word Fellowship without conducting original research. The creator wrote in the AFD discussion: “It is nearly impossible to ascertain the beliefs of this church without attending regularly.” The subject’s official website says that the founder “had authored more than 11,000 recorded sermons and hundreds of written messages.” After exhaustive research, I can find no third-party source that has performed enough research to produce a reliable source on this subject.
“Another Gospel”, cannot be considered reliable when even reviewers on Amazon are noting glaring errors (please see debbieannconway’s review at: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Gospel-Ruth-Tucker/dp/0310404401). The book also cannot be considered neutral enough to be the foundation of an entire article as it is clear in its attempt to critique religions according to orthodox Christian beliefs and comes to conclusions based on a pre-existing agenda. Discussion was created by User:LikesPoodles who overwrote the first deletion discussion by mistake, moved here by me. I have no opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There are plenty of nontrivial third-party sources describing this organization, including (but not limited to) the book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, the People magazine article about Tony Cox's report of his experiences, and Tony Cox's documentary film. The fact that these sources are not a sufficient basis for writing the complete and definitive story of this organization does not change the fact that the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artimus Pyledriver[edit]

NN band, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:29, 10 October 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) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeathStation 9000[edit]

Unreferenced and non notable usenet joke term. Ref 1 is not about the DS9K, Ref 2 is just a joke site MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gets just 75 Google hits, which is awfully weak for something originating online. Nothing that looks even remotely like a reliable source, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Mvjs Talking 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets 648 hits is you use google to search usenet, which is where it originated, and is still in frequent current use [29]. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mission Fleg. Usenet is, by its nature, less searchable and referenceable than many other sources and this is definitely worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hmmm, a programmer joke from USENET.... Is this term older than August 1998? I see 1,280 hits on Google (Groups). 774 of those are the quote "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose" in a sig[30]. Perhaps the "DeathStation 9000" is well-known among readers of comp.lang.c, but most editors seem to subscribe to the idea that USENET is not a reliable source. Some say Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Is it for terms made up on USENET a decade ago? --Pixelface (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From Usenet#Usenet_terms, I only found FWAK which comes anywhere near in terms of unreferenced usenet jokiness. Not even enough material to justify a List of Usenet humour MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 14 October 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) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be summed up in two sentences, and thus not worth an article. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything that can be sourced only to Usenet is not notable, I'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete- basic google hits make no odds. Anyone can write anything on usenet and on the internets. No reliable sources exist at all, no mentions in newspapers,[31] books [32] or in academic papers, of course.:)[33] Sticky Parkin 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the otters speak wisely. This concept is mildly amusing but, in the end, just something made up one day. Reyk _YO! 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting, i didnt realise usenet was viewed so poorly. before there was a wikipedia or even a www thoughtful people such as yourselves :) used to hang out there. indeed wikipedia is absolutely dripping with usenet/unix/c/hacker culture. but anyway i digress, i only wish to address the idea that DS9K is only a joke term, sure theres some humour there but it addresses a real issue, which is that newbie c programmers are often completely thrown by the idea that there is something undefined within the language (the infamous 'i = i++;' statement [34]) it just doesnt fit their (newbie) worldview, they're used to the idea that they have complete control of the operating system and the language. so to get across the idea that sometimes they dont, they really really dont, takes a little exaggeration. finally, as to 'Anyone can write anything on usenet', sure, anyone can write anything here too, it gets corrected tho, and its the same with groups such as comp.lang.c. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We aready have an article on Undefined behavior, so this argument is only realy a case for retaining the term as a protected (i.e. not expandable into an article) redirect to act as a search term. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe wikipedia does have elements of usenet because people can technically write anything, however, that's why we don't use wikis or wikipedia itself as a reliable source to reference articles. Sticky Parkin 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DS9K gets 2320 hits on google [35] Too Old (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the hits on google are from bloggers or false positives. Usenet is not a reliable source, so I don't see DS9K meeting notability. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The New Jedi Order. If people want to make a more specific redirect, feel free to do so. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kre'fey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kre'fey

Unreferenced plot summary for a series of marginally notable in-universe, wholly non-notable out-of-universe, characters. --EEMIV (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate Star Wars page. JJL (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Jedi Order novel series article, can't see where the notability of these stands either in or out-of-universe. treelo _radda 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojsa Stanojevic[edit]

This biography of a living person was created and edited last month by Digger3d, NebojsaStanojevic, 92.36.189.68, and Kesakoxxxl. RGTraynor tagged it for deletion last week as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising (I deleted and undeleted it, DGG deleted it). As per the discussion on *User talk:Athaenara#Nebojsa Stanojevic, I undeleted it today to list it for wider discussion here. — Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*(Now in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6#Nebojsa Stanojevic.) – Athaenara ✉ 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article does read like blatant self-promotion and notability is not established. The only independent source is the New York Times which merely includes this person in the list of credits as "Editor" (the article implies something more glamorous). I lean toward delete unless some independent sources for any of the claims can be found. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside of him being the second of two editors on a 2001 German comedy, I can't find any third-party reliable sources that mention him. Sounds to me like what USERFY was meant for. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~ Delete Yeah... did another series of searches with various parameters. Blogs and SPS. Pity. only if the peacock can be removed from thaa article. I find some interesting sources [36] that suggest there may be a notability as an author and ignoring the filmaker hype. Possible that this may be WP:ONEEVENT, so that's why my keep is so weak. Even the WP:ONEVENT is not covered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried that search, but with the guy's name in quotes, and without blogspot.com, wikipedia, googlepages.com, digger3d.com, and video.google.com. Result: [37] pretty much nothing. If you take out the WP:PEACOCK and WP:COI, there's nothing usable left. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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