Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Robertson[edit]

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

Notability issues. I searched as best as I could, but mainly found references to other people with the same name and some blog entries. The only claim to fame is showing at the same show as Ansel Adams, and the cite given only states the fact, not that he is the only person to do so, and has no editorial/review aspect to it. The only other link is his website. I know the article is new, but I took the time to search for myself, and the info just doesn't seem to be there to establish that he is notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please see my comments below, more info has been added but I can't withdraw with existing delete !votes. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Pharmboy is correct, coverage in reliable sourcing is severely lacking for this artist. Showing work alongside of another famous artist does nearly nothing for notability in and of itself. Almost a CSD A7. - Icewedge (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would agree with this - there is a lack of information on him online, however the ansel adams show presented him as "notable" this may not be the case however

81.187.22.92 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Still undecided. However, I'm amazed to read that this is "almost a CSD A7". Consider this link, establishing as authoritatively as possible that a municipal gallery of a city of some cultural prominence exhibited his works in a small one-man show: we're not talking here about some commercial gallery exhibiting artistique soft porn in order to bring in some sawbucks, or photographer paying for a rental space in order to gain fame (or sawbucks). Further, there's quite a bit that's googlable about this exhibition. My own worry is that I can't quickly find anything else that's significant about him. (And I am always somewhat repelled by photographers such as Robertson who promote themselves on their own websites as "Fine Art"; I'd leave such value judgements -- on artistic merit, printing quality, or both -- to people who have some claim to be independent judges. Though this is no doubt an irrelevance, as is my impression from the JPEGs that any five of his photos are worth at least fifty by a lot of esteemed artists, e.g. two thirds of the photographers recently exhibiting at the ICP as "Heavy Light".) -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nom, I don't have a problem if the closing admin wants to wait an extra day or two to allow you to find sources. I looked really hard to establish notability myself, I just couldn't. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... looking for stuff on the exhibition with Adams, I found quite a lot, including reviews in the Scotsman [1] and the Sunday Herald [2] (i.e. both of Scotland's main national newspapers). While the coverage is, understandably, largely focused on Adams, the reviews do have some quite nice things to say about Robertson as well; for example "magnificent pictures" [3], "The exhibition’s sub-title is A Celebration of Genius and this epithet might equally well be directed at Robertson, whose large format images, mostly of the Scottish Highlands, are simply stunning" [4], "as breathtaking as anything in the show" [5], "Next to these, the work of Scots landscape photographer Lindsay Robertson seems an anomaly. Taken at Glencoe and on the same American plains where Adams worked, they pay skilled homage to Robertson’s forebear. Yet, the sheer size of some of these sets up an unlikely competition with arguably the work of the greatest landscape photographer who ever lived." [6] and "his work [is] talented, captivating and unique" [7]. I suppose I'm leaning towards a weak keep, partly because I think the degree of praise just about makes up for its brevity, but perhaps partly because, like Hoary, I just like his pictures. ;-) Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a tip of the hat to Iain for good googling. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom Some of those sources are a bit weak, but there are enough strong sources that if I had found those (and I tried), then I would not have nominated it for deletion. Since there are delete !votes here, I can't withdraw, but the closing admin may want to note that the nominator now believes the artist is at least marginally notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you can't stop this AfD, you can certainly withdraw your own nomination if you want to. You could for example strike it through and refer readers down to your latest comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't good form to withdraw your own nom if there are existing Delete !votes, and is generally frowned upon here. Likely it won't matter and it will end up in a keep. I did strike my comments in the nom just now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iain99. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the City Art Centre in Edinburgh is not a minor venue, IMHO.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per withdrawal of the nominator. I would close but there are un withdrawn deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 7 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 per CSD:G3 as obvious hoax. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Cox[edit]

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

Page claims Jayson Cox is among other things an Academy Award nominee, has starred in One Flew over the cuckoo's nest, is a rap artist with a number 1 album in the USA, making his AFL debut at the age of 14 and being a Brownlow Medallist Jonesy (talk) 23:23, 2 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. G1. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Trucks[edit]

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

This auto racing series does not exist. Truck racing is what goes on in Europe. This Super trucks thing is nonsense and there are no resources. Fclass (talk) 23:12, 2 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. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofira Air Battle[edit]

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

Article has no other source besides one IAF source, which is not neutral, and so cannot be considered a reliable source. It also has no other source in the Egyptian Military. Sherif9282 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable air battle. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The IAF is certainly not neutral -- that's what an Air Force is certainly not expected to be -- but there is no reason to believe that the sources are not reliable. Given the result, it's not surprising that the Egyptians are not talking too much about it, especially in English language sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A while back, I spent some time trying to research this to address a POV allegation, and I couldn't find any English language sources to back up the information. The articles and books I found that explicitely discussed the Yom Kippur air war did not have anything about this engagement. User:El C vouched for the Hebrew sources, so I accepted that the information is sufficiently verified that I haven't felt compelled to bring it here. However, I have never been satisfied that WP:N and WP:NPOV are met. Moreover, I am concerned about any article of uncertain significance being based solely on one side's military sources. A subject like this really needs third party sources to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. The argument brought by the nominator have a case for tagging the article, requesting more sources, but not for deletion. -- Nudve (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed with user Kubigula. If the egyptians did not talk about it how can that be shown as a prove if happened ?! would they talk about some thing that did not happen ? No. as shown in the article's own discussion page, the whole story seams to be just an extreme sort of fantasy, and is not relevant to the standard of performance shown by the egyptian military in general, and the air force especially. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. sources are not required to be in English, if releiable translations are provided by editors - in this case we have a long-time administrator (El-C) vouching for the accuracy of the translation of the Hebrew sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I agree. I trust El C, so verifiability is not the main concern here. However, I still don't see any compelling argument that this event was notable. Also, NPOV is a concern when we only have a single military source.--Kubigula (talk) 22:08, 6 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.
  • Keep battle is referenced in "Arab-Israeli Air Wars 1947-82" by Shlomo Aloni, Osprey Combat Aircraft # 23, Copyright 2001, Osprey Publishing Limited. I posted the full citation on the article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin (Katy Perry song)[edit]

Mannequin (Katy Perry song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for speedy by an IP on invalid grounds. However, the information is unverifiable, and I am bringing it here per WP:CRYSTAL. Delete without prejudice against a later recreation. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, with no objection to the article being recreated if in fact the song is announced as a new single. I'm also a little skeptical as these days you very rarely see an album spawn 5 singles. 23skidoo (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is absolutely no source for it. But I must comment to the user above me: Technically, this would be considered a third single since Perry has only had two hits. Her label wouldn't look at it as single number five. I mean, her album is still in the top 40 and two singles from her are too, so even if it is a fifth single, it still wouldn't be too rare considering her current chart positions/sales.LoveLaced (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I have no problem with the article being recreated if decent sources turn up confirming that fact. Ironholds 12:28, 5 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.  Sandstein  17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quark@BITS, Goa[edit]

Quark@BITS, Goa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

University technology festival. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 2 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 and redirect to Enchanted (film).  Sandstein  17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Narissa[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources, which does not seem to be the case here. Of the 3 references, one merely verifies who played the character, and the other 2 are reviews of the movie as a whole and do not indicate independent notability for this character in any way or give any added info that could not be nicely summarized in the "Cast and characters" section of Enchanted (film) in 1 or 2 sentences. In fact, I notice that they already are, which makes this article really nothing but in-depth plot summary and original research. I don't see any way to improve the article at this time or how to come up with additional secondary sources to show notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the movie Enchanted. I would really believe that the main villain is vital to the plot and, at the very least, deserves coverage in the article on the movie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the character is already covered in the article on the film, in both the plot summary and the "Cast and characters" section. A merge is redundant as the info is already present in the merge target. See Enchanted (film)#Plot and Enchanted (film)#Cast and characters. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case redirects, not deletion, are the solution. Keeping the article history is not a problem, and provide material in case more stuff ought to be merged, or in case someone finds sources which would justify a standalone article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly about redirecting vs. deleting, but I do want to point out that keeping the history is neither a problem nor a priority. In these types of AfDs I notice editors who favor redirecting over deletion often claim that their rationale is to preserve other editors' contributions and not delete them. While there is some nobility to this view, it doesn't reflect actual practice. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day either through AfD or speedy without regard to "preserving the history" or preserving editors' contributions. In this article's case it is even less of a concern, as the history consists mostly of edits by IPs and a single-purpose user who created the article and hasn't made any edits since. Having reviewed the article twice now, I also find it safe to say that there is no additional material that ought to be merged (at least none that isn't just more plot summary and/or original research). If someone comes up with sources to justify a standalone article, they can always split it off again. Since admins have access to deleted articles, it could even be restored in an editor's userspace where they could rewrite or improve on it. However, given the current absence of secondary sources (I did a few quick searches and didn't find any additional ones to add) we can safely delete this as non-notable and mostly unverified/unverifiable. The only compelling reason I would think to redirect rather than delete would be if the article title were a likely search term. There isn't any objective way to show that one way or the other, but personally I doubt that it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sound like OTHERSTUFF and ILIKEIT arguments to me, not to mention ITSNOTABLE. Again, characters that only appear in a single work of fiction don't automatically warrant separate articles. The article in its current state does not show why the character is notable outside the film. Since the only referenced material, a couple of sentences, is already present in the main article on the film, there is nothing to justify a separate article on the character. It's doesn't become independently notable just because you liked it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other disney villains have articles because it is recognized that the main antagonist in a major work by a major artist is notable. The same logic applies. Characters do not automatically warrant separate articles, far from it, but the principal characters in major works do. Possibly this should not be regarded as a major work,in which case a merge would do. But to propose or support deletion is absurd for a major character--redirect needs to be considered. Illlazilla, do you support redirect? DGG (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment above: "The only compelling reason I would think to redirect rather than delete would be if the article title were a likely search term. There isn't any objective way to show that one way or the other, but personally I doubt that it is." I find your assertion that major characters from works of fiction automatically warrant their own articles to be quite incorrect. In fact, it is completely contrary to the community consensus embodied in WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as well as the general notability guideline. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate collection of information, we have to have criteria by which we discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable article topics. WP:V provides this criteria: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ergo the threshold for inclusion is that the subject has been covered in reliable secondary sources first, before a Wikipedia article can be written about it. The fact that a character plays a major role in a film does not de facto mean that they warrant an independent article. Were that the case, we should/would have articles on every major protagonist and antagonist from every major film, even in situations where there is a complete lack of secondary sources to show the character's notability outside the film. In this case, the character in question has only appeared in a single film, hence any discussion of the character can only be made in the context of the film. The character is already covered in the article on the film, and this independent article adds only expanded plot summary and original research. It should not have been split off in the first place, and there is nothing to re-merge since the only 3 cited sentences are already present and identically cited in the main article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I guess I didn't entirely answer your question about redirecting. I personally don't think it's necessary as I think the article title is an unlikely search term (I think it far more likely that a reader will simply search for the film's title, Enchanted, instead). However, if you feel strongly that it is a likely search term, then go ahead and redirect. I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. disney villains are not inherently notable, they still need reliable sources to verify independant notability. This one doesn't (yet). Redirect wouldn't cause any problems, and might slow down un-needed recreation, when good faith editors are redirected to where this character is already covered on wikipedia.Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IllaZilla, I can't help but feel patronised by your comment. While I agree that Disney villains are not inherently notable, Enchanted is a major work. It has had an effect similar to that of Shrek, the principle characters are recognisable by practically anyone and Narissa is one of the principle characters. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but without some kind of source that is merely your opinion. I also don't buy the comparison: Shrek spawned 2 sequels, a host of spin-off media and merchandise, and has had a demonstrable cultural impact. It's yet to be seen whether Enchanted will have a similar effect. If you've got some reliable secondary sources to back up your assertions of notability, then fine. But if you don't, then your argument boils down to "it's notable because the movie was popular and I like it." Our inclusion criteria is that the subject has been covered by reliable third-party sources first; then it warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Such third-party coverage to establish notability for this specific character has not been shown. You seem to have your own issues with original research (re: the "Personality" section) and ownership ([8]) with respect to this article. Hmm...I also notice that it was previously redirected after an expired prod, but then you restored it, adding only your original research to it. I think this is enough to show that at the very least we should redirect it back to the film article. If you want to split it off again in the future, I recommend copying it into your userspace where you can develop it and hunt down secondary sources at your leisure. Merely restoring it, however, will inevitably just bring us back here.
  • Delete If this were a real person, it would be a BLP1E, but since it's a fictional character, I'd just say it fails WP:RS. Characters are NOT inherently notable, nor should they be. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one however, is. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just ridiculous. It's not "inherently notable" just because you say it is. I recommend you don't make this argument again without some reliable secondary sources to back you up. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IllaZilla, take a deep breath and calm down. My point is that Enchanted is, as I'm sure we'll all agree, a well-known and successful film and Narissa is one of the most recognisable characters from it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but it does not demonstrate why the character warrants an independent article in an encyclopedia (particularly when the character is already well-covered in the article about the film). Are there sufficient secondary sources upon which to build such an article? There don't appear to be. "Show, don't tell" should be the guiding principle here. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film is notable, but the character is not. It is not notable outside of it's own little world. It fails WP:RS plain and simple. Unless you can find multiple reliable sources then it is non notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are sources for the movie, which is why it has an article. The same is not true for this character. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The major issue here is the notability of the character herself. Enchanted may have been a successful movie but it's hardly in the same league as some of Disney's classics (just my opinion), and there's very little scope for her returning if there was to be a sequel. The other villains quoted above have all made further appearances in sequels, spinoffs etc, and whether or not they are notable enough for their own articles is irrelevant here. As far as the article itself is concerned, the entire page is written in-universe. This in itself is not grounds for deletion but as there is precious little outside information to go on, there's little scope for this problem to be fixed. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[9] That's called removing vandalism. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and notability.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment doesn't really address the concerns of this particular AfD. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete and) redirect per nom (policies and guidelines), IllaZilla (no merger necessary) and Undead warrior (comparison to BLP1E), with no prejudice against recreation if a decent article is written using decent sources to satisfy WP:SPINOUT (but I have yet to see this happen for any one-off character). (Weak) Deletion because the article is just bad at the moment, and I anticipate fan and IP edit-warring over this article after the AfD, wasting everyone's time to keep the potential redirect in place. – sgeureka t•c 15:25, 7 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, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kozak[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Since this article cites no sources, notability and verifiability cannot be established. It is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as the plot is already summarized in the article on the film itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails our notability standard for fictional topics, even in its current contentious mess. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The few reviews I see devote less than a line (on average) to Kozak. The one web available book source is a one-liner in a "who's who" sort of publication. A throwaway character in a throwaway film. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect we all seem to agree it isn't worth a separate article, & probably not much to merge, so a redirect is what is appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't worthy of so much as a redirect. JBsupreme (talk) 07:08, 7 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 Brandy & Mr. Whiskers. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar Le Gecko[edit]

Gaspar Le Gecko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Since this article cites no sources, notability and verifiability cannot be established. It is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as the character's role in the plot is already summarized in the article on the series itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect no argument has been given against it, so i suppose the nom has none to offer. If he does accept redirect, that's what should have been proposed in the appropriate place; if he means delete, he should explain whya redirect is unsuitable. DGG (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per IllaZilla. The series is notable; the character isn't. Optionally redirect to Brandy & Mr. Whiskers. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brandy & Mr. Whiskers, as this character isn't notable enough for his own article, and furthermore the main series article actually seems to contain more information on him! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and notability.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the copy and paste noms are because the issues are the same in each case, so how is that disruptive?.Yobmod (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable fictional character. The article has no sources, because no RS are interested in writing not trivial coverage, and nor should Wikipedia. If he is important in universe, then he should be sufficiently described in that article, not have a seperate one.Yobmod (talk) 15:18, 7 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 Toy Story characters. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Phillips[edit]

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

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) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Since this article cites no sources, notability and verifiability cannot be established. It is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as the plot is already summarized in the article on the film itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Toy_Story_characters#Humans. Looks like all the relevant info is already there and it's a valid search term, so no reason not to redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Fabrictramp. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect as principal villain in a major film. That's sufficient importance. But in any case not delete. Neither the nom nor those saying delete have given a reason against redirect, so I assume they do not oppose it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 6 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) 08:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie (Toy Story)[edit]

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

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) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources, which does not seem to be the case here. There is only 1 sentence that references a secondary source, and merely to mention that the character was given some sort of award. This could easily be mentioned in the main article on the film. This article is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as the plot is already summarized in the article on the film itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much of use in the google hits, and mention of merchandising from the film and its sales figures are probably better suited to the article on the film itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that WSJ source does not say it was "one of the hottest toys of 1999." All it says is "From high-end digital-videodisk players to Jessie the Cowgirl dolls, they bought for everyone -- including themselves -- in what is shaping up as possibly the strongest holiday season this decade." They could just as easily have said Koosh balls or Nerf guns. The source does not indicate that Jesse dolls were a "hot" toy, nor that they sold particularly well, and it certainly doesn't establish notability outside of the film itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it says what I said it says... but it's further down in the article.

Like many other traditional retailers, Disney tried to drive shoppers back and forth between its Web site and physical stores. Late in the season, its online store promoted a $3 discount on a Buzz Lightyear doll for shoppers at its stores. Disney also used the Web to broadcast the final availability of one of the season's hottest toys -- a Jessie the Cowgirl doll. Both dolls are characters in the "Toy Story" films.

--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major film character whose real-world significance establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one single, fairly trivial source establish notability? Pretty much any recent film character can beat that by at least ten references. Characters like this are just a part of the main film until something really signifcant is actually added. TTN (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real-world significance is not established in the article. The source used to describe the sale of toys based on the character requires a subscription in order to view the article, hence it probably can't be used, which makes the statement unverifiable. In the article's lead, which we are able to view, all it says is "From high-end digital-videodisk players to Jessie the Cowgirl dolls, they bought for everyone -- including themselves -- in what is shaping up as possibly the strongest holiday season this decade." This hardly indicates that there were especially strong sales for Jessie dolls; all it establishes is that toys based on the character were sold, along with thousands of other toys. Merely saying "toys existed" doesn't help to establish notability. If you feel that you can FIX the article by adding more reliable secondary sources that would help show why the character is notable, then by all means do, but otherwise deletion is a perfectly valid option. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no requirement that you be able to read the sources or even that they be on line for them to count.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case you should put the quote in the citation, since the article is not freely viewable in full. This is a common practice when using sources that aren't online or can't be viewed in full. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TTN. No assertion of real-world significance since it doesn't exist. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "it doesn't exist". There are lots of fictional characters that have Wikipedia articles. Surely they "exist" in some sense? There is indeed in the article an assertion of notability referenced to the Wall Street Journal.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Toy_Story_characters#Jessie if the keep arguments aren't enough. No sense turning all the links to this article into redlinks when there's a good place to redirect to.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Book sourcing exists but no indication that Jessie is the subject of any of those works. Lots of reviews for the film exist mentioning Jessie. I wish we wouldn't write articles for characters using reviews that by definition doesn't cover the character solely. But because we do, these sources should be sufficient. The article as written now is...unacceptable. We have a few sources about the "toy" upon which we hang the article. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the few bits of real-world info into List of Toy Story characters#Jessie, with no prejudice against spinning-out when added real-world information becomes overwhelming to the character list. But there's no good reason to have a spinout article at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Toy Story characters until such time that a spin-out might be justified by sufficient sources. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though perhaps not noticed, since the same nom statement was used, this is very different from many of the articles on fictional characters. The article is primarily about the toy, with only a little supporting plot, there are 3rd party sources separate from the fiction, and iot is not written in-universe. DGG (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability within acceptable limits with plenty of obvious opportunities for more. There are the notes on the character's popularity (the toy sales) and on her impact (the cowgirl award). More would be nice, but that seems sufficient to me. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:02, 6 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 VeggieTales characters. There's very little content in the article that passes WP:V and can be merged, but redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LarryBoy[edit]

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

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) 22:16, 2 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) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Central Portal[edit]

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

Non-notable software. A google search returns 8 hits. All (but 1 youtube video) related to wikipedia. Q T C 22:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article is somewhat different to the one that was deleted. CSD G4 won't apply here, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:56, 4 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 Taz-Mania. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digeri Dingo[edit]

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

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) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Since this article cites no sources, notability and verifiability cannot be established. It is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as the plots are already summarized in the main articles on the works of fiction. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Taz-Mania. Notability isn't claimed for this character, but the search term is valid, so redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's notability depends on the cartoon show exclusively. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect although the criteria as given by Illazilla is not policy. V does not depend on secondary sources. Quite the opposite, with most fiction content. Butthere is no argument being given against a merge. DGG (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:V does in fact explicitly call for secondary sources: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The claim that this is not the case for most fiction content is, I think, fallacious, as WP:WAF and WP:FICT both reflect a community consensus that secondary sources are required for all article topics, even articles on works or elements of fiction. In fact the majority of deletion/merge discussion in the area of fiction hinge on precisely this criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the entire article fails WP:V, but redirect to Taz-Mania. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging any relevant bits into Taz-Mania as this fails WP:FICT. I don't think a redirect is necessary here as this character isn't really that notable and the main article would probably show up at the top of any search results on this site. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and notability.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable outside fictional universe. Redirect if covered in Taz-Mania.Yobmod (talk) 15:20, 7 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 Protectobot. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defensor (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft. VG ☎ 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a stub that's being fleshed out about a fictional character who has appeared in several different media over the last 23 years. It's notable enough for an article. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleshing out primary information does not assert any sort of notability. You need to add some sort of reception or cultural impact in order to get anywhere. TTN (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the high prices the rare versions of the Defensor toy has fetched on ebay? I've linked to articles written about it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshing out? Since July of last year? That's plenty of time to establish basic notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Transformers where this character has its notability. Outside that universe, there is none. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeto Protectobot, the "team" article for this combo-Transformer 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the article to a more relevant parent article, whether that's Protectobot or Transformers. Page has had well over a year and still has not formed basic notability. Suggests that the topic probably cannot establish notability. If you're that determined to have the page, I suggest working on it in a sandbox and getting everything fix there before putting it in the mainspace. Remember, there is no deadline, so there's no rush to have this page exist. If there is no notability now, there may be some 5 months, a year from now. BUT, since we cannot predict the future, the page should be merged till that happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Protectobot. There's really no need to have separate articles for every Transformers character, as the overwhelming majority have no notability beyond the series. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly if this is to be merged, merging it to protectobot looks better than 'transformers' which is far too broad. If you merged every defensor-like machine into the transformers article it would cease to be concise. Since Defensor is described in Protectobot, it seems appropriate. However, from what I can see, there are several generations of robots with this name. If they are all Protectobot then no problem, but if there is a non-protectobot version of Defensor then where will that be described? Certainly a redirect if a merge is done. Personally I don't see the trouble with having an individual article for this character, though since Megazord redirects to Zord I do see the point. Tyciol (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually different characters named Defensor. The first is the Generation 1 Protectobot character, the second is the US reissue of Sixturbo, also called the Protectobots, the third is the super robot mode of the unreleased Hot Spot toy from Botcon. So they could all three be put on those seperate pages, and this page turned into a quick short link page saying "if you are looking for xxx see page yyy." Perhaps make it redirect to the Defensor disambiguation, and have that page have links to the Protectobots page and the Hot Spot pages. Mathewignash (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see that that is a problem; however I seriously doubt that any of them have any real world notability. This sort of material may be appropriate for a Transformers wiki, but not here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:43, 4 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, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OutSpoken Productions[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to hang on for a bit: there are mentions in newspapers like The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, Gay Times, Radio Times etc but I need to find online references to these sources. While this was a minor company it did play an extremely important role in the development of lesbian and gay broadcasting in this era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmark (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the remainder of this AFD to add sources. Schuym1 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, mentions don't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, sources don't have to be online. but if not, then quotes showing they are not trivial mentions would be useful.Yobmod (talk) 09:31, 6 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 -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doz[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft. VG ☎ 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move to an article on the film, since we don't have one . Otherwise I'd say merge and redirect,. If we are going to have only one article, & I do not see that we need more, it should be on the film. DGG (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the film isn't notable enough to have an article, then its characters certainly aren't either. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stifle's hit it on the head here - an obscure 1970s cartoon character most certainly isn't notable enough. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:51, 7 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 ReBoot characters. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hexadecimal (character)[edit]

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

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) 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft. VG ☎ 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and Redirect: to List of ReBoot characters. Schuym1 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Merge and Redirect Schuym1 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of ReBoot characters. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to ReBoot or List of ReBoot characters. Outside that universe, there is no notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and Redirect to the character list article. Although I feel the character is major enough and the series is major enough to warrant a separate article, at present it appears the approach being taken to Reboot is to not do this, so I guess if something like WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST were to be an option, this would be an example of that. 23skidoo (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since all the other characters have been merged, this should too. JuJube (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of real world significance backed up by reliable references. I see further no need for a redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a blast from the past. I remember this show when it first came out. It is really too bad that the main article (ReBoot) is such a mess. GNews sourcing exists, but each is a review of the series and mentions the character in a single line. Two books sources contain the text string (hard to tease out from the tech books). Web sources are mostly not RS, though there could be a couple of borderline ones there. No scholar sources, though scholar doesn't index all humanities journals. I'd {{rescue}} it, but I don't like character articles. I'll tag it since sourcing does exist but might take some work to see if anything is more than trivial. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge protonk's concern could just as well be satisfied by using content here to reinforce the main article. DGG (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Character doesn't have the notability to have his own article, but fits squarely within the List of ReBoot characters article. Themfromspace (talk) 22:21, 6 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) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandahn[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a fictional X-Men character who seems to have been made up by the author or his friends. Unreferenced. No ghits for "Brandahn Super Star" or the writer "J. Carman Jones", no relevant ghits for "Brandahn ". Fails notability, verifiability and of course WP:MADEUP. andy (talk) 21:57, 2 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) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putinisms[edit]

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

This article is based on the premise of the stated definition of Putinisms but in fact is nothing more than a collection of quotes which are present at Wikiquote, and a mish-mash of mindless trivia; is it actually encyclopaedic that the Lithuanian spelling of Putin is identical to that of the arrowood plant. C'mon, do we place on Kozlodui what that word means in Russian? No, we don't, and we certainly don't try to build an article out of such mindless drivel. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic (see analysis futher below). Also, serious WP:BLP violation with the Dobby picture. VG ☎ 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeeesh. Delete per the nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia besides nominator supports the views and policies of Vladimir Putin (as is proven by a userbox on his userpage he deleted today (was the KGB also this clumsy in hiding it's true intentions?)) very suspicious that he tries to delete this article that contains criticism of Mr. Putin. Seems like a whitewash attempt... P.S. I like Yulia Tymoshenko a lot (a userbox I'll never delete (some of us are brave...)). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) We're an encyclopaedia, not a pro nor anti Putin forum. Just because the nominator may hold pro-Putin views, does not necessarily render his nomination of that dreadful article invalid. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I support Putin or not is neither here nor there. If you want to know why I have/had certain things on my userpage, is so that my views are known and out in the open (unlike many others), and because of that, I will be evermore careful to keep NPOV. This nomination is based on the merits. How exactly does this article contain criticism of Putin? It's simply a bunch of quotes which can be found on Wikiquote, and a bunch of mindless trivia. If one is looking for criticism of Putin, look here; as that is the next article which is going to be put on the AfD block, for being a WP:POVFORK of content which is already contained in the main article. We haven't really crossed paths all that much Mariah-Yulia, but I know on those occasions that we have crossed paths, I am the reasonable person that I come across as here, and refuse to get involved in the nuttery that is so prevalent in this area; it's high time for sanity to take over. And by the way, I too am beginning to like Tymoshenko, she appears more and more level headed as time goes on. You and I should try and really collaborate on an article sometime, and you will see that your comments above are way off the mark. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or via email anytime. offer to collaborate striken due to Mariah-Yulia's use of an ethnic-slur directed towards myself here --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep like Bushisms and other similar articles. "Dobby" is not a BLP violation as this is sourced to BBC, see here and other reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I removed this stuff from main article Putin per BLP. Do you suggest all of that back to article Putin?Biophys (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that a reliable source also printed that Tom Cruise was gay? It doesn't stop it from being a potential BLP concern. Additionally, the lead of the article states "Putinisms" (Russian: путинизмы) are the unique peculiar words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, semantic or linguistic errors and gaffes that have occurred in the public speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin." What comes after that is a mish-mash of original research made up of standard quotes, off-the-cuff remarks, and trivia. That is the reason this is here where it is as the assertion of supposedly notability of Putinisms has not been met. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Text of this article was prepared mostly by User:ellol. I only placed it here, with a few minor modifications.Biophys (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite irrelevant who prepared the material, the fact of the matter is, is that what is on the article belongs on Wikiquote (for which a link is provided on the Putin article), or is WP:TRIVIA. That's the basis on which this has been brought here, and it's also the basis upon which it should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What character do you mean?Biophys (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captain second rank Ivan Yuryevich Putin, noone else. NVO (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH. Its a non-notable neologism and the article merely strings together quotes from Putin that have a questionable connection with that neologism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the sources and the existance of Bushisms. Ostap 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace - I would say that either keeping this article or having the link to WikiQuotes above the Reference section of the Vladimir Putin page. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis. First, the term bushism is supported by a book, while the term putinism is a WP:NEO based on the flimsiest of evidence: a tree-page paper in an obscure student conference! Second, bushisms are funny gaffes. I don't see anything funny in the quotes section, e.g. "Russia must realize its full potential in high-tech sectors such as modern energy technology, transport and communications, space and aircraft building." HAGGER is more fun than that quote! Third, the "Putin in humour and fiction" section is off-topic in this article (Dobby included). The "Anecdotes" section is the only one with some salvageable content. But there's no evidence that those events were called putinisms by more than a couple of people, so calling them that is pure WP:OR. I think the article should be renamed Anecdotes involving Vladimir Putin, and it should contain only the "Anecdotes" section. Putin in humour and fiction should be a separate article. VG ☎ 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Actually, this is a conference of "young scientists", not students (incorrect translation from Russian). First section with citations can indeed be removed. Nothing precludes creation of an additional article Putin in humour and fiction, which does not undermine this article.Biophys (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, this is an utterly obscure conference. Basing the title of an article that contains unrelated information on an obscure source is a severe form of WP:COATRACK. The Washington Post uses Putinism with a completely different meaning [11]. VG ☎ 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article probably should be expanded but surely not be deleted. And maybe soon we will also get Medvedevisms since he seems to copy Putin more and more in the way he speaks. Närking (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ILIKEIT. VG ☎ 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what did you mean with that? Maybe putinisms isn't as established as bushism in the west yet, but at least my Russian friends tells me lots about it and it's surely established in Russia. The Russian "deletists" here should know about that. So I can't understand why putinisms should be deleted. Maybe the article isn't it the best form right now but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Or do you suggest all articles should be deleted just because they need to be expanded. Närking (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: maybe soon we will also get Medvedevisms - already happened for March 2008. Naturally regarding the media situation primarly via internet, but good documented in international press. Elysander (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An appropriate sampling with discussion is appropriate here; there['s enough content to be appropriate for separating from the main article. Not all of what is in the article is appropriate for Wikiquote. There will always be some overlap. A number of the individual ones have been included & commented on in news stories, so there's material. Some of them already do have such references. The title of the article is the standard way of wording the concept in English--the extent of use of the corresponding Russian word is relevant, this not being ruWP. The various personal & political comments above have nothing to do with the question of whether to have the article. Content can be discussed in a civil manner on the talk page. DGG (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any sampling is original research because "putinisms" a is neologism based on the flimsiest of a source (see my analysis above). VG ☎ 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH. Per Pocopoco...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and BTW, he's not similar to that Dobby but to the similar thing from LOTR, just forgot the name..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no. Russia is not Mordor :) --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which just happens to be Number 1 on Top 10 Russophobe Myths. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for quotes or amusing stories. There is little to no evidence in the article that this topic has been covered as a whole by reliable sources and the linking together done in the article borders on synthesis. If reliable sources can be found for the neologism then enough sourcing would still be required to write an article that was beyond just a dictionary definition with a list of example. Guest9999 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a perfect article, by any means, but the phenomenon has garnered significant coverage, and some coherent, encyclopedic content could emerge thence. Biruitorul Talk 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems better suited for Wikiquote. AniMate 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Putins page should already have a link to wikiquote, so this is redundant. Also based on a neologism, and the selection of quotes by editors makes it synthesis.Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Use Wikiquote if anything is worth mentioning. Kransky (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but the article must be expanded systematically. The phenomenon which is circumscribed as Putinisms is well known, rather good documented and its existence cannot be denied - and it's worth an own article. It is not only limited to Russian vox populi but also a regular topic in international papers and TV stations over the last years as - for example presented in Nouvel Observateur or in German quality papers as Süddeutsche Zeitung, DIE ZEIT, WELT and German ARD TV. Personally I'm missing the "circumcision/castration" anecdote on EU-Russia-Summit 2002. Elysander (talk) 15:39, 6 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 — reliable sources have been found to prove the subject's notability. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG - for two reasons: local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable, and notability is not established through reference reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (the source is primarily sourced to the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Local chapters are not notable in themselves, but they can prove notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Welcome Lodge as an example of one of these). The lodge claims to be the oldest operating Masonic lodge in the Americas, and it clearly is important in the early history of New Hampshire. There are five sources of which one is the lodge and one is the grand lodge. The other three are independent of the source. JASpencer (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lodge's website itself admits that there were several lodges that were older than it is (by several years)... so the claim of being the oldest in the Americas is mistating the facts. I also know that there are several lodges that claim to be older (will find sources if needed). As for the other "independant" sources... the are sort of independant (being other masonic sites)... but they are not used to substantiate the notability of the lodge itself... they are used to substantiate that a few notable people were members. Notability is not inherited. Many lodges have a few notable members on their rolls... especially the ones that date to the revolutionary era... that does not make the lodge itself notable.
"St. John's is proud to be the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in the United States, and indeed the Americas". They do claim to be the largest continuous lodge. I may have confused you by using the term operative. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Claim" is the operative word here... my point is that this is a claim that is disputed. For us to say that age makes this lodge an exception to the "local chapters are not notable" rule, we need more than the lodge's say so. We need independant sources. And as it turns out, the independant source disagree... According to Mark Talbert's "American Freemasons" (p.34), the oldest lodge in continual opperation in the Americas is Solomon's Lodge in Savanah, Georgia (founded 1734, two years before St. John's in New Hampshire.) So much for the "claim". Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dangerous ground suggesting that your use of terminology may have been misunderstood, the claim to be the oldest operative lodge is probably less significant than oldest lodge as the Operatives are quite a small body. In the US I think it's operated under another body anyway.
ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So then, by extension, is the claim to be the the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in New Hampshire sufficient? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is I'll start drafting an article on the oldest surviving lodge in Little Snoring in the Mist... ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as your sources are Ref's are as good as thoes in this Article, go ahead. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear assertion of notability, merely still surviving doesn't really cut it, also agree Blueboars point about independent sourcing.ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Claim as oldest freemason lodge in continuous operation (or even if it's "only" second-oldest) is a rather strong claim of notability, backed up be reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know, the claim could be completely bogus... There is a common issue with old lodges in the US: a lot of them claim 'continual existance' when in fact they had an interuption. A huge number of Masonic lodges closed their doors in the 1820s as a reuslt of the Morgan Affair (Freemaonry almost died out in the US). As Freemasonry began to grow again in the 1840s, some of these lodges were revived. It was common for Grand Lodges to declare that these revived lodges had been in 'continuous opperation', even though the reality was that they closed and were essentially recreated. I don't know if this is the case with St. John's in Portland or not... but it is a possibility we need to consider. To know for sure, we need reliable independant sources. And that is the problem... we don't have any independant sources... all we have is the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment - It's at least third oldest. Just south of the border, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts chartered St. John's Lodge in Boston four minutes after its own creation in 1733, and Philadelphia in turn claims it had independent lodges meeting earlier than that. "Who's oldest" is really not a good platform to base an article on - if a lodge is notable, it's notable for a lot more than just its age. Almost every Lodge has something unique to itself, but that does not in turn make the Lodge notable. MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim to be the oldest lodge in continuous use is important but we are not taking much account of the seemingly important role it played in NH history, particularly during the revolutionary period. JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be a lot of notable members, and that should be enough. It also has proper referencing, and it would be a shame to delete such a useful page. 7 References, notable members, and the rest, is a clear acknowledgment of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Having notable members does not make an organization notable itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in multiple references while having a notable membership does. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No... Notability is not inherited no matter how many famous people are involved. I also note that the bulk of the list of members is cited to the lodge's webpage itself. Again, we have not solved the basic problem ... the claims to notability are not suported by reliable sources that are independant of the subject. That phrase is at the heart of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said notability was inherited. I stated that it is using reliable sources which is clear from the reference section. I also stated that this page is further connected to many notable people, which shows that there is more out there that can be added in. It doesn't matter where a "bulk" of the information comes from, as the organization guidelines say that only a few independent sources need to prove notability where other information can then come from the primary source. This page has done just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources directly dealing with the lodge can be found and used to back up (or otherwise) the claims made by the article and the lodge's website. If not then there is no verifiable information about the lodge apart from a list of members that could be used to write an article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep reliable sourcing added to support claims in article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guest, are you saying that this "Freemasonry in the Thirteen Colonies, by J. Hugo Tatsch Republished by Kessinger Publishing, 1995, ISBN 1564595951, ISBN 9781564595959" is not a reliable source? It is from the page. Are you saying that this " A Sturdy Oak of New England Life, The Granite Monthly, October 1903, Volume XXXV - Number 4" is also not one? You only need one third party reliable source if you want to get technical about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I had the page open from yesterday before the sources had been added and obviously forgot to refresh it, good job finding the sources, I've amended my view accordingly. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added in another source and expanded. How does it look now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point the sourcing looks good too me (see amended comment above), although I have no expertise on literature relating to the subject matter. The article's definitely in a much better state then it was when this discussion started which can only be a good thing. Guest9999 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, it is in far better shape, but the article was nominated within 51 minutes of it being started. A notability tag and a civil discussion would have got the same result. JASpencer (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope that a closing admin would have taken that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to suggest that another way the situation could be avoided in the future would be to get the article up to scratch - with sources included - on a user space subpage before moving it into mainspace. Guest9999 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well referenced, notable members list helps (this would equal alumni if it were a school). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. The article is indeed now sourced enough to pass WP:ORG. I have to agree with Guest9999... drafting this article in user space (including finding citations) and then moving it to article space would have been a better way to proceed. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per the new sources and withdraw of the nominator. I would have closed it myself but there are several non withdrawn "delete" arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 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 WP:SNOW. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblock[edit]

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

The article is "Small with no potential for growth", and has no chance of being expanded past a few mentions in magazines. Anything worth keeping could be moved to a page about the community mentioned in the entry, since that seems the main focus of the article. Falken365 (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Falken365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep What exactly is the criteria to delete you are proposing? Being small isn't a valid reason. Having a fixed number of 3rd party sources isn't either. Having no potential to grow isn't listed as a valid reason for a normal sized article. It almost looks like you don't like it and using that as a reason to delete, which isn't valid. This article has gone to AFD 3 times in 3 weeks. I am hoping that your recent creation of that account, the spa (single purpose account) isn't a way to bludgeon the process to get it deleted at any price. I notice that the article has a botched afd tag as well. Requesting a keep due purely to bludgeoning. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Single-purpose nominator, invalid rationale. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the botched AFD tag as well. I know I should always assume good faith but some people make it harder than others. Even in good faith, rationale is as botched as that tag was. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cockblock topic is very limited, being a slang term that might justify an extended dictionary entry at best. I cannot see the entry being more than a reference to one book and a couple of magazines, so WP:OC#SMALL says articles which are "Small with no potential for growth" should be proposed for deletion. I've even suggested how it might be better organized elsewhere, and therefore your accusation that I have something against the article per se are invalid. Falken365 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the third AFD in three weeks. Many of us experienced editors consider this an abuse worthy of being blocked. This type of action is exactly why I wrote the essay, when people treat AFD like a Magic 8 Ball: If you shake it enough, eventually you will get the answer you want. And the policy you quote is for CATEGORIES, and not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. It says to avoid categories that are small because of the load it puts on the servers and lack of utility. My objection isn't about the article, it is about the method of repeatedly nominating the article, and by an SPA (and maybe sockpuppet) to boot. If you are looking for an apology, you are underestimating the intellegence of the community when it comes to detecting wp:BOLLOCKS. Additionally, wp:AGF no longer applies, as you seem to know how to use Wikipedia tools perfectly when it serves your purposes (perfect summarys, using 4~s), but make "mistakes" when it also serves your purposes. Sorry, I don't buy it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I wasn't here three weeks ago; and I think that you are very trigger happy with your accusations. However, my opinion is that Wikipedia would be better served by condensing colloquialisms into an article detailing the most common examples; otherwise you might as well create articles for every word in George Orwell's Newspeak, Polari, Cockney Rhyming slang, Anthony Burgess's Nadsat, and so on - almost indefinitely.
    • As to your other criticisms, Wikipedia is a steep learning curve - so where it says make a summary, and sign comments with 4~s, that makes perfect sense to me. Where I have to read five separate articles to mark something for deletion, and then edit three pages in a language nearly as complex as HTML, that’s a lot more difficult for me. As an Editor, you may want to look at the introductory documents, and certainly make them easier to find from the home page.
    • IF WP:OC#SMALL only applies to categories, then I withdraw the complaint; but my reading of the policy was that it applied to everything. So, if that really is the case, you might want to make that clearer too. Finally, since you seem to think I'm only here to cause trouble, please block me, as it seems like I'm wasting my time trying to contribute anything at all to Wikipedia. Falken365 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • MY problem (I speak for only me) is that I doubt you are who you say you are. And you aren't contributing, you are trying to delete only since starting your account. If I'm wrong and you are truly a "new user", then sorry, but I doubt it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep already. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep already as there is nothng wrong with the succinct and properly sourced and notable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 3 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) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aim For The Head[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. The article is incomplete, and has been for months and months, there are no sources given. Having one member who was previously in a notable band does not confer notability to this one. Reyk YO! 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info added 03.10.08 - Hi, Ive just read this deletion notice, but can confirm that as I am aware Aim for the Head are a genuine band, I have watched them many times. I am also informed that they are due for a band meet on Sunday to decide the full line up. I believe that the information you are talking about was added yesterday 02.10.08. You can check out their myspace at www.myspace.com/aimfortheheadmusic. Please keep the page. It will be updated when the line up is confirmed on Sunday 05.10.2008 Cheers.AFTH fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.62.20 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources can be added to verify that this band meets the notability guidelines for musicians. The only remote claim to notability that I see is that Sam Brown used to be a member of Existend, but as point 6 notes, redirects are often appropriate in such cases and, significantly, Existend also does not verify per WP:MUSIC. The band broke up with no album, and all sources are primary. I've attempted to look for reliable sources myself, but failed to locate anything. (See "Sam Brown" & "Aim for the Head" at google.) Under ordinary circumstances, I'd propose a redirect here, but since I also cannot locate reliable sources to verify the notability of Existend, I believe deletion may be more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Moonriddengirl's rationale for deletion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:28, 7 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, WP is not for things made up one day. GlassCobra 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reptar[edit]

Church of Reptar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-admitted AFD. Surely we should be able to speedy stuff like this? Sgroupace (talk) 20:32, 2 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) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Solver[edit]

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

wp:crystalball. Sources say nothing about the song being a single, only about who wrote the song. crystalballing at its worst. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE Redirect Merge to Lindsay Lohan OR Lindsay Lohan discography. until it can be decided where this song goes, as the article itself is non-notable and the information will be brought back in the near future anyway. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As i just added below, why merge a song that isn't officially a single? That is why I think you have to delete. We know it will exist, but not that it will be a single, or chart. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a side note, I don't doubt you in thinking it will be back, it is just about a pure case of crystalball only. We see so many crystalball cases, I feel we have to hold the same standard for all of them. Additionally, if it comes back, it should be titled differently anyway, ie: Problem Solver (song). PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be STRONGLY against redirecting a common phrase like this. The most common use of the phrase is NOT the song. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*With respects, there are songs being written for a third studio album... and as I have found, the song Problem Solver does exist as a track on the new album. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the song exists, but it isn't a released single no wp:rs that it will be. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point, if anything redirect Problem Solver Song or something similar. Problem Solver is more notable for other reasons than being a single. --Banime (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Sorry. I see what he means. A redirect for "Problem Solver (song)" makes more sense... or heck, why not simply merge this to Lindsay Lohan discography? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you normally do a merge for a song that isn't confirmed as a single yet, though? PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: everything in this article is not true....must be deleted immediately...

CHECKORUP (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this, CHECKORUP? An article being considered for deletion should not be moved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I had thought about moving back, but it will be deleted shortly enough. Moving, except in exceptional circumstances, is never a good idea in AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I did move and speedy delete the redirect to boot. Dumb to move and then still title improperly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now the article doesn't claim to be a single, and just a recorded song. Speedy? PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - eo (talk) 00:18, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Busby[edit]

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

Contested prod. The subject of this article has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE), and nor does he pass the professor test (he fails all nine criteria of WP:PROF). Even within the area of fringe radiation research he is hardly notable, except in the echo chamber of groups he is a member of (Green Audit, the LLRC, ECRR, CERRIE, etc and their websites - all affiliated with him). Verbal chat 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to ECRR following the two arguments below. He still fails WP:BIO etc. Verbal chat 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I was able to find some reference for Dr. Busby, as shown here [12][13][14], however the articles are not about him. They are more focused on the aspects of a court case and mention Dr. Busby only in the context of his testimony in that case. Without any references focusing on Dr. Busby specifically, no Notability established. Hence delete. ShoesssS Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Change to Merge/Redirect toEuropean Committee on Radiation Risks. Though there are a number of articles that reference Christopher Busby they are only in relation to his position with the European Committee on Radiation Risks, which is the main focus of the pieces and, again, Mr. Busby is only mentioned in the context of being the Secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risks. The position itself does not grant Notability, hence my reason for my original deletion opinion of Christopher Busby piece. A merge and redirect to European Committee on Radiation Risks is more appropriate. Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS Talk 12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Just taking a few entries from the top of the GoogleNews search[15], one finds quite a few news-stories related to him that do not even mention European Committee on Radiation Risks at all, and describe Busby in other ways, as a radiation expert/scientist/green party activist/adviser to the British government/founder of Green Audit, such as: [16][17][18][19][20][21]. This is just a sample of what is available. Given that much of the coverage is not related to European Committee on Radiation Risks, merging there would not be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey Nsk92, I went through the articles you provided and again did another search with regards to Dr. Busby and again came to the same conclusion. Though there are a number of articles that have a quote from him in the article the articles themselves are not about him. I am looking to establish Notability about the individual, not his cause. Hey, if you know me and look at my opinion record, I have always been considered an inclusionist, looking for reasons to keep. Sorry to say in this case, I do not believe Notability about the individual has been established. Again this goes to my opinion regarding Merge/Redirect, linking him to his favored cause and organization. ShoesssS Talk 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Keep. THIS search found ample articles on Busby himself, and should provide proper sourcing for the article.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
  • And with respects to the nom, the article does not make a claim for notability as an academic. His notability is outside academia, and falls under WP:Notability (people). There, he is the patron saint of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those references mostly fail WP:RS, and the others fail WP:SELFPUB, as commented in the nomination. As commented in the nomination, he fails the general notability guideline. Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This scientist is quite known. He wrote two books which are themselves important references in this field. Yann (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not important references by anyone working in the field. Do you have a source for this claim? Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are important references. So I will return you the question: how can you say that there are not important references? Are you working in this field? Did you read these books? Yann (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Verbal: Can you please answer my question above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. On one hand, most of the WP:PROF criteria do not seem to be satisfied. Little evidence of substantial citability of his scholarly work in GoogleScholar[22] (top citation hits 18, 17, 15) and GoogleBooks[23] (the latter has quite a few false positives). I also did a Scopus search and the results there are even smaller. On the other hand, GoogleNews results, even after filtering, are substantial, 132 hits[24]. All of them provide nontrivial coverage of him, although none appear to provide in-depth coverage of him personally. However, in a number of these newsarticles he is featured quite prominently, such as this BBC report, which is primarily about him[25]. A few quotes from the newsarticles in this googlenews search:"Dr Chris Busby, a leading expert on low-level radiation"[26], "a top radiation scientist, Chris Busby"[27], "An international expert on low level radiation, Busby"[28]. Apparently some of his activism in Britain produced quite a bit of a splash and even something of a sensation, as these reports show[29][30][31][32][33]. In view of the number of sources and the fact that the coverage they provide is nontrivial, I think that this does pass WP:BIO, albeit weakly (weakly since these articles generally don't discuss Busby as a person). One could also make an argument for passing criterion 7 of WP:PROF:"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my least favorite portion of WP:PROF, but still). As note number 14 in WP:PROF says, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." That appears to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments But this isn't related to his academic competence, this is to do with his activism which falls outside of WP:PROF. As far as I am aware he holds no academic positions. Many of the reports involving him are from local rather than national coverage, and as you say are not about him specifically. Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think about this as a WP:BIO case, but in these recent sources he is described as affiliated with the Liverpool University: The Times, 2006[34]"were obtained by Chris Busby, of Liverpool University’s department of human anatomy and cell biology"; News.com.au, 2006[35]:"Chris Busby, from Liverpool University, north-west England, and a founder of environmental consultancy Green Audit"; Uruknet, 2005[36]:"He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine". In fact, whenever he is mentioned in the news, he is always described as a scientist. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I think that notability here comes primarily from his environmental activism, and that there is a passable WP:BIO case on those grounds here. It is true that, unlike in articles about some new teen heartthrob actor/actress, we don't have information about Busby's favorite toothpaste, favorite pizza, the kind of music he listens to or what was the name of a cat he had a child. But such information is not necessary for passing WP:BIO and one needs to excercise some common sense here. WP:BIO offers the following guidance:"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think that is exactly what we have here. Plenty of sources providing nontrivial coverage of him. This coverage does have real substance to it. Whenever he is mentioned, it is not just in some clerk-type role of a representative of this or that organization reading its statement or something. Busby is usually described by the news-sources as an active individual proponent of various causes and ideas. In my view this does make him pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of various fringe causes and ideas. Also, they are not about him. The mentions still add up to a lot of, in my opinion (and you're welcome to disagree, I have no personal vendetta against this crank), trivial coverage of him. Some of the groups he is affiliated with, such as the ECRR, seem notable and is a place where his views could be aired (being weary of wp:coatrack here), but to give him his own article seems to be giving him too much notability - when even his own secretary argued against their notability in the recent Low Level Radiation Campaign deletion discussion (which I found worrying at the time). His affiliation to a British University seems sad to me, and is part of a pattern of secretive homeopathic BSc degree courses and other infiltrations of pseudoscience - but I digress. I think a redirect and summary in some other article may be more appropriate, rather than trying to bend notability requirements until his low dose can fit (bad joke there, sorry - I'm having a bad week :)). Verbal chat 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to European Committee on Radiation Risks per Shoessss. I'm not finding the Google news archive hits for his name very impressive; most are of the form "Busby of the ECRR said..." —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to European Committee on Radiation Risk, the various sources mentioning him always appear to contain variations of the same one line describing who he is. Unless new sources which deal with the subject directly and detail can be found I think it [could] makes more sense to have the little reliably sourced information there is about him included in the article about the organisation for which he appears to be primarily known. Guest9999 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in response to Shoessss above, there are plenty of news-stories regarding him that don't even mention the European Committee on Radiation Risk and that describe Busby as a scientist/advisor to British government/green activist. E.g. this BBC story is primarily about Busby's report:[37]. Other examples of this kind are [38][39][40][41][42][43], etc. There is quite enough personal info about him from reliable sources for an article, such as this page at CERRIE[44]. Since he is primarily notable for his environmental activism, it is natural and appropriate that most sources providing coverage of him cover his activism and not his personal life. However, that is still nontrivial coverage of him that does count under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure if a biography provided by a committee he was a member of can be considered a reliable source on which an article could be based without further corroboration. My main problem with the current level of sourcing is that there's no direct discussion of the subject, he doesn't appear to have been profiled by either the main-stream or specialist press, his cause is certainly notable I'm not sure if he is. If there are a dozen members of a committee who do the same thing and then one of them gives quotes to the media when the committee's asked, does that make them more notable than the other eleven, does it make them notable beyond the notability of the committee itself? Since we already have an article on the particular committee that the subject seems to have received the most coverage for (if not as you say his only recorded endeavour) it seemed like a logical place where any information could be preserved. Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and, specifically, WP:SELFPUB address your first point. The use of self-published or primary sources for verifiability purposes related to basic non-controversial biographical data (education, family status, nationality, etc) is acceptable. Moreover, it is standard practice to use, say, CV's of academics as sources for basic biographical info about them of the above kind. More controversial matters, such as discussion of political positions and impact of political activism, should certainly be sourced to secondary sources (which, in this case, are available in relation to his environmental activism). Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that still true even if the person being considered has been shown to not always be a reliable source about their own achievements and qualifications, etc? Verbal chat 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you make some good points and have me half convinced but I'm still concerned by the issue of the lack of any substantial biographical information from independent sources. On that basis I've struck part of my original opinion above. Guest9999 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This page has actually been deleted for some time and has only just been restored. It was speedy deleted as a copyright violation, however this has all now been removed. Verbal chat 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as a activist, though not as an academic. I too follow Nsk's analysis here. DGG (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I also agree witk Nsk92's reasoning. GizzaDiscuss © 23:18, 6 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) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Urbaniacs[edit]

List of characters in Urbaniacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of characters of some sort of online game. The main article was deleted back in 2006, so this certainly doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can't have a list of supplementary information without a main article. --erachima talk 21:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure you can, but it will end up in AFD. non-notable outside universe. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft for redlinked non-notable web game. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — It makes no sense whatsoever to have a character list article on a game whose main article has been deleted several times already. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per muzemike. Not only do these characters lack reliable third party sources, but the game itself lacks reliable third party sources. Completely fails the notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 04:53, 7 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) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Alexa's second studio album[edit]

Kate Alexa's second studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rumoured future album, no release date, no track listing, no reliable source. From WP:MUSIC#Albums: " ...a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article.." That exactly describes this article. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 2 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 Minor characters of Days of our Lives#Melanie Layton. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Layton[edit]

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

Non-notable new soap opera character; article only consists of overly detailed plot summary. The editor who created the article is unwilling to accept a redirect to a composite list/article of minor characters. — TAnthonyTalk 19:20, 2 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) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms game[edit]

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

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. Apparently something made-up in one day.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The line " It is said to be the next tic-tac-toe because..." sums it up. It is nothing but the author hopes it will be some day. Not notable. Almost speedy delete material. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Crystal of what "might" become popular. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty sure that this is joke drawn from the recent discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acronyms in the Philippines‎, which at one time included statements like "Acronyms are popular in the Phillipines". How popular? Here's the proof. Maybe there will be a professional league. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 2 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) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gostony[edit]

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

Author and expert on ballpoint pens, collector of fountain pens. I can't find any references beyond mentions of his book. Article was written by his son. (incidentally, an admin should delete that user's userpage and block it as {{Uw-spamublock}}) Pichpich (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Sorry to say. Did find three references to Mr. Gostony, as shown here [46]. However, by my standards, not enough to establish Notability for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Mentions of his book but nothing focused on him per se. Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 2 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) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (image)[edit]

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

It's an abstract picture; so says the image. It's the standard wallpaper of Windows Vista; so says the text. Those who know the wallpaper's name know these things already, and the article offers nothing more—not even a reference or external link. I'm not sure there is much more to know. I put a {{notability}} template there about a month ago, just to be sure (this is my first AfD nomination), but nothing happened; the article has existed since June 2007, anyway. Perhaps a list of wallpapers would be a better place for this.

(Note: I have no idea how to categorise this media- and Internet-related piece of art, so I've left the field blank. Actually, I've used a question mark.) Waltham, The Duke of 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've been pondering this one for a while, and yeah, it's time to get rid of it. I don't think it's so much a notability concern, as it is a "can we really turn this into a decent article?" concern. Bliss (image) is a bit of a different story because of its use as an active part of the marketing efforts for Windows XP, as well as a number of parodies, and is much more synonymous with XP than this image is with Vista. Warren -talk- 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. After debating with myself over keep, delete or merge with Windows Vista, this is least worst option. It gets a quarter of a million hits on teh google, but really is not all that notable. Also per nominator's argument.Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 4 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esquisse d' un Programme[edit]

Esquisse d' un Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has little to no context (I personally am not sure what it's about), is very confusing and quite poorly written, and appears to contain large quantities of original research, especially in the last paragraph. I can't see why it's notable, but I think that's due to the concerns above. Has been speedied once for no context, but is longer now, so I'm nominating it for discussion. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, clearly notable. Lack of context becomes the issue for me, but it'd be great if the article could be addressed for keeping. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I am withdrawing the request due to the spree of improvements made by people - at least it's possible to tell what it is now, for someone who knows little about the subject. I can't recall how to close these early, so someone else can. Cheers, Ale_Jrbtalk 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think every uninvolved editor can close the AfD per WP:SNOW now. No admin needed, and since it's such an obvious case even "uninvolved" doesn't seem necessary. But perhaps it's better to keep it open for a while to get even more improvements. :-) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying I can't remember how. It now has context, so I'm satisfied it's OK - I'll leave it for others to decide :). Ale_Jrbtalk 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Esquisse is the subject of at least three books, two of which are in the references. It's unquestionably notable. The article badly needs attention, though. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not being knowledgable in the field, I tagged it for attention from an expert. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Richard is right. The article needs to outline (in the lead section perhaps) why the program was important, and support that with inline citations from the third-party sources which are already present in references section. I find it a bit shocking that is was speedily deleted per A1, but I haven't seen the previous versions. VG ☎ 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but accusing a newbie of being a POV pusher based on an article you don't even understand is extremely WP:BITEy. It's one of the reasons why there's a dearth of experts in many fields here. VG ☎ 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken, since the description fits quite well, as a reading of the article as it existed when I deleted it clearly shows. Nor was my decision to delete the article based on whether or not I understood it. Keep in mind that two other editors have expressed understanding at why I deleted it originally (one of them right here on this page), and a third editor had deleted it before I did. And, if you read the diff you provided above, you'll see that my tone and actions were not bitey at all, and in fact I have offered to help and solicited the help of others in improving this article. In addition, rather than summarily delete the article and move on to something else, I spent quite a bit of time explaining to the author ways to work on it so it could be included in the project.
    As a final note, while I try to always assume good faith, I have to say that your own attitude in this matter makes it a little difficult to do so in this case.  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable and extremely influential. For someone who has never heard of it it clearly makes sense to doubt that, but think of this: How many research proposals, whether in mathematics or another subject, are there that get 280 hits on Google Scholar? [47] I recommend reading the article on Alexander Grothendieck. Parts of it are interesting even if you know nothing about maths. The article is short, but at least in its current state I think it sets the context quite reasonably. All this said, I can understand why the article was speedily deleted in its earlier state. A conspiracy to suppress works by one of the greatest mathematicians of all times from publication? This is a clear invitation for classification as fringe. (I don't know if this is true, btw. Never heard of it, but that means nothing.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an excerpt from "The Grothendieck Theory of Dessins d'enfants", London Mathematical Society / Cambridge University Press, 1994: "The conference on dessins d'enfants at the CIRM in Luminy […] was organized in an effort to gather together a number of people who were working on or interested in subjects more or less closely related to this part of Grothendieck's Esquisse d'un Programme, many of whom were unaware of the fact that others were actively working on the same questions – indeed the Esquisses d'un Programme appears to have benefitted from a near-universal moratorium from French mathematicians until about a year ago though it was mention regularly in articles by Russian and Japanese mathematicians." They couldn't publish the original text in the book because they could not contact Grothendieck to ask his permission. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A terrible article on a very important subject. But even after the recent improvements, it still needs help badly. Ozob (talk) 20:56, 2 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) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald jenkees[edit]

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

Person is non-notable. Tempodivalse (talk) 18:28, 2 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) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zumeo.com[edit]

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

Advert for not yet notable company written up Mat Rudisill, VP of Marketing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Advert.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert/spam/notability/corp, pick one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to Keep. Zumeo is the subject of an exclusive article by the major newspaper for its area of operation (the Mail Tribune). So it's certainly had some coverage in the news. Also, I myself, as well as other WikiProject Oregon editors, have rewritten the article signficantly. To suggest that it should be deleted because it violates our conflict of interest rules is patently false. That said, I don't think that Zumeo clearly meets the requirements of WP:CORP. Steven Walling (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has issues, most of which I removed or moved to the talk page. There are at least two substantial idependant reliable sources that concern this site, so good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, even the two sources read like adverts. They do not sound in the least as neutral. Is there such available? Perhaps some neutral comparison? Or something to show a special notability? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, there is one reliable source. The Mail Tribune is a long-respected paper in Oregon, it's definitely reliable. They certainly don't do business features like this for every new website or company in their region. But cheezhead.com is just a blog with no significant reputation for reliability, it clearly fails the requirements of WP:RS. Steven Walling (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, cheezhead.com is not a reiiable source. Apparantly CNBC radio did a profile on them. I haven't listened to it yet, and they may not add it in time for this AfD. Read more on my talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NetSupport Manager[edit]

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

Delete Advertising pure and simple. By an editor (Special:Contributions/ALKINGSLEY) with no other edits. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Advert. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This very brief article about a remote desktop manager makes absolutely no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a reference. This software has been around for a while, so likely more references can be found (especially for earlier versions). Also, this article is an objective one sentence stub, so I don't seen what the cries of "advertisement" are based on. VG ☎ 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely nonnotable. Also note the first AfD back in 2006. Themfromspace (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus can change. The previous AfD indicated that this software could be notable, but it was deleted due to lack of references. VG ☎
  • Comment. I've added 3 more references. VG ☎ 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read the article and see an extremely concise description of the product, but I don't see any advertising whatsoever. The sources added by VG demonstrate in depth coverage over this century, which satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient information to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now - let's give the WP:RESCUE guys a chance. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:55, 7 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) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherChat[edit]

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

The article is about a software product without any claim to notability, and the sole contributor is the software developer. Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the Wikipedia FeatherChat discussion page, FeatherChat is a not-for-profit open-source application, so I am certainly not posting here for financial gain. Furthermore, FeatherChat is notable enough to have attracted multiple volunteers to assist the development within 24 hours of a "help wanted" news post, on multiple occasions. Weaseal (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Furthermore, the wiki page has since been rewritten in full by a FeatherChat user. I contacted this user and asked them to review the page, and re-write it from scratch as my ability to be subjective was called into question. I think the fact that there are also users who are willing to dedicate their time to the wiki page also comments to the notability of the project. Weaseal (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Schmidt, would you please provide specific quotation as to why this article is an advertisement (I don't see anywhere stating that the software is 'amazing' or even as benign as 'useful')? The software is released under the BSD license, which is an open-source, open-copyright, and non-copyleft license. If I were attempting to profit from the software I'd be going about it very poorly :) Weaseal (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it qualifies as WP:Advert under "masquerading as an article". However, the nom is correct as no notablility has been asserted or shown. My own search found lots about FeatherChat... and I am not denying it exists... but I was unable to find anything that gives this piece of software, BSD or no, any special claim to notability. So I will happily change my reason above accordingly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of FeatherChat. I was contacted by the creator and asked to update wikipedia to reflect a non-bias opinion of the program.Beav1526 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the notability? That it's free? That it's easy to use? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it easy to use, but it has a very low usage of data which allows for communication to be made with others when a computer is not accessible. Text messaging may be cheap in the US, but that is not so in Europe. In fact, in many European countries data is much cheaper than text messaging. This program allows for communications at a much lower cost.Beav1526 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask that you read WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCES to further explain what is being debated here. No one is contesting the programs usefulnes, user base, volunteers, or support quality. What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in Wikipedia needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources. You (or anyone for that matter) can do that by citing appropriate sources where this program is mentioned. You should find all the information on what qualifies as a source in the Wikipedia guidelines linked above. If you have any questions on the subject I will gladly answer them on my talk page. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would this qualify as a "reliable, unrelated source"? From the 2nd Google hit for "featherchat": http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/ Weaseal (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows it exists. That is not in contention. That it may be free or easy to use is not in debate either. Your source does not show any special notability.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding your logic. First, Twinzor says "What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in Wikipedia needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources." So I provide such a source (http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/). Now you're telling me that the source doesn't qualify that. Please get your arguments together, it's pretty hard for me to hit a moving target.Weaseal (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but I feel I must voice an opinion here, and this has gone on long enough. On several occasions throughout this debate, those supporting the deletion have made arguments which I have successfully counterpointed (Schmidt claimed I was advertising, and later recounted this; Twinzor says that I must provide an external link, I do so and Schmidt calls it invalid), and yet those who are pro-deletion continue to come up with new reasons or simply deny the validity of my proof. I happened to notice that on Twinzor's wikipedia profile (Wikipedia:Editor_review/Twinzor) someone suggested to him that "If you want to become an admin...try contributing to some XFDs," essentially advising him that if he wants to advance his Wikipedia career, he should pursue deleting articles. I'd hate to think that Wikipedia's users (or at least the ones involved in this argument) are using my article, and others, as mere stepping stones for their personal advancement.Weaseal (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not recant, as I still feel the article reads as an advert. Assuming good faith that you did not intend it to be an advert, I struck that from my post. However, you have not addressed the matter of notability. Yes, you have found an outside article independent of the source... but all that source does is verify that that FeatherChat exists. We accept that. But for inclusion on Wiki, a subject must be notable and have THAT verified by a Reliable Source. If you can establish that, I will happily reverse my position. With respects, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I took this article to AfD is because my initial prod was denied, but the issue was not addressed. Contributing to XFDs doesn't mean just deleting articles, I could just as well be voting keep for articles I think should be included. The suggestion in my review however is not the reason for my nomination of this article. I would not have taken it here had the article been fixed, or the prod template been kept. I don't feel we've come up with new reasons either, since my argument to delete has been the same all the time, and that is because the article lacks good sources. I agree with Schmidt that the lwn.net article alone wont establish notability, but that is ultimately up to the community to decide. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 00:26, 3 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 Stony Brook University. Anyone wanting to merge the content can feel free to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie Seawolf[edit]

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

College mascot, unsourced and no indication of notability given. Also, on the talk page, creater says the page is to "increase pride and awareness" of the mascot, making it a bit spammy as well. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 2 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. TravellingCari 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HT Concepts Inc.[edit]

HT Concepts Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no evidence of significant treatment in secondary sources; article created by employee ("co-founder and vice-president"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment prod removed by article creator. Article recreated after speedy deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is a clear A7 speedy. Recommend salting.

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

The result was speedy deleted by Stwalkerster (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person is definitely not a musician, he is just a normal guy. He thinks he is famous, but he isn't. He does not produce anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentocsi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axone[edit]

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

Axone/Robert Lalkovits does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. There seems to be a major language barrier between the article creator & several editors that have tried to help, including myself. It's pretty clear that this is a promotional attempt, but that could be mitigated if we could just get the author to show any evidence of reliable sources with coverage of the subject...I tried myself to locate anything useful; the prior incarnation (admin only) doesn't offer much help, the current Wikipedia entry is remarkably similar to the last.fm bio, and every Google search I try doesn't provide much help. I don't see a major label or notable award, so the lack of coverage means this is an inevitable delete. — Scientizzle 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete There is Spike.com, but everything else I find are links to video clips. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that, too. It looks like Spike.com does a MySpace-like thing and the user "Axone" has uploaded some videos. I don't think it's external coverage at all. — Scientizzle 20:08, 2 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. TravellingCari 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've Got Sunshine in my Smile[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I've Got Sunshine in my Smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. No sources in article or on Google, seems to be a hoax. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:55, 2 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. whether merging is an option does not require AfD. TravellingCari 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Martin (television character)[edit]

Paul Martin (television character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable fictional character. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Article primarily plot regurgitation, a little WP:OR, and repeats production information already included in the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major character doesn't make them real world notable. If there are books, etc that specifically discuss Ruth Martin, please point them out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major characters in major series are appropriate subjects for articles. Actors perform shows in the real world, and how they do so is RW material, not in-universe. If one actually reads the article, one sees it has almost no plot discussion at all. Most of the material is appropriately sourced from the primary sources. Some of it does seem to represent drawing conclusions, and some further sourcing is needed. Until people do the necessary work with print sources, a great many Wikipedia articles on many subject areas will be imperfect. Some people would refer to throw them out on that basis DGG (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create List of characters in Lassie (television program) and merge. In general, I agree with the above that major characters of major television programs are notable. Since this show was pre-internet era, sources could be slow to come. Rather than have the article without third party sources, merge this to a list of characters. When/if sources appear, break it back out into a separate article. Same for Ruth Martin (television character); Timmy Martin (television character) actually looks like it may be properly sourced. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it would be List of Lassie characters, per TV naming conventions :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites are not reliable sources, nor does being listed at IMDB speak to notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two merges, not keeps so how is that speedy? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "merge" now, who grants that "I agree with the above that major characters of major television programs are notable". The rest are keeps... including me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major character in well-documented, long-running, Emmy Award-winning, highly rated, critically acclaimed series that is now universally regarded with shows such as "The Honeymooners", "Gunsmoke", and "What's My Line?" as a 1950s television cornerstone. It is (and always has been) aired in reruns in the US and around the world, attesting to its undying popularity and importance to world culture. Many episodes are available on VHS and DVD. Series enjoyed its greatest popularity and its highest ratings during character's tour of duty. Many titles of equal and lesser note have stand-alone articles for their characters. Article is documented with sources that are freely available. Character appeared in spinoff materials such as novels, comic books, toys, film, film posters, and lobby cards -- thus attesting to the character's popularity and ipso facto his notability. Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in tertiary sources such as univeristy journals. While such sources are desireable, they are not required. If that were the case, WP would lose 98% of its content. Primary and secondary sources are enough for inclusion at WP -- and "Paul Martin" has both. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of that speaks to the series notability, which is not in question. The notability of the character of Paul Martin is what is being questioned. Appearing in the novelizations for the series does NOT equate to notability. If that were the case, the every last character from the series would be notable as almost all of the regulars appeared in one or more of the novels. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop changing your reply hours after someone has answered. "Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in tertiary sources"...really? Well, I guess technically WP:N is a guidelines, but yeah, it does say the subject must be discussed in secondary sources, which no one has shown any evidence that this character is discussed in yet. Only primary sources (which includes all forms of media for the series and official publications tied to it). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping any article. Many many more have been deleted or merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the problem here and why this article is up for deletion when it has sources establishing notability for inclusion at WP??? Primary source: TV episodes, novels, comic books, etc. Secondary source: Ace Collins' "Lassie: a dog's life"; Penguin Books, 1993. Collins' book is not an "official publication tied to the show" (which would make it a primary source) but a secondary source independent of the subject. Even if the book was tied to the show, I'm not sure it would ipso facto be disqualified as a source for subject notability or article inclusion. WP asks use to use common sense and discrimination. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is up for deletion becuase it does NOT use secondary publications. Ace Collins is the official Lassie historian, making it a primary source. And even if one decides it is a secondary source, a SINGLE source does not equal SIGNIFICANT coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ace Collins was NOT Lassie's "official historian" when the Penguin Book was published in 1993, and so the Penguin publication is a secondary source. And even if he was, that does not disquality the book from being cited as a source. WP asks us to use common sense, discrimination, and good judgement. The article should KEEP as additional secondary sources and tertiary sources are acquired. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two secondary sources have recently been referenced and noted: a "Jack and Jill" article from 1959, a "TV Guide" article from 1959, and Lassie collectibles book from 2005. The WP article Paul Martin (television character) now sports 1 primary source (TV episodes), 4 secondary sources, and 1 tertiary source. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Jack and Jill article references the characters being his adoptive parents, a fact already stated in the show itself. The TV guide article is about the reduction in roles for two OTHER characters, NOT the character of Paul Martin. And the price guide only repeats whats in the main article, that the Lassie series spawned books and what not. You haven't added any actual references about PAUL MARTIN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are SS. They have no relation to nor a vested interest in the show and are authored by third parties. The Jack and Jill article confirms information and is a secondary source. The TV guide article speaks to the dismissal of other male characters on the show and the WHY, which relates to the character of Paul Martin. Characters were dropped in order to bring PAUL MARTIN to the fore. It is Significant Coverage re: Paul Martin and brings new information to the article not found elsewhere. The Collectible book references Paul Martin. It's a secondary source and is not disqualified because it is referenced in other articles. ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you deliberately misinterpreting everything I say? I did not say they weren't valid sources. I said they do NOT speak to the notability of the character as they do NOT speak significantly about the character. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 5 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 Transwiki to Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf[edit]

Statement of Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This content belongs on Wikisource not on WP, seems to blatant POV pushing. Is there a speedy cat for this? ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:COPYVIO {{db-g12}}? (I didn't check.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - if it's from a US government source then probably not covered by copyright, but I have not checked either. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it is from a government source, Schwarzkopf's comments might be copyrighted by Schwarzkopf; at least some appeared to be personal positions, not positions as a General. Just because the document as a whole (whatever it is) is not copyrighted doesn't mean that the excerpts aren't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wikisource. Comment: if this is from a gov't source, then the comments are PD. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not. If produced by the US government, it would be PD. (Federal) court testimony is not PD. Congressional hearing testimony is not PD. But there's a plausible assertion of PD, so the {{db-g12}} template was wrong; at least until we can find the actual source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement of Mandsford--- Delete No context whatsoever, nor any clue as to why a retired General's opinions about "Don't ask, don't tell" need to be set in stone. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 2 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. TravellingCari 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Of The Line Electronics[edit]

Top Of The Line Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references, googling for '"Top Of The Line Electronics" Quitman' (Quitman is the town it is in) only gets 4 hits including WP and a mirror. Question of whether it meets notability for a business. RJFJR (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable business. Promotional tone in the article too. VG ☎ 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V and I consider it original research. --Pmedema (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and I suspect the article was created with the ultimate goal of promoting the company and placing a link to the company's website on Wikipedia. These suspicions are not assuaged by the fact that the editor who created it was called Smallbusiness, and the way the article presents the company in such a positive light, while also alleging the company exposed another for fraud without providing a citation. In fact, since I can't find any Google hits supporting this claim against this other company, I'm deleting this note right now, as it could expose Wikipedia to legal action. Phlyght (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and borderline A7 for not showing anything establishing notability. May also contain that wonderful mystery meat everyone loves. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as artcle smells of WP:Advert and reads like a CV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete avert/notability. Had to laugh at name, sounds like "honest ed's car sales". PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:59, 2 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. TravellingCari 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeneRally[edit]

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

Article does not explain where the game has received any substantial coverage from reliable sources. Tagged with this notability concern since February. Prod removed in July with the rationale "It's notable." with no further explaination how. The name "generally" makes checking for sources through a search engine a little tricky, [48] narrows it down a little but the results are largly directory entries, forums and blogs; can't see anything to satisfty WP:N guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as even I couldn't find any reliable sources, either. User who contested the prod should have tried to find sources him/herself and not claim that it's notable and point at others to find sources. MuZemike (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notabiity cannot be found inWP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed to find sources when I had a look yesterday, notability is asserted by sources, not claims that they exist. Shame, it's an interesting looking game. Someoneanother 12:38, 3 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. leaning keep. The possible future deletion of articles does not mean the dab is deleted now. Also as nom itself notes, there are other places in the world called St. John's Lodge, who may have articles even when/if the lodges are deleted. TravellingCari 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Lodge[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. John's Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sent to MfD, which was apparently not the right place, so moved here. Unhelpful/unmaintainable dab page. In Freemasonry (which is what the dab focuses on now), almost every UGLE branch Masonic jurisdiction in the world has a St. John's Lodge or two, none of which have articles (and generally don't meet WP:N except for a few exceptions). Additionally, Google shows plenty of other types of places called "St. John's Lodge" - B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges, etc. to the tune of 18,000 hits. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The solution is to expand this to include all the notable St. John's Lodges not delete it. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to echo JoshuaZ - this needs editing and expanding, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with option to recreate at a later time). The point of a dab page is to list articles that could all have the same title. Unless we have articles on the varous St. John's Lodges (masonic or otherwise) there is no point in having a dab. We will not have articles on the Masonic St. John's Lodges, since according to WP:ORG, local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable. That leaves us with the B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges etc. I suppose some of them might be notable... but at this point we don't have any articles on them. If and when we do have articles, we can recreate a dab for them. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar's commentary on local chapters.--Vidkun (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Looking into this a bit more, I find that none of the three St. John's Lodges that were listed on the dab page had articles about them. I have removed the two Masonic Lodges (as not being notable). I have created a stub for the house in Regent's Park, London, that is owned by the Sultan of Brunai (I assume that a big house in a public park in London is considered notable... but if not, the article can be deleted.) We now have a dab page that lists one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, JASpencer (the creator of the dab page) has asked me to hold off on removing the Lodges from the dab page until this AfD is determined, so they are back on. Please just note that none of the Masonic Lodges are considered notable enough for an article according to WP:ORG, so we are still dealing with a dab page for only one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that until such time until there are sufficient articles about St Johns Lodges that actually demonstrate notability there is little justification, so my preference is for Delete
ALR (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't want to make this a general AfD on the masonic lodges, but my understanding is that individual chapters of an organization can be notable if they have independent notability. The Masonic lodges listed include the one that owns the George Washington Inaugural Bible, as well as the oldest operating lodge in the United States. I'd hazard a guess that these are likely notable by themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited... owning a notable bible does not make its owner notable. Neither does claiming to being the oldest lodge in continual opperation, especially when the claim is not substantiated by reliable sources.Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the point, there may be an opportunity for individual lodges to be sufficiently notable to create an article about them, the purpose of a dab page is not to create a list of possible future articles. The cart has been put so far in front of the horse in this instance, the horse is going to have difficulty finding it.
ALR (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep (As creator). There are already two pages that it links to (albeit St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire is currently in an AfD) and I've just put up two redirects, although they may be challenged. "St. John's" often seems to be the title for the first lodge founded by many Grand Lodges, for example Massachsuetts, New York and New Hampshire, tend to be in important cities and so tend to attract more than their fair share of politicians, etc. If I had any hope of being listened to I would suggest that the nominator temporarily removed the AfD until the status of the links that the page points to is decided. As at least one article it points to is not up for deletion then at the very least this will end up a redirect so. JASpencer (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the other AfDs/RfDs are completed, and then delete if there a fewer than 2 Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that JASpencer's recent additions are all to redirects and not to articles. Those redirects are extremely questionable (for example, redirecting St. John's Lodge, (New York) to George Washington Inaugural Bible) and will be raised for discussion at RfD.
In other words, he has created questionable redirects and linked to them on a questionable dab page, to make it seem as if the dab page is legitimatly pointing to articles about the various St. John's Lodges, when in fact the links are redirected to sub-secions of other articles, on other topics, which contain passing refferences to a St. John's Lodge. Gaming the system? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, I would like to refer you to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CALM. A course in good manners may also be a good idea. I'm not sure why you are getting so het up about a disambiguation page but the redirect was created because St. John's lodge was mentioned in Wikipedia in an article created a long time ago. Not only may St. John's lodge refer to the gang in New York, but it does. That's why there's a redirect. It looks like you're either over-reacting or simply trying to smear another editor. I know you don't do apologies, but I think that one is in order here. JASpencer (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will stop the whole sorry episode. When I first created the page it was done as a redirect to the Bible. The reason I made it into a disambiguation page is that I found mentions in other places and thought a disambiguation would be more appropriate. So unless I have stunning foresight, the plan was not to create a redirection to save a disambiguation page that did not even exist. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blueboar, redirects are disambiguate-able too. The are in no way "illegitimate" article. Indeed, some disambiguation pages have nothing but redirects to subsections, or unlinked entries with section links in the descriptions. Perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with raising them at RfD, and if they are deleted and the entries linking to subsection don't need to be disambiguatend, then the dab page can (and should) be removed. But not first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is no evidence provided to think this is not useful or the links cannot be considered notable in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note - its a disambig, so all you need are two included pages that are notable for there to be notability enough to warrant a disambig) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the problem... we only have one page on something that is notable - St. John's Lodge (London), all the rest are non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2008
So you say right now, but the community has not determined such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 4 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) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origen[edit]

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

Forgive me if this is the incorrect forum for this; I couldn't think of where else to bring it. A user recently moved Origen to Origen of Alexandria, and replaced the original page with a disambiguation that's basically a collection of spam links without Wikipedia pages. Origen of Alexandria is by far the primary person people are going to be looking for when they type "Origen", and I don't know how to move the article back without deleting the new disambiguation page at Origen. Ford MF (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Origen (disambiguation) after removing the spam, and convert Origen into a redirect page. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why redirect, exactly? It's bad style to disambiguate Origen in the title when there's an obviously major figure associated with the name. There is no other figure equally recognized as simply "Origen". For example, there are other Normandies, but that doesn't mean we disambiguate it to "Normandy, France", because basically everyone looking for Normandy is looking for Normandy. We have Normandy (disambiguation) for all the other, far less closely associated Normandies. Ford MF (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a look at the "Modern Uses of the Name" that have been on the original Origen page (no pun intended!) for as long as I can remember... Are they really links to spam? In any case, there are two ancient Origens in addition to the one of Alexandria. --Dampinograaf (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but compared to the church father Origen, Origen the Pagan and Adamantius are extremely minor figures (I know; I'm the one who created the latter article in the first place). And again, see the relevant guideline. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that this isn't the place to decide what to do with the ancient theologian that most people think of as Origen, as his article plainly isn't up for deletion; given that the current format is that the theologian is at OofA, I proposed redirecting this article there, rather than altogether deleting the title. Assuming that nobody here believes that Origen should be a red link, we're simply deciding what to do with that title, and I'm simply stating what I think should be done with it in relation to other articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine, but per our fairly explicit and unambiguous style guidelines, disambiguated articles that shouldn't be disambiguated are bad style. The Origen of Alexandria article should be moved to Origen, not a redirect from it, and the only way to do that is to delete the Origen linkfarm first. Ford MF (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know, but that's a matter for the theologian's talk page, not AFD. And deletion for housekeeping reasons is not a matter for AFD: take this to Requested moves, and if the theologian is agreed to be moved back to Origen, the moving administrator will have authority to speedy delete pages for housekeeping purposes (see CSD #G6. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the current content at Origen of Alexandria to Origen, and the current content at Origen to Origen (disambiguation). Then tidy up the external links for potential spamminess. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page to get rid of the farm of external links, and move Origen of Alexandria back to this name. If there's need for a dab page, create a proper one afresh. Deor (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deor above. I agree, the current Origen of Alexandria article is the one people want when searching. Create a proper dab for the non-spam links in the current page, and of course, move the O of A article back to its proper title. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Origen (disambiguation) — there are four articles here (Origen of Alexandria, Origen the Pagan, Origen (Spanish Rock Band) and Adamantius), and that's just enough for a disambiguation page. Likewise, Origen of Alexandria, the best-known Origen by far, should be moved back to Origen. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links on disambiguation pages should only be to articles that exist on Wikipedia. To use a disambiguation page to link to external websites is spamming. I almost removed all of the non-article links on that page, but I hesitated and came here first. I will, however, if this so-called disambiguation page is not deleted. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will, one hopes, be shortly SNOWed. There doesn't seem to be much, if any, real resistance to the idea. I'd have just gone ahead and deleted it myself on WP:MOS grounds, but I don't have the deletion tools. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are external links and nn.Student7 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the move[edit]

Please refer to Talk:Origen where my move is explained - in case you missed it :) Dampinograaf (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the discussion here, myself. I think you've missed an important point; many more notable people have been called Augustine or Clemens/Clement than have been called Origen. This strongly affects the question of whether the path of least astonishment leads to Origen of Alexandria in this case. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:44, 3 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 as a snowball, original nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing Rifles[edit]

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

Lack of reliable non-primary sources, which causes it to fail WP:ORG's guideline of However, the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research. At least one editor of the page has indicated that they believe it is unlikely one will find published works about the Pershing Riflethat may or may not exist (such as ghosts). As noted above, the society has groups established at many universities and colleges across the USA. My guess is that there are many other university associations (such as fraternities and sororities) that have Wiki articles and are also not particularly well documented by printed sources -- should they also be deleted ? Probably not. I also believe this article is a small issue within a greater problem, that being that much information in Wiki was introduced before the use of citations and references were strongly encouraged to indicate from which sourcs which presents a problem with WP:NOR. If the article can be saved, then great! Vidkun (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAWN article got much needed attention and TLC.--Vidkun (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a nationwide military drilling society with branches at many US college campuses. Despite the opinion of someone on the talk page, Google Scholar reports 41 hits, and Google News, more than 1300. The subject is notable and references do exist, making any other issues a question for editors rather than for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the editor who noted it may be difficult to find published sources on the subject of this article. However, this article is not discussing something that may or may not exist (such as ghosts). As noted above, the society has groups established at many universities and colleges across the USA. My guess is that there are many other university associations (such as fraternities and sororities) that have Wiki articles and are also not particularly well documented by printed sources -- should they also be deleted ? Probably not. I also believe this article is a small issue within a greater problem, that being that much information in Wiki was introduced before the use of citations and references were strongly encouraged to indicate from which sources an article's information was drawn. To my way of thinking, deletion of these articles is not a good solution; rather, they should be tagged as needing citations and references. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not discussing notability, nor whether the group exists or not. I'm discussing verifiability of any information in the article. Right now it comes from primary sources. That needs fixing.--Vidkun (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree that the article could use work, how is a deletion of the article a "fix" ? --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it a fix? Read MSJapan's commentary - there have been many articles that were this poorly sourced, deleted, and later recreated, with appropriate, non-primary, sourcing. I'm not asking to salt the earth on this one, but it's been primary sourced for over a year, and, no matter what DGG says below, primary sources alone are not sufficient.--Vidkun (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly my point. It is not a fix, it is a deletion -- a deletion, by the way, of information that is substantially correct, although I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit. Deleting the article would not do any good on Wiki's behalf and would be a disservice to those readers who seek information on the society. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit It's not a matter of whether I would admit it or not, it's basedon policy regarding verifiability. Deleting this article doesn't prevent the article from being recreated at some future point (even with the same information) with reliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Deleting the article doesn't solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. You know perfectly well that adding TLC would fix this article and yet you still are heavily pushing the deletion of it, even after giving us the option the very day before of proving why it shouldn't be. When that requirement was met, you put it up for deletion anyway. Why? What is it about this article that is fueling your engines? You know that deleting it will only make it that much more difficult to create it, bearucratically, the next time around--make it that much more in question the next time around because you have obtained precidence. You know this and yet, you're perfectly willing to do it anyway. Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well you really haven't looked at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, have you. It is not my job to go around and AfD everything. This seems like your pet project, and in order to influence the discussion, you, and others, who keep bringing out the "why don't you AfD article about other college groups" are basically engaging in ad hominem attacks - suggetsing that because I DON'T AfD those article, this one is a personal agenda - are you going to continue with those personal attacks?--Vidkun (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not a pet project of mine. That's the problem. If it were, it would be better off today than it is. Unfortunately, this article is near the end of my priorities as far as Wikipedia goes, hence why my limited efforts usually go to other projects. However, I do object to deleting a notable article for seemingly trivial reasons--an article that can be fixed. Deletion of articles is reserved for articles that NEED deleting. You yourself admitted that this article does not need deletion, but rather cleaning up. Thus it would seem that you are putting it through without good reason and abusing the AfD process at the same time. The citation tags would have been enough, yet you pushed for deletion immediately after your first attempt didn't stick.
                  • And you have yet to answer the question of which sources would pass your approval if in fact those already listed do not. Do college-level newspapers pass your test? How can we add sources if we can't know which you approve of which you do not? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, as evidenced by the numerous Google scholar and news hits. References do exist, though the article needs to be cleaned-up to make use of them. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very real and very notable, also substantial coverage per above. --Banime (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Existence is proven, but RS is not met, and thereby, WP:N is not met. The article is simply a rewrite of the primary sources, and could be considered to be a lift in certain respects. The two pages of recent Google News hits are trivial; they merely indicate that the Society participated in an event (and the hits are all about the Clemson chapter). Google News indicates no other articles after the 1950s. Those article, BTW, merely indicate sizes of pledge classes, attendance at drills, and are furthermore limited to activities at PSU. The Scholar hits are throwaways, in that the extent of the coverage is that the subject was a member. I have found that when the WP article is GHit #2 after the group itself, and is also followed by other primary sources about the group itself, there aren't any reliable third-party sources to be had, and it simply is not an appropriate topic for a WP article. This seems to be the case here - for such a common phrase, there wasn't even a relevant book listing on Amazon. If and when sources can be found, the article can be recreated, but to leave it as-is sets a bad precedent for not needing to adhere to policies with regards to article creation, improvement, and retention. MSJapan (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Famous organization, with adequate sourcing to write an article. 635 entries in GoogleBooks--Some in standard works about Pershing eg [49], which is not incidental mention but a description of the origin. Additionally, many fiction showing the name is well enough known to be used for characterization, and many bio and autobio showing similar importance--I believe some people call this trivial mention, and I would agree if there were a only a few, but I think it stops being trivial when there are hundreds. (see for example the many about Colin Powell, and quotes listed from him). Finally, primary sources are perfectly good for routine facts about an organization, if no interpretation is required. DGG (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I fail to see how a lack of volumes written about an organization means that the organization is not notable. If the Historical Society of Nebraska feels a college organization is important enough to the state's history to be compelled to write something about it, surely it holds notability beyond what you yourself see. When you have an organization made up of college chapters, college newspapers are going to be the majority of secondary sources reporting on it, unless a situation like the hazing incident comes up, in which case other newspapers cover that as well. A nationwide university organization is notable by definition; most of the paperwork associated with it is going to come from the headquarters. Using primary sources is not prohibited in Wikipedia--they should just be accompanied by secondary sources as well, which there are. But then, perhaps you don't count college newspapers as real news organizations and thus not real secondary sources? The only reason national newspaper organizations would write about any college-level organization is if there was a scandal involved; without a scandal in the Pershing Rifles does that mean they do not deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia about pertinent information?

You said you had investigated the organization for hazing. Is that reason enough to delete them from Wikipedia? Because you disagree with the organization itself instead of the Wikiarticle about them? I say not. Personal agendas have no place here. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the personal attack - I listed the article for deletion because it fails the verifiability policy, not for notability. Keep obfuscating this discussion, why don't you.--Vidkun (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Lots of sources. In-depth coverage. VG ☎ 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then put the reliable sources in. If you are arguing it has lots of sources, then cite them - this article has been sourced from primary sources alone, for well over a year. It currently fails verifiability, it's not a snowball.--Vidkun (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article is now up to seven citations from published works. Suggest this AfD nomination be ended. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as notability has been established... and might still use [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], et al... all found with this simple search, to show historical and continued current notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the article has been improved, most of your sources you just listed are self published webpages by individual chpters of PR, which, if you were familiar with guidelines at WP:ORG aren't enough, on their own. Additionally, your Hofstra link (the second one you list) has a line wishing to improve the morale of the ROTC unit when, at the time Pershing was at Univ. Nebraska, ROTC did not yet exist. A corps of cadets existed on various universities, but ROTC did not, until 1916.--Vidkun (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... well... felt that if there was so much in even a cursory search, there would be nore (as shown below) in a more extensive one. A keep is a keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The following are independent articles that are specifically about the PR and their chapters (in other words, not mentioned trivially or in passing): [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] As I understand the policy I just read, if notability by secondary sources has been established for an organization (and the larger and more national the organization, the easier it is to establish that notability), sources of the organization can be used in addition to those secondaries that established the notability in the first place. Translation: not everything in this article has to be documented by secondary sources as long as the subject is notable, which it clearly is. Nice for us, huh? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationwide organization of long standing in the U.S. Google News archive search[66] shows 1350 items about the organization. Many have substantial coverage and are from reliable and independent sources sources, such as "The Pershing Rifles," in "The Woodville Republican" - Apr 27, 1918, page 3 (NewspaperArchive.com. subscription), "Pershing Rifles to enter Ohio matches[67]" in Urbana Daily Courier, and "Death of a Fraternity Pledge[68]" in Time magazine, November 22, 1976, among many other sources which demonstrate notability and can be used to improve the article.[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 03:55, 3 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Skies[edit]

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

Unnotable MMO game that has not even been released yet and has no firm release date. Almost entire article is from promo pieces. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their own press releases do not speak to notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable coverage by third party sources. Actual news reports/etc, not just repeating the press release contents. The press releases can be used as reliable sources, but can not speak to notability as anyone can send out a ton of press releases to make themselves appear notable. Its whether other sources talk about the game outside of those press releases that makes it notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so?. Then most of the articles can be deleted because all of them have the same information. Seriously when the Publisher has only sent press release that is all the information there is. Other information would be released when the companies desire so.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. If the only news reports about it are the press releases, it isn't notable. All companies do it and most news services will at least post the press releases. That isn't notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the coverage on GameSpot and IGN, probably the two strongest and reliable internet sources we use on WP for video games, alone convinces me of substantial coverage for this game—the IGN articles in particular are not reports of press releases. While not all the sources posted by Skywalker could be seen as reliable, there appears to be enough sources available to attest to notability though coverage in reliable, secondary sources. -- Sabre (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there definitely seems to be sources, it's from notable people, and it's far enough along and has generated sufficient attention that even in the unlikely event that it's cancelled it will still be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SkyWalker's links prove notability, particularly through the GameSpot sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Theres enough sources and coverage to be kept. --Banime (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:N and WP:RS. If anything it is a borderline crystal ball --Pmedema (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough reliable sources, and SkyWalker's links show many of them, particularly Gamespot, which as mentioned before, is a reliable resource. As for press-releases, since this game is currently being established, that's where people will get info. SuperHamster (talk) 21:13, 2 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. TravellingCari 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Cohen[edit]

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

Autobiography of a pharmacist which is not notable because there is nothing to prove notability. Also, there is some POV issues in the article that needs to be addressed. Tavix (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She's more than just a pharmacist. A search in OCLC's WorldCat for Suzy Cohen as an author turns up a number of records indicating wide publication history; a number of her books have even been translated (at least one into Spanish). Also, the first listed work (The 24-Hour Pharmacist 2007) is in its third edition, with 161 libraries owning that title. POV issues do exist, but this would indicate a need for improvement rather than deletion. I have no affiliation with Cohen or her works (I am not a fan). --Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability is available. Lack of sources is not a reason for AfD. Quartermaster is correct.. the article cries for improvement, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable author. Google buries me in pages about her books. I made a start with copy-editing the article and adding sources.    SIS  22:40, 3 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 Not delete.. Whether and where to merge can be sorted out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buried Oxide[edit]

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

Nothing but a dictionary definition that can be mentioned on a parent article. SGGH speak! 13:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. "Dictionary definition" is not the issue - this is apparently something to do with semiconductors, and as such might be expandable. But as it stands now, it is a very brief article without context, unintelligible to someone like myself who doesn't already know what this is about. The reference supplied is to a patent or patent application as well, which suggests a possibility that this may have been inserted for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into MOSFET or SOI MOSFET since it is so short and it has a well-defined context. Article can be recreated in the future if more material is available. Han-Kwang (t) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Han-Kwang.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:44, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bird automatic[edit]

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

Appears to be a none notable band with one independent EP-self funded thing, no third party source material bar revies, and a series of seemingly non-notable tours? SGGH speak! 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although there are a lot of websites which talk about the band. Perhaps if the band becomes more notable, maybe releasing some albums, then the article could be rewritten. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On the basis of their national touring, plus JJJ radioplay and "unearthed" status, just about gets them over the line re WP:MUSIC Murtoa (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Being an "Unearthed" band is probably enough to pass criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC, albeit only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: numerous independent references to the band, radio airplay on Triple J and 'unearthed status'. Dan arndt (talk) 05:45, 7 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 per prior full discussion, also as a crystal ball style article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Formula One season[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2012 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted material - we are not a crystal ball. D.M.N. (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Recreation with original research and no sources. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Readro (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy D - G4 and so tagged... GtstrickyTalk or C 13:59, 2 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. TravellingCari 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorpeoplemania[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Any takers? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:22, 2 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. or nom withdrawn. TravellingCari 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Colier[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Article has been enhanced with a further notability claim - that he played in a notable band before they became notable. That might stand up, but I'm unconvinced and the lack of RS doesn't help. I'd love the article to develop into a proper, sourced stub of a notable jack of all trades (films, plays, novels, music) but I'm concerned it's an unsourced stub about a nn master of none. Dweller (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried several searches, combining his name with each of the claimed professions one by one. There seems to be quite a bit online about him. A true rennaisance man. I think notability should be a lock, and may take a crack at this myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd be great. If you can find some good RS to add to the article, I'll be happy to rescind the nomination. After all, I'm hardly some great deletionist. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded and sourced article is convincing. --Lockley (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Struck nom. Great job of providing RS. --Dweller (talk) 20:05, 4 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. TravellingCari 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YMYI[edit]

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

Being Portuguese, I don't enjoy recommending the deletion of articles from the mother country. But in the case of this non-notable student art project, I can make an exception. Problems with WP:RS don't help. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DON'T DELETE from the author of YMYI: Joao Martinho Moura. YMYI Digital Art Project was included in the curated selection of digital art projects at http://www.processing.org or http://processing.org/exhibition/curated_page_new.html, from the Aesthetics and Computation Group of MIT Media Lab, next to projects from Digital Artists like Golan Levin or Zachary Lieberman. 3 YMYI academic articles were acepted on 3 international conferences. YMYI is new, and my notability has no interest, I am a researcher, but the project has interest for the scientific/artistic community. YMYI is the result of full research at University of Minho during two years of work. Official site: http://www.ymyi.org. Please take my words in consideration before salting. added by Joaomartinhomoura Sorry I don't know very well these tags. October 3, 2008.

  • Delete per nom - conflict of interest and notability Clubmarx (talk) 02:35, 4 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 ThunderCats. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slithe[edit]

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

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) 15:34, 1 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. TravellingCari 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoter Tov Lisloach[edit]

Yoter Tov Lisloach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Israeli pop song. Probably self promotion. Fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:N. No reliable sources. No sources at all. There is no explanation why this song should have an article. There is an article about the album, so all the info in this page can be moved to the album page.

— Good Wiki User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This account appears to have been created exclusively for the deletion of this one article

  • Keep Any AfD with the unsupported bad faith claim of "Probably self promotion" probably should be deleted. The reliable and verifiable sources added to the article reviewing and describing the song as a hit establish notability under WP:MUSIC. Even under the arguments offered by the nominator for deletion, this should have been a redirect, which could have been done without the disruption of AfD. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added: "The song was #39 in the yearly chart of Reshet Gimmel. This is the only radio station that this song was in it's yearly chart." Only #39 in yearly chart of only one Radio station of a small country... Reconsider your vote. Good Wiki User (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your addition is unsourced and from a station that apparently doesn't merit an article, but even at face value is irrelevant as there is no minimum ranking cutoff. The sources and coverage provided satisfies WP:MUSIC. After reconsideration, I stand by my vote. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no restriction in WP:MUSIC that says that singles have to appear in multiple yearly charts. Notability is demonstrated by the sources found and by the single being a (weekly) chart success. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 3 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) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magykal Papers[edit]

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

Not yet released book. The title is speculation and in effect it fails a book's equivalent of WP:HAMMER. No reliable secondary sources to show why it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N or WP:BK. Delete now, recreate when (if) sources become available. PROD already declined. JD554 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though there's a source (Amazon) for the title and the release date, the remaining content is unsourced, probably unverifiable right now. Huon (talk) 11:45, 2 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 20:23, 6 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 seasoning TravellingCari 05:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Rubio[edit]

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

Exact same article has been speedied three times prior, and fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I found only one speedy deletion, I also didn't find any reliable secondary sources showing notability. Huon (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not finding much in the way of sources. Nothing under "Juan Rubio" +flamenco in Google News or Books, and his one and only CD is on CD Baby (and thus self-published). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: If the result of this discussion is to delete, I highly recommend salting the page post-deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:21, 3 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. TravellingCari 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JobsDB Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Spammy, non-notable corporation. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None-notable Gsp (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You nominated my article Jobs SB Singapore for failing notability criteria or WP:CORP. It was also nominated for advertising. I removed the spammy parts of the article and left out only parts verified by secondary sources.

Wouldn't that not satisfy this criterion in Wikipedia, that you cited?

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

Also on the article's secondary source Human Resources Magazine's not being notable enough, I'd like to point out that it is an Australian based industry focused magazine that covered an event on JobsDB Singapore.(http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/) I don't know if its being industry focused makes you deem it local and having a small market therefore not notable enough.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this and how JobsDB is a non-notable corporation vs say Standard Chartered which also has articles in Wikipedia . Thanks. User:Sunshine2002 (Talk) 10:36, 3 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 gone. TravellingCari 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Paralympics medal table (with respect to population)[edit]

2008 Summer Paralympics medal table (with respect to population) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced original research. The precedent for deleting such articles as OR, and for pushing a minority POV, as few if any reliable sources have ever published such tables, has been established in previous debates;

Basement12 (T.C) 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of information. Article fails to establish why the population of a country has any bearing at all upon medal count and has any notability. 23skidoo (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the precedents. -- Jao (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jh12 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted before, delete again. Punkmorten (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopeless spam. Tavix (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to the other lists and articles, and could be described as POV-pushing. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per endless previous discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Banime (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The snowball has melted --Pmedema (talk) 17:26, 2 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. TravellingCari 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Medium at Large"[edit]

"The Medium at Large" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is short on context but I believe it is a recently created piece "performed in Oak Park, IL" possibly just by amateurs. Not (yet) notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find enough sources showing notability. rootology (C)(T) 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable play with a somewhat notable co-writer (though she's notable as a book author rather than a playwright). Nothing really to speak of in the way of production history, awards, etc. Also, the article reads like it came straight off the show program. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 2 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. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Safe America[edit]

Road Safe America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be mostly defaming the subject organisation, particularly in its original version. Whatever the substance of the issue, this does not appear to be the best title under which to address it - note that there is little info or claim of notability on behalf of the actual subject organisation. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:06, 2 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. TravellingCari 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Lee Peterkin[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and author. I am unable to find any third party coverage that indicates notability with all results coming back to myspace, youtube or talent agents. While I can find that he has had a novel published I can't find any evidence that novel is notable, nor is having a novel published implicit evidence of notability. –– Lid(Talk) 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesnt appear to have any notability. Seems to have been previously deleted as well. --neon white talk 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet across the N border. rootology (C)(T) 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 13:46, 2 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. TravellingCari 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Jafar Khan Jamali[edit]

Mir Jafar Khan Jamali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I prodded this article as unverifiable because it's unreferenced and there's insufficient information to clearly identify the subject - there seem to be several politicians with this name. The author removed the prod but has made no attempt to fix the problems. andy (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually there was enough information, using this search, I found [71], [72], [73], and [74], which all speak toward his notability, historical prominence, and in full support of the informations contined in the article itself. I added them to the article in hopes that someone will now source it. He's definitely notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with User:MichaelQSchmidt. The name of Jaffarabad District of Balochistan province of Pakistan is on his name. He was a notable person. The article is still in its infact age. It is just a week older. Marrigreat (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Context seems perfectly clear and notability has been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 5 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) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Marri wars[edit]

Anglo Marri wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Innaccurate and misleading article - there are zero ghits for the subject and I can't find any other evidence for it. Marri, which is ludicrously out of date (based on the 1911 Britannica), mentions battles between the Marri tribe and British troops in the 1840s and some smaller skirmishes in the 1880s. The article's POV assertion that the Marri stopped "the Anglo influence" is over a century and a half adrift! The article fails WP:VER and WP:POV. Nothing worth stubbing and no point redirecting - it's simply wrong. andy (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced, unverifiable. No use redirecting. Huon (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't think so that Encyclopedia Britannica reference is not sufficient. The article is updated now and the reference of EB is included. There has been many books written on this subject here in Pakistan and so in England but it would take some time by Wikipedians to include them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrigreat (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars. You've copied the 1911 EB article wholesale (probably from here) and it doesn't mention any Anglo Marri wars, just some fighting. You say there are other references but you haven't supplied them. The material in the article is over a century out of date, non-neutral and pretty much unverifiable. See 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. andy (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the primary author of this article. I agree with you at some extent, that there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars previously but it doesn't mean that it cann't be in future. It is unforgotten history of our tribe. I belong to Marri tribe. Thousand of Marris have been martyred in those wars. Our oral traditions and tribal records show us that we have faced heavy losses in those wars mentioned in the article. The free available article of Encyclopedia Britannica is just a tip of iceberg. The time will show in future that how much bloodshed have been faced by Marri tribe in their own territory. The disputed article of Anglo Marri wars is completely based on the article present in the 11th Edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. Second, as I mention earlier, that there many books have been written on the subject directly or indirectly in Pakistan for Urdu readers. For example a Urdu book by the title of Marri Baloch Jidojuhd Tareekh ky aainay main (English:Marri Baloch struggle in the light of history). The said book referenced the memories of British veteran Major Clibborn, which are easily available in India Office Records. As for your WP:POV concerns, the assertion "the Anglo influence" is not qualify for WP:POV but for your satisfaction, it has been changed to "The Anglo incursion" now. Marrigreat (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is information that belongs in Wikipedia. The question of whether the article should be called Anglo Marri wars or something else such as Anglo Marri conflicts can be decided on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a peculiar position to take given that the author of the article agrees that "there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars" and given the lack of any objective evidence beyond a couple of sentences in a century-old encyclopedia. The subject is, in any case, already in WP because of an almost identical entry in Marri, also drawn from the same source. What about WP:VER andy (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this article is to be kept, it needs at least some indication that its subject matter even exists. Google Scholar and Google Book searches for "Anglo Marri" turned up empty. There may have been skirmishes twice in 40 years, but the current article gives no indication that they were related (it even notes that in between the Marri joined the British). These skirmishes seem to be part of the First and Second Anglo-Afghan War, respectively, and should be covered there. Huon (talk) 23:36, 5 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. and relisting for a third time isn't going to bring one. Merging is an editorial discussion, not one for AfD. There is no consensus to delete, anyting else can be handled outside AfD TravellingCari 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardino Esteves (character)[edit]

Bernardino Esteves (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge- Non-notable on its own, can be merged, though. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to the principal series page. Eusebeus (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepnotableCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and improve. Hope you speak Porteguese, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. The character isn't even mentioned in the series article, but I don't know whether that's a sign that he is not notable or that the article is merely incomplete. But the character article shouldn't exist if all it does is plot retelling. – sgeureka t•c 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or just redirect There may be sources on the subject in portuguese. I don't think that we should wait around with an article that is entirely unsourced until both an editor who speaks portuguese shows up and those sources become available. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article, pure trash is. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere. I 'm not sure there's a good place at the moment, but judging from the main article the series is sufficiently notable culturally that there ought to be a page constructed for these characters. I agree with Protonk that we shouldn't leave these pages as they are in the hope of eventual sourcing, but that's no reason to remove the information entirely. Of the other arguments, "Pure trash" is pure IDONTLIKEIT, while the nomination is totally unspecific about what is wrong and how to fix it, being just the same a the nom for all sorts of other situations and problems. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Here is my consensus. Also, user 63.3.1.2 is probably a sock of User:Arbiteroftruth. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as current merge candidate is a table. The material in the article isn't plot summary, nor is it original research. It seems to be talking about an actor who died and how the ending of his character was portrayed. I do not speak portuguese, but will ask around to see if any portugues speakers can determine notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I have listed a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal in case any portuguese speakers can help with sourcing etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:31, 2 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. or at least no consensus to delete. Decision whether to merge or not does not require an AfD. TravellingCari 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art punk[edit]

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

The page has been deleted in the past and it has somehow come back, it is also incongruent to the history of Post-punk and Post-hardcore as Art-punk is considered the same thing, it is a term that is rarely used by critics to describe these kinds of music but IT IS NOT A VALID GENRE. Therefore my vote is a Strong Delete or a redirection to Art rock. Please put references that DO REFER art punk as a valid genre, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-15th (talk • contribs) 2008/09/21 19:03:32

  • Comment. First of all, the previous AfD resulted in keep, so what is the basis for your claim that this has been deleted previously and come back? I see no evidence that it was speedied. Second, what is your actual reason for wanting it deleted? Certainly, it is not a well-written or sourced article, but that is a reason for careful editing, and the placement of cleanup tags, but it is not a valid reason for deletion. Your statement that the term "is rarely used by critics" would seem to indicate that it is used by some critics, undercutting your argument that it is not a valid genre. All in all, not a valid nomination. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently I voted in the last AfD... and my stance hasn't changed. Reading the opening sentence of the article annoyed the hell out of me, but despite the completely incorrect and badly sourced content, I see no reason to delete the article, Art Punk is real and I found a huge number of mentions it with a simple search. It needs serious work, and at least until alot more content is brought in, I'd support a Merge, though I wouldn't know where, as the Art Music article isn't well structured for taking it, and it'd be semantically wrong to just stick it in the art rock article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we have to keep inventing genres here in Wikipedia? I was previously involved with the Art-punk article deletion and it has come back as Art punk. Yes it might be used by critics but not to refer it as a stand alone genre but to refer to genres like Post-hardcore, Post-punk, Industrial and etc. If you want sources of my claims I will give them to you whenever it is requested.

The-15th (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the position of the article as it stands - "art punk" is a broad designator for many subgenres. Aryder779 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 'Art-punk' has been used by critics to describe bands such as Crass (sourced in the Crass article), and I believe it's possible to have a reasonable article here. The article as it stands, however, is full of WP:OR and nonsense. Avant-punk has it's own (sourced) article, and is distinct from art-punk, so the opening statement is immediately suspect. The list of 'styles of art punk' and artists here just looks (with a few exceptions) like OR/POV and is lacking sources. Perhaps the best approach would be to find artists that have articles linking here with sources for 'art punk' (on the assumption that there's more than just Crass), mention them here and stubbify this article.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge with avant-punk. Both pages are definitely redundant. What is the problem with the first sentence of the article, by the way? "Art punk is punk rock of an experimental bent, or related to art school or the art world" - isn't that an accurate description? I don't see why art punk can't be kept as an umbrella page for various subgenres, on analogy with punk metal. Aryder779 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the first sentence is the "(also known as avant-punk)" part which you omitted above, since (i) art-punk has been used to decribe bands such as Crass, while the avant-punk article is about completely different bands, e.g. Sonic Youth, The Ex, Dog Faced Hermans, and (ii) the infobox has avant-punk as a derivative of art-punk. It can't be both the same thing as art-punk and also a derivative of it. The opening definition is also completely unsourced. The real problem here is that art-punk will always mean different things to different people, and there are a real lack of sources to base an article on, so anything more than a brief article pointing people to these different (source-based) areas is going to be problematic. If we could find sources identifying several similar bands consistently as 'art-punk' it may be a different matter. Some of the bands listed are not really any sort of punk rock, e.g. Bloc Party, The Futureheads, which doesn't help.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else gets decided, it makes no sense for both avant-punk and art punk to be maintained as separate articles. Along these lines, Crass and The Ex are both coming from anarcho-punk backgrounds; it's totally arbitrary to say "Crass is an art punk band, whereas the Ex is an avant-punk band". The terms are synonymous. Aryder779 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've done a little digging based on the first 10 pages of Google hits, and here's some facts:
1. Google has 215,000 hits for 'art punk', so it's a commonly used term and there are lots of articles linking here, so we need something here, even if only a redirect (so not really a suitable case for AfD, perhaps, particularly as there is already an active merge proposal on the avant-punk article).
2. The following bands have reliable sources describing them as art-punk: Crass (see the article), The Rakes ([75]), No Age ([76]), The Ex ([77]) - no real consistency to suggest this is a genre rather than an inconsistently-used term. Whether avant-garde punk and arty punk are really the same thing is a matter for the merge discussion mentioned above.--Michig (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The-15th (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not well-defined as a genre by reliable sources, and typically used as journalistic shorthand to describe punk bands with "arty" tendencies. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oxymoron?
    • It's more like a redundancy; all punk music is art. But that's not really the issue: the point is that it's a term that is used by the media, albeit broadly and without a strict definition. Aryder779 (talk) 13:45, 1 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, Cirt (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And redirect Avant-punk to it. As the article's refs for the Ex show (and as Aryder779 mentions above), both terms are used to describe the same genre/style. I think Art Punk is the better known of the two and Google appears to agree with me.    SIS  11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems notable enough to stand as an article. rootology (C)(T) 13:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another punk genre that I know of. The article should be expanded, though. --Banime (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know of art punk, even though I don't know what 2 Tone and Oi! are. (Can someone explain it to me?) But as I was saying, keep. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:16, 2 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. and not likely to emerge, Merging is an editorial decision, there is no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Walia[edit]

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

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) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google turned up very few hits which included fan sites, blogs, and video hosts. Unlikely sources exist to establish notability. Article is entirely plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as for such things in general. An appropriate summary of the information does not seem to be in the main article on the show. Probable a separate page for characters of is warranted. and, as a minimum, Redirect. This needn't come here, unless someone is prepared to give an argument why even a redirect from the name of a principal character is unwarranted. DGG (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/(Delete)/Redirect for consisting solely of content that wikipedia is not for in such detail (unsourced plot). – sgeureka t•c 18:27, 24 September 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) 07:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or perhaps merge into single character article. Main character of what appears to be a fairly major show. Cites in the article are on the weak side, but are third party and independent. Strongly suspect non-english sources may exist Hobit (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps merge; non-notable, lacks sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:30, 2 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. TravellingCari 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ransom[edit]

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

Trying to find any information on this individual to show notability has turned up absolutely nothing. Probably non-notable with the article hype being hyperbole rather than actual notability. –– Lid(Talk) 08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sources, unverifiable. Huon (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam, should be speedy, not AfD. Bongomatic (talk) 06:58, 3 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 -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markalite[edit]

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

This element of fiction 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) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Plot summary and trivia for some sort of fictional device. No evidence of notability via substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be an important device used in multiple films. Such are best handled with an independent article, or a merge to a combination page to an article on the weapons for the series. A proper search, might show references in reviews, and I see no evidence that it was actually undertaken. Perhaps it should be required for a nomination asserting no RSs. (note that would be a policy change. I think the frquency of bad nominations here on all sorts of subjects from different people seems to show how it would help. I've just now proposed it on the AfD talk page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per its in-universe notability to either The Mysterians or Toho. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 01:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, nothing reliable found via Google. And concerning DGG's comment above, it's the responsibility of those who want to include something in Wikipedia to come up with sources. Even worse, the article asserts that the guns in other Toho sci-fi films went by other names; claiming that they're all the same weapon seems original research. Huon (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plot summary with no reliable sources. The burden of proof is on those seeking content to be included. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 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. TravellingCari 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faded Love (preThing song)[edit]

Faded Love (preThing song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines in a current state, no reliable sources to source it's existance. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 22 September 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) 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the discography section of the pre)Thing article. While the song does meet notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs for it's chart success, and verifiability is easily proved by a quick search at Billboard.com, [78], I don't believe there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, and it is unlikely to grow beyond what we see here.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the only single ever released by the band. Whereas the single did chart, it only charted at #38 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks chart. However, everything that can be said about the single (that it charted) is already in the pre)Thing article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:48, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Woman's Club of Fayetteville[edit]

The Woman's Club of Fayetteville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, currently unsourced. My own search found no references except the local newspaper. Was prodded, prod removed without improvement by the author. Huon (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have the book you're looking for. It's called "Hometown Heritage Vol. II" by Lucille Miller Johnson. It's a rather obscure book (along with it's companion, Volume I, which I'm waiting to come available for checkout) Both books are available for reference in the Main Cumb. Pub. Library in the history/geneology section upstairs - if you're from around here and don't want to wait for the Fayetteville Observer's editor to get back to you.

As far as the wiki page, I did update the the references to include Ms. Johnson's book. I sincerely hope I'm posting this note in the right manner! I started the page, and I'd like to see it stay! kelliejojo (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the references don't show why its notable on a wide scale. We66er (talk) 19:39, 26 September 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) 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This organization is clearly verifiable and I'm inclined to keep it around as a historical women's organization. The article hasn't been around long, I say let it stay and see if it can be improved. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working to improve the article to make it more "encyclopedia-like." I will continue to drum up useful information and add it asap.

kelliejojo (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - until such time as somebody points me to the "Local" clause of WP:N, I'm inclined to accept it as notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:48, 3 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 Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladino Wikipedia[edit]

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

Notability isn't inherited. I can't find the sufficient independent coverage that demonstrates the notability of this fork. I'd happily withdraw if independent sources can be shown that demonstrate the notability of this. English Wikipedia and some of the others are without a doubt obviously notable, but not everything we do at the WMF is notable. Before you say Keep or Delete, bear in mind that all of our standards must apply evenly and equally to us at all times, for all content, even if the subject is considered "internal". This isn't a vote--if it's a Keep, please demonstrate it's notability with sources. If it is in main Article space, it must play by the same rules and standards as any and every other topic that has nothing to do with the WMF. We can't give ourselves a free pass--consider that.

Precedent exists for deleting non-notable projects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination). rootology (C)(T) 06:07, 2 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) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsang_Lodrö[edit]

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

This page doesn't meet the criteria for notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." "Lodro" was the religious name of a Buddhist teacher who has since stopped teaching. He was one of hundreds of teachers in the NKT, and is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, especially given the fact that he's gone. Peaceful5 (talk) 05:49, 2 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 05:01, 6 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 "keep" opinions don't address the relevant guideline, WP:BIO. If the subject is ever covered in some depth by reliable sources, she can have an article.  Sandstein  17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Goodchild[edit]

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

Non-notable individual and internet medium. I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as lacking notability. The creator asserts notability and a google search in Australia alone reveals 50,000 hits. Many of these seem to be from special interest sites and YouTube, I can't see that the individual in question is notable, nevertheless as an act of good faith, I've withdrawn the speedy nom and brought the matter here to AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I was created today, how would you know it isn't notable without giving people a few days at least to meet WP:NOTABILITY? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't spy any reliable sources to establish notability; most hits are to Youtube, blogs or fringe ET sites. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that identifies something as a "fringe" ET site as opposed to a "mainstream" ET site? Just because you think the beliefs are "fringe" doesn't mean the issue isn't of broader interest (or firmly ensconced within pop culture). The theme of ETs and UFOs is standard fare of mainstream TV and cinema. Wikipedia's already a rich source of information on this stuff. Hoopes (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPS. Many websites, particularly in fringe fields such as this, are self-published and therefore not reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Youtube and blogs are basically never acceptable. If you can find reliable, non-trivial coverage in print newspapers or the like, then fair enough. If you can't then the article has not established notability and should be deleted. You say it's standard fare - I agree, so go find some reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point well taken. There are many cultural phenomena whose success on YouTube subsequently generates coverage in major media. An example of this is the musician Tay Zonday, whose song Chocolate Rain made him a media phenomenon. (BTW, your link to reliable sources is not what you may have thought it was...) Hoopes (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes, well caught... it should of course be reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author of the article. I do appreciate why the article was flagged for speedy deletion, since this would be entirely appropriate if the entry were created for the purposes of self-promotion or to make a non-notable individual seem notable. However, the rapidity with which the issue of Blossom Goodchild's channelled message has generated hits in an increasing number of YouTube videos and websites suggests to me that the phenomenon is notable. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its ability to distribute accurate information quickly. I anticipate that this entry will grow along with the specific phenomenon it describes. As I note above the "event" is already internationally known to a large and growing audience. As a regular Wikipedia user, my first response to encountering the increased media buzz was to ask the question, "Who's Blossom Goodchild"? I think there is a tremendous benefit when a Google search yields a worthwhile Wikipedia entry with links to relevant background information. If the issue remains "hot", users will add additional information. Hoopes (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hoopes provides a good case for considering Blossom as a cultural phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblonder (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural phenomenon?" Oh please, this is obviously a means of promotion for a woman associated with the extremely lucrative New Age market. Let's not add to the irrational hysteria by granting her an article in what is supposed to be a respected and informative encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.3.42 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the link to her blog takes you directly to ads for a number of her New Age books, renders this article laughable to say the least. I advocate speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.3.42 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I beg to differ. I do not see this article as a "means of promotion", rather as a contribution towards critical evaluation. The fact that her cited blog contains ads for her New Age books is relevant to the issue that her channelled announcement may be an example of undercover marketing. I don't think that one can anticipate that the average readers of Wikipedia will view her ads any differently than you have. I would object myself if the entry were modified to include references to her books as evidence of her being "notable" as if their existence were sufficient for defining that. Just because someone has published a book does not mean that they are "notable", which seems to be the issue in deciding for or against deletion. Furthermore, there are thousands of individuals in Wikipedia (people who main reaons for being "notable" is that they are well-known celebrities, for example) whose entries may be interpreted as "ads" for promoting their financial success. I think an appraisal of whether someone is "notable" or not must be independent of whether a Wikipedia entry promotes what they are selling or not. Think about Paris Hilton, for example. Hoopes (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, however I see no need for this article to be sustained following October 14th (which, I think most rationally minded individuals agree, will pass without incidence.) Her channeled 'prediction' that extra terrestrials will come to earth on the 14th is the source of her hype, and when it fails miserably, she will lose all interest and notability. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortonrainey (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you be willing to push that to October 20 or so? How about October 31 Halloween? I think that there are a lot of similarities between BG's channeled message and premonitions of a Marian apparition. The true believers may well experience something that the rest of us don't acknowledge as "real", but that would be a "notable" event, don't you think? It took about a century or so for the fantastic story of Jesus to become gospel. I'm willing to give BG's extraterrestrial spacecraft a couple of weeks. (A Google search on "Blossom Goodchild" right now yields almost 20,000 hits.) For me, a bigger philosophical question is whether the Wikipedia entry itself is a factor is spinning this new "reality". Hoopes (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Hoopes, that won't do. You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then scratch that. Regardless of what happens, I still assert that BG has already become notable as a result of the current buzz. (Google hits are up to 20,500 today.) She has become a permanent element of UFO folklore. That doesn't take much in the way of "hard" evidence, as indicated by the examples of Area 51 and its supposed alien autopsy, or the Betty and Barney Hill abduction. Aren't you concerned that deleting this article will fuel UFO conspiracy theory? Hoopes (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google hits do not confer notability. Independent reliable sources are needed to do that; finding such sources for Betty and Barney Hill is easy. I suggest that this is not true of Blossom Goodchild, as shown by your inability to provide any. Simply stating that she is notable and pointing to Google or Youtube is simply not enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that Google doesn't confer notability, but the fact that the hit count for "Blossom Goodchild" went up by almost 10,000 pages in the past 48 hours is noteworthy. Someone out there thinks she's worth knowing about, at least right now. I like to think that Wikipedia can provide a tiny island of objectivity in the midst of a raging sea of hype. Hoopes (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm beginning to enjoy all this hype, it provides an interesting insight into today's culture. I agree that deleting the article may distort clarity as to who Goodchild is, and her predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortonrainey (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It raises the very interesting question of whether there are "notable" people and events who are precipitated out of events that occur in the blogosphere without being recognized or covered by the mainstream press. Should hardcopy print media be considered more legitimate than digital media? Hoopes (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! the popularity of her utube vidoes alone are a viable indicator of interest and support from the general public. I wanted to know who she was and I came here to Wikipedia to find out; my experience is an example that this entry is valid. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.160.150 (talk) 09:08, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona Envisions the Future[edit]

Pomona Envisions the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A big mural but is it notable outside Pomona? I get a strong feeling that there is an element here of advertising by, or on behalf of, Kevin Stewart-Magee. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comment: This project was the brain child of Judy Chicago who is a world reknown artist. She also did The Dinner Party piece which is in the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Kevin Stewart-Magee was just the facilitator and lead artist. The mural took two years to paint. Many artists painted the mural. The City of Pomona just made it an official piece of city art by installing a bronze city plaque.

LouisBrownstone (talk) 13:31, 2 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 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I don't know if I understand the above comment correctly. There are citations from reliable sources in the article. A list of all newspaper articles, books, documentaries about the mural is included along with links to the University library section that has research documents about the mural. There are pages devoted to this mural in the major Southern California Art websites. It is mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia. Some important artists such as Judy Chicago, Judy Baca, Magu, Dextra Frankel, Donald Woodman contributed to this mural.

I took a look at other murals of note in Wikipedia. They have articles yet they don't have as many references, images or information as this mural. Why do people want to delete this article? What should be included in this article to keep it from being deleted?

One note. The article didn't include an image of the third wall which is an homage to muralist Diego Rivera. Can someone post one?

I also think it's "artifact" and not "artefact." Thanks. Hope I did this right.ArtWillSaveTheWorld (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This mural is culturally significant, was made by well-know artists, has its own website, there's good information on it from reliable sources such as Pitzer College and Cal Poly Pomona. There's plenty of room for improving grammar, syntax, POV, etc. Nonetheless, I do consider its relevance to be encyclopedic.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 01:48, 7 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. Shereth 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Maglio[edit]

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

High school athlete, drafted by MLB, never played pro, now high school coach. Hate to say it because Maglio sounds like a fine person but it dawned on me that I was completely unable to find a meaningful way to categorize the article. He never played pro, never coached on the national level, apparently never sought to be in the spotlight. Local personality but it's impossible to build a meaningful article. Pichpich (talk) 05:22, 2 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 05:01, 6 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 Close. I'm closing this one also, five days is way too soon to relist after a close. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars marathon[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion before and I took part in the discussion saying it should be deleted. The result of that nomination was no consensus. However, I still do not think this article should exist on Wikipedia as marathons are not notable no matter how sourced it is. It would be like having an article called "Power Rangers marathon". Mythdon (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. The prior Afd ended a few days ago! What are you trying to do, start an Afd marathon? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no need for a second article here and none of the sources suggest that this is notable in any way, shape, or form. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 2 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. Shereth 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Worboys[edit]

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

Article originally PRODded by me with the comment "Non-notable business person. The "references" do not actually refer specifically to Mr. Worboys at all" The PROD was disputed by the author of the article in an incorrectly formatted AfD with the comment "I'll update the sources so they better reflect 'notableness'... Give me a couple of days." The good faith attempt to create the AfD has been deleted to allow the creation of a correctly formatted page. Mattinbgn\talk 04:54, 2 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 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as stated above by the contestor of the PROD, it's been more than a few days, now. No verifiable secondary sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm unable to find any substantial sourcing beyond that in the article which doesn't meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 6 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 evidence of notability or RS coverage. Sole keep did not address that issue TravellingCari 04:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Flash 2[edit]

Super Smash Flash 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. No verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability for an upcoming fanmade flash game. In addition, this article fails WP:NOT in many areas, including crystalballery, web hosting, game guide information, and very likely conflict of interest and spamming. Was there anything I didn't mention? MuZemike (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder. No reliable sources, no real claim of notability. gnfnrf (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This wouldn't be notable in the least even if it were released, and according to the article it's still months off. Could have been speedied as A7/nn-web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought contested prods had to go through AfD. MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any reason either in policy or common sense that would make a failed PROd automatically exempt from all future speedies. This seems to me to be speedy-bait both because it fails to assert notability and because the original version (which if anything is more notable than this due to at least having been released) has been AfDed and speedied numerpous times and is now protected. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I didn't see that the first installment was salted. Anyways, now that the discussion is here, attempts to recreate the exact same content, provided the consensus is to delete, would be G4'd. Thus, the AfD was going to happen sooner or later (better now IMO). MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original game has been shown to be non-notable; unless this incomplete, unreleased sequel somehow got coverage on G4, Electronic Gaming Monthly or some other outlet that fits our definition of a reliable source, it also appears to fail the notability guideline. Considering how many times the article for the original was re-created, I'd also suggest salting this space to prevent future recreations. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertation of notability, no referencing so its probably all original research, regardless of the editor's good intentions. Unless some sort of evidence of notability from reliable, secondary sources can be produced, deletion is prudent. Salting may be a good idea, considering the recreation of the first game's article. -- Sabre (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as origanal contestor of the PROD Adam Hillman (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability. If this article is kept, then it should be made into an article for both games. However, I think it requires a deletion. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:36, 3 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. TravellingCari 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gang vocals[edit]

Gang_vocals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
  • Delete. Very little content, no sources. Aryder779 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term is real and actually used, at least within the hardcore scene, but I can't imagine any way this could be expanded beyond the already-brief dicdef that's there now, aside from a list of songs using them, and we certainly do not want that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Suitable for Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary maybe, but not Wikipedia, as the article is merely a dictionary definition. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:41, 2 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. /weak keep. Listed for nearly two weeks, six comments and two keeps of some degree. Comments raise valid points. At any rate, no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors (band)[edit]

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

unsourced, unnotable DragonDance (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band does not seem to have gained much recognition, but they were signed to an independent label, released albums, and toured. This indicates some notability. As a side note, the label with whom they were signed also represented Katrina and the Waves, who were certainly notable, indicating it was not an insignificant company. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is true that band did not gain much recognition (at least during its existence, in the last couple of years metal was revived in former Yugoslav republics, and old bands, including Warriors, won some new fans) but it is notable as one of the rare bands on the SFR Yugoslav Pop and Rock scene, which was mostly mainstream rock oriented scene, whose sound could be defined as a classic 80s metal, more notable bands like Kerber, Divlje Jagode, Osmi Putnik or Griva being more hard rock. The band is also notable as a side project of famous drummer Vicko Milatović. As RepublicanJacobite wrote, they were singed to a notable Canadian record label. I would add that PGP RTB was also a notable record label, being one of the two biggest labels in former Yugoslavia, releasing albums by Riblja Čorba, Đorđe Balašević, Bajaga i Instruktori, Disciplina Kičme, Kerber, Osmi Putnik, Pomoranča, Rambo Amadeus, Leb i Sol and other notable artists. Ostalocutanje (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band could not have been much popular due to the new wave, post-punk and alternative expansion in Yugoslavia. The reason why the band is notable is the fact that this is one of the few Yugoslav bands directly influenced by the NWOBHM and the fact that they played outside Yugoslavia and released an album for a foreign record label, which was not an easy thing to do in former Yugoslavia for much more popular and notable acts.Milosppf 07:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pretty much what everybody above said: Not getting attention by the mainstream or even not by metalheads doesn't mean a band is deleted. They were officially signed and officially released albums, the latter issue should mean automatic notablility no questions asked. But more importantly, the band IS sourced- look on Encyclopedia Metallum and Discogs. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And after all, the band was a former Yugoslav / Canadian band, and band's members were Serbian and Canadian musicians... Quite a rare case of an international metal band, at least on the Serbian and former Yugoslav scene. Ostalocutanje (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proxy User (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lacks a few sources, and Encyclopedia Metallum and discogs are not good sources, but perhaps not surprising given their albums are from the 80s. Two albums on what appear to be significant enough labels may be enough to scrape through WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, better sources sure wouldn't hurt, but per Michig I'll call their accomplishments sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND. Huon (talk) 15:09, 2 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. Has been relisted three times, a fourth isn't going to bring consensus to do anything. TravellingCari 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace (Cult album)[edit]

Peace (Cult album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is only one disc of a six disc box set, there is no reason for it to have its own page, and the information here is already listed on The Cult's own wikipage. This page should be deleted. 66.194.98.10 (talk · contribs) Copied from edit summary when 66.194.98.10 added the AfD tag. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's true that the only place all twelve tracks this "album" appear together is on disc 3 of the Rare Cult 6-disc box set. However, this doesn't represent the only release of these tracks. For example, The cult released The Manor Sessions EP in 1988,[79] which I see as the belated release of this album. Because no Cult album, EP, or box set was ever named Peace, I think it might be appropriate to change the title of the article. But I oppose its deletion. The Manor Sessions represent an important set of work by this group that spans numerous releases, and clearly documents The Cult's change in musical direction at the time (vis-a-vis Electric). I believe this merits discussion that is too detailed to include solely in The Cult and/or Electric (The Cult album). Noca2plus (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Non-plausible search term. Lacks "significant independent coverage from reliable sources".  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 22 September 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 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 01:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a singular disc out of a box set, redundant to the box set's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable band, commercially released album. What more do you want? Operating (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not really a comercially released album, as the release was only within the box-set. This is more analogous a non-notable track on a notable album. This disc is not itself notable, but the box set is. The "extras" discs that come with DVD films are generally not notable by themselves either, even if they star major actors and are in some sense "released". It is the released package that if worthy of note.Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't merit an article in its own right, but should be renamed Rare Cult and expanded to cover the box set that it was released as part of, which is currently lacking an article, and appears to have enough sources from reviews, etc. available to support an article.--Michig (talk) 07:42, 2 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. I am going to tag this as needing more references and expect to see it back here in the not too distant future if none are added. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headwater (band)[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability; the only contribution of new editor, most likely coi. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for passing WP:MUSIC#C11. Claim already referenced in article, so I'm not going to bother with recut-&-pasting it here. Doesn't mean the article doesn't need a good clean-up though.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is still unreferenced. Whilst being a good second party source, a page on cbc's website doesn't prove 'rotation'. Though a few more independent sources would help notability. --neon white talk 12:55, 2 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, treelo radda 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person seems to have some notability, article seems to need some cleanup. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence to make that up. --neon white talk 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. lack of coverage is a concern, but it's verifiable that they have performed at several festivals. CBC has a concert available for listening online ([80]) which appears to have been recorded at the station's studios, and was presumably broadcast.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing festivals isnt a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Majority of the article is unsourced and makes no claims of notability. Needs more sources. --neon white talk 12:55, 2 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) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Oates[edit]

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

Non notable city council member. Admin removed speedy because he said that being a member of a small city council is a claim to notability. mboverload@ 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Based on the available coverage and positions held does not seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Not much in GoogleNews[81]. However, there is one recent story in USAToday[82] which mentions him as the chairman of the Idaho Libertarian Party, in connection with the discussion of Bob Barr as being a possible libertarian presidential candidate. I gather that Oates was a Republican before and that this is a recent change. This may give him a higher profile and maybe wider national and state coverage. Still, for the moment such coverage does not seem to be avaialable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article clearly needs some work, but being chair of a state branch of a major third party should be good enough. The news coverage should be included to the extent that it exists (check the local papers), but it looks like he's legit. I added information I found about a run for the state assembly. Ran for assembly, Libertarian chair, local city council -- altogether it adds up to something. Avram (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please look again at the article. I've dug up a lot of coverage of the guy in the Idaho papers. Apologies for the possibly not-useful links -- a lot of this might only be accessible though news archive services, but it's there. Avram (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the claims to notability hold enough weight. Punkmorten (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain. The nomination asserts that he is a city council member and that that is not sufficient. Subsequent development of the article has revealed that he was a candidate for Idaho House of Representatives in the Republican primary, and that he is the state chair of a significant third party. All of this is covered in significant detail in multiple reliable news sources. Avram (talk) 06:32, 2 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 Robert Carlyle#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Shirley[edit]

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

Make up artist or assistant on several notable productions (IMDB page), wife of very notable actor, which was evidently the reason for creating the article. Neither seems to add up to notability for the article's subject. N p holmes (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Herbert[edit]

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

This politician may not currently meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. I was unable to find significant press coverage. Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do a Google News search for "Spencer Herbert" vancouver. I find articles in the Vancouver Sun, Xtra West, The Vancouver Province, Georgia Straight, The Tyee, and the Vancouver Courier, all within the past month. Does press coverage need to be any more significant than this? Queerwiki (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does. Press attention from just running for office does not establish notability. Based on my searching so far, this looks like a WP:ONEEVENT biography. Coverage before the the run doesn't go very deep. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spencer has a number of media hits from his time spent on the park board as well - these just aren't available in a Google News search that only indexes recent hits. Examples: [one], [two], [three], [four], [five], [six], [seven], [eight], [nine], [ten], [eleven]. Queerwiki (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (sorry for the previous anon edit; Wikipedia lost my cookie)[reply]
  • Keep I found several newspaper articles on him, via the gnews search recommendations. Passes, if barely. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Is Wikipedia to become a Who's Who Directory of marginally notable local officials? Proxy User (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He seems to be a quite marginal local official. Redirect to Herbert Spencer — this would be a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with redirecting his name to "Herbert Spencer"... there is an individual of some level of notability whose name is Spencer Herbert. At the very least, I would like Spencer Herbert to be a disambiguation page rather than an outright redirect. But I still do believe this politician is worth having a page. He has a media presence dating to 2005 and is campaigning for higher office. Queerwiki (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that I believe he's not good enough for notability (the campaigning, among other things, counts nothing), and that I believe redirecting is a better solution for the article than simply redirecting. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I believe redirecting is a better solution for the article than simply redirecting"? I don't follow. In any case, people who type Spencer Herbert are probably looking for a Canadian politician and not an English philosopher. Why throw them off? Queerwiki (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No wonder you were confused; I must not have been paying attention. I meant to say "I believe redirecting...than simply deleting". Anyway, if we see S.H. as a nonnotable guy whose article should be deleted, it doesn't matter if they want this guy; if people type Ryan Higa, that doesn't mean that they're going to get an article on the YouTube character. The point is basically "is S.H. a plausible redirect for H.S."? I believe it is; and therefore, if this is deleted we should recreate it as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about a redirect to Herbert Spencer (disambiguation), which also includes other individuals with similar names? One of the bullet points could be something like "Spencer Herbert, a Vancouver municipal politician and a British Columbia provincial election candidate." - but without putting a link on his name. If he wins the seat then perhaps his notability could be reconsidered in the future. Queerwiki (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] That would be more useful. However, if S.H. is found to be of too little notability, we should not include anything about S.H. on that page: disambiguation pages aren't meant to include bits on nonnotable people or topics. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall seeing lots of disambiguation pages that include references without wiki pages of their own. For example Jimmy includes a groundhog and a song that don't have their own pages. John Smith includes a Utah territorial legislature member, a former mayor of Nashville and a comics writer, all without their own pages. Queerwiki (talk) 17:26, 4 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 Identity and change. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of change[edit]

Problem of change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a wp:neo issue and unverifiable due to the confusion of the article itself. Article has remained unsourced and unedited (excepting bots) since 2006. Still prefer AFD over PROD since it isn't obvious. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a philosophy essay, and rather a bad one from someone whose first language isn't English. Operating (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Identity and change, the same thing under another title. The problem itself is real and notable.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • then why no sources? Can't merge something with no sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stanford Enc. of Phil.. By the way nobody says that it must be you who merges the articles. Of course both articles have many issues and are undersourced, but this should be solved by another means than this AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't suggesting that I merge, I was just saying you can't add unsourced info into another article, as that fails wp:v, regardless of who does it. The source you give is interesting, but I'm sure you know its pretty weak to establish the entire article. I'm not an expert here, I only found the article when trying to source a bunch of articles from 2006, and couldn't source this one (the rest I sourced and removed tags for). The *reason* it went to AFD is simple: No one has touched this article in over two years. No attempt to cite, no attempt to improve. I could have just PRODed it and it would have disappeared in 5 days. Instead, I brought it here so others can see it, fix it, delete it, or figure out what to do, since I am smart enough to figure out that I am not smart enough to figure it out. One thing is sure: 2 years with no references is unacceptable, so something needs to be done. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, now you have at least one source to a part of the article - I am not an expert in the Eastern philosophy, but at least the Western part of the problem (endurantism and perdurantism) is verified.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SEP doesn't have an article on this [83], so it seems a WP:NEO used by few philosophers. Also, no references are provided in the article. VG ☎ 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has an entry on change. part of which reads quite a lot like the article in question (to my amateur eyes). Mission Fleg (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is a core philosophical issue and has been at least since Parmenides. What terminology should be used and at what title the article should be are trifling issues. Absolutely no call for deletion here. And for the record, there is a deluge of verifiable information. the skomorokh 13:10, 3 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. and not likely for one to emerge with strong reasoning on both sides. TravellingCari 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumvertising[edit]

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

Main reason for deletion: Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'd love to hear other opinions on this. Thanks. Pip (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't even understand the deletion nom, except that first sentence, and part of the next, which, if I may paraphrase, seems to say "it should be deleted because it isn't humanitarian, socially accepted, and highly disrepectful". It's been sourced, multiple times, to multiple sources. Notability seems to be well-established by the first deletion nom. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep since it has been reliably sourced, and since this term and Benjamin Rogovy certainly get hits. I don't understand the nomination either. If the basis for deleting is that this exploitative practice is not humanitarian or socially accepted, or that it's highly disrespectful to the homeless... then I can only say that I see these as reasons that this article should exist. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's not to understand? I can explain anything you need me to. The most important argument is the notability guidelines. I even quoted the most relevant passage from the policy right there. Pip (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that the larger debate unfolding around the ethical implications moves this from transient news coverage surrounding a single event to something more significant. Mintrick (talk) 4:31, 28 September 2008 (EST)
I don't care about the ethical implications with respect to it's encyclopedic legitimacy. My point is that it doesn't meet notability guidelines, as I quoted above. Pip (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Upon reexamination, it seems that all the coverage is focused around a short burst of news reports. Absent something that indicates this is more far-reaching than a one-time publicity stunt that got some coverage, I don't think it meets the requirements. I looked around, trying to find something that indicated this was an issue facing the homeless community, but couldn't find anything. If something like that materialized, I'd change my mind. Mintrick (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I definitely agree with you on that, to the effect that if more on that issue was found, I'd see why it would carry more weight. I would still suggest a re-write to cover the idea of the concept, instead of the specific term 'Bumvertising', even so. I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. Also: Are you saying you are changing your vote, or just removing your keep vote? (Not to press the subject haha) Pip (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the topic is neat, and I'd like to see more general coverage. To clarify, I am removing my keep vote. I guess I default to neutral.Mintrick (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. :) Pip (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, makes me feel so good about the level of concern here ^^ I'll shorten it, I suppose. Pip (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in all seriousness, the idea of down-and-out people wearing a sandwich board for advertising has been around for a long time. I remember a Leave it to Beaver episode about it. Perhaps the article could be expanded and retitled. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a possibility. Thing is, this article is referencing a particular person's idea to capitalize on the idea, to the point of creating a business about it... Also, did I make my nomination description more concise and understandable for you? I didn't mean to be as absurdly verbose as I was. Pip (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is fine now. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for the feedback. Pip (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. All of the google hits I reviewed (although there are many) point to the one incident that coined the term. Per WP:Neologism, a new term does not belong in WP unless there are there are reliable sources about the term, not just articles about the incident that coined the term. In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish a term! - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom and ¢Spender1983. Proxy User (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially a neologism of something which, as noted above isn't really all that new and can't really be said to have caught on to any significant degree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing on the article indicates this so-called "neologism" has been used and acknowledged by at least two major news sources (3 if you count The Daily Show). Ergo it is no longer a neologism. Plenty of sources to establish notability of both the term and the concept. 23skidoo (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that it is a neologism. --neon white talk 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - per WP:NEO : "...and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic." , multiple news sources qualify. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response per "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." The only references are from Aug 2005! Pip (Talk to me!) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Reliable Source does not stop being reliable simply because it is older than you would like. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You seem to be selectively quoting WP:NEO. The proper quote would be "when secondary sources (about the term) become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic." The editorial insert is based on the first part of this section in WP:NEO which says "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term." So no matter how reliable the news source is (NY Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle), if the article centers on Mr. Rogovy and his "coining" of the term then the article does not qualify as a secondary source for Bumvertising. For a neologism to gain acceptance, there should be articles about the term. In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish notability for a neologism. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, and it is cited in the Article. I am willing to accept it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ABC news article is clearly about Mr. Rogovy's coining of the term. The leading paragraph says "he calls it 'bum-vertising'." So how do you say it is about the term? I would concur that this is clearly a reliable secondary source to prove that Mr. Rogovy has created the neologism. It makes no ground whatsoever in proving that the term has moved from protologism to either neologism or to acceptance and use in the advertising industry. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response A very good point you make. Thank you for bringing that to the table - you filled in good gaps that were in my argument. I appreciate it. Pip (Talk to me!) 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disturbing to say the least, but the reliable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Which reliable sources establish notability of the term itself? All I see is reliable sources that report a news event where one person refers to his actions by giving it the name bumvertising? How does that make this term notable? If you were to call a local ad agency and ask for a marketing plan that included "bumvertising", what reaction would you get? Would they even know what it is? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and unless it's re-written in a more balanced fashion. As it is, it seems like a shameless advert. It was originally created by 16:22, 14 August 2005 SchmuckyTheCat (Talk | contribs) (creation). Admittedly, it has gotten some press, but not very much. Admittedly, it also seems to be a phenomenon. Perhaps more discussion here will clarify this issue this time around. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:41, 3 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. TravellingCari 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ker's WingHouse[edit]

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

Blatant Advertisement Editor437 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, not a blatant advertisement, and the lawsuit win against Hooters is notable in itself. Risker (talk) 15:13, 4 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. TravellingCari 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Loo with a View[edit]

A Loo with a View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently published book. Reads like spam to me. Sgroupace (talk) 02:07, 2 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 Motorcycle club. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biker club[edit]

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

Delete. This article was split from Motorcycle club without discussion. There is no compelling reason to separate Biker club from Motorcycle club as they a aspects of the same thing. The original article should be cleaned up rather than excessive fragmentation of the subject by splitting. In addition, splitting the article screws up a huge number of links to sub-sections. This article has been restored to Motorcycle club, but the fragment Biker club continues to exist and should be cleaned up by deletion. Proxy User (talk) 20:50, 1 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. TravellingCari 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimes[edit]

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

Contested Prod. The article is about a R&B/hip hop artist but does not assert notability per WP:BIO. The only citation is a MySpace page. EnviroboyTalkCs 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the articles of the artist's first album and single:

Upncomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Don't Go Incognito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EnviroboyTalkCs 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. The subject of this article hasn't even released an album yet as seen by "Upncomer is slated to be Dimes's first album" and the "first single will be Don't Go Incognito". Delete the hip hop artist per lack of notability and the album and singer per WP:HAMMER. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Proxy User (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete unsigned (or rather, self-signed) artist without even an album yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Starblind. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I've nothing more to add. JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect main to Dime, delete the albums. Not notable yet. If kept, "Dimes" should still redirect to Dime, and this article should be renamed Dimes (musical group) or something like that. 23skidoo (talk) 12:03, 2 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 My Life as a Teenage Robot. Edit history preserved for use in merging information as deemed fit. Shereth 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremorton City[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability.Schuym1 (talk) 01:25, 2 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 redirected misspelling.(non-admin closure) Icewedge 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narrcisisus[edit]

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

I cannot find verification for this "Greek mythology character", absolutely no results outside of Wikipedia.[84] The first version of this page does not inspire confidence in the articles author.[85] Icewedge 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: He is a Greek mythology character. I heard about him in school. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I think the article's author meant Narcissus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just about to post that, but I got in an edit conflict. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Copy of an article that already exists. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 2 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Cluster Prime[edit]

Escape from Cluster Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability.Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 2 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. TravellingCari 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Bourgogne[edit]

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

Café in Paris. A few web references note it as a nice place to have lunch but the notability is really a stretch. There are very few cafés in the heart of Paris that don't have at least one good Sartre/de Beauvoir story and there's little if any room for expanding this article beyond the current stub. Note also that the article does not exist on the French wiki and that does say something about the lack of historical significance of the place. Pichpich (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non notable and will remain an orphan. Operating (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appear to be reviews in the LA times, St. Petersburg Times, and New York Times [87] While most are behind a pay wall, not all are. The reviews often hit 3-8 cafes at a time, but I'm getting 63 news hits and each of the ones I looked at looked substantive if short. Looks like it meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Proxy User (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reliable sources found by Hobit. This cafe has also received much coverage in books as seen in this Google Books search. The cafe is given a detailed review in The Food Lover's Guide to Paris, and multiple reviews in other travel books such as Rick Steves' Paris, America Inside Out, etc. There are a couple reviews in newspapers that are not under a pay wall, including two NY Times articles. The cafe was also the place where Georges Simenon's character Mrs. Wells ponders about murder mysteries. The numerous reviews in newspapers from all over the world such as The New York Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Miami Herald, Toronto Star, Telegraph.co.uk, as well as the wide coverage in traveling books and the influence this cafe has had internationally, definitely establish this cafe's notability. Cunard (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources. A good case for requiring careful searches. You cannot count on finding everything in G. DGG (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely reviewed and with at least some claim to historical importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:43, 2 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. TravellingCari 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 (disambiguation)[edit]

CO2 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disambig contains link to only one article (Carbon dioxide), as well as one red link. "CO2" already redirects to Carbon dioxide, therefore this disambig page is not needed. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The second link on the page is advertising only - and it's red. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Beeswaxcandle. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generally speaking Wikipedia doesn't allow two-item dismabiguation pages anyway, and if the second one here is just an ad, then this one can go. 23skidoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with the above, there's no need for this page. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there's ever a significant enough CO2 that it warrants an article, we can just use hatnotes. Two-piece disambiguation pages are useful (for example, Agua Dulce, Texas), but only if the two articles are of relatively equal importance, as is seen with Agua Dulce. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed at this time Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:04, 3 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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy/guidelines and do not address the fundamental issue of notability. Shereth 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Squid[edit]

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

This "open source" cartoon character has remarkably few Google hits, and no sources. Prod tag removed. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and lacking sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and per Google hits.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Volume of Google hits doesn't indicate qualified traffic. Notable due to fact that character appears in multiple publications. Sources can be added. Twalls (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable. Proxy User (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't see those references that were promised, so it doesn't look like this character meets the notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete some google hits but nothing reliable enough to meet guide lines... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds of the character appearing in numerous works not written by its creator. Ford MF (talk) 14:28, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rombola[edit]

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

Taken to AfD as result of discussion at Talk:Christopher Rombola. Non-notable athlete (failing WP:ATHLETE)- he was brought in for developmental leagues, and has not advanced beyond those leagues, thus he hasn't participated in a fully professional manner. Additionally he simply doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion. Also, this had been previously deleted (though in a much smaller version apparently) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Rombola (2nd nomination). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I spoke with this editor three days ago regarding his concern over the article and had told him I was more then willing to work with him until he was satisfied with the subjects notability. Based on that conversation, I was under the impression that I would be allowed time to provide additional references. I was unaware of his conversation with another edition from WP:PW, however I was never told I had a specific time limit to do so. I would have appreciated if the nominating editor had at least notified me on the article's talk page before making his decision.
I do respectfully disagree with both editors in regard to the previous Afd debate, their opinion that Ohio Valley Wrestling alumni and the sources (referred to as "fansites") provided in the article itself. I think its unfair to characterize developmental promotions as "non-professional leagues". None of these promotions were ever owned by WWE, nor did it have any financial ties, with the exception of exclusive talent agreements. Many, but not all, its wrestlers were under developmental contract. That said, while Rombola never held a championship title, he was involved in feuds with Bad Company (Shawn Osborne & Mike Kruel)/High Dosage (Jon Bolen & Ryan Reeves) and Gothic Mayhem and received title shots against both Paul Birchall and Jacob Duncan which certainly elevates him above preliminary wrestler status. I assume from this statement on the talk page, an OVW wrestler who had held a title would be notable ?
Among the references included in the article, many of which are frequently used in other wrestling articles on Wikipedia (LordsofPain.net, Wrestling101.com, 411mania.com, GeorgiaWrestlingHistory.com and NZPWI.co.nz), a full WWE.com interview discussing his being the first wrestler selected from a national tryout held by the company in late-2005. As previously stated on the talk page, the tryouts were held both throughout the United States and Great Britain. While I have no sources to prove or disprove otherwise, I believe this was the first major recruitment effort held by the promotion with the exception of the WWE Tough Enough series. Among the other wrestlers selected in the tryouts included Shawn Spears, the second wrestler selected, and is referenced from a WWE.com interview on his official website. Other sources I provided were intended to reference notable wrestlers, events and other information relavent to the article itself.
As far as the previous Afd debate goes, the main issue was that the article had little content and was unsourced. I believe my version corrected that. I realize as an anonymous contributor, my opinion may not count as much as established editors. If other edits feel this particular wrestler's career in OVW was insignificant, I won't debate the issue. I do feel nominating the article for Afd was both rushed, extreme and, under the circumstances, a bit unfair. While I didn't nessessarily agree with all his points, I was happy and optimistic to work with a more experienced editor in improving the article. I realize this editor had his reasons, but I think a lot of time could have been saved on both our parts. 71.184.51.101 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC) — 71.184.51.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proxy User (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I hate to pry, would you mind elaborating on your rationale? The article still doesn't seem to have the sort of coverage necessary to pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. The only sources provided (and that I can find) are primary, trivial, or not reputable. Nikki311 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that featured articles such as CM Punk and Shelton Benjamin, both former OVW wrestlers, use the exact same sources and in the same context ? This seems to include many lower graded articles as well, including some current GA articles, which have even fewer sources then this partcular article. Your project might want to consider reexamining its grading policy in future. 72.74.207.201 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a wrestling fan but Ohio Valley Wrestling appears to be a legitimate independent wrestling promotion. I don't think you can really compare the company to a minor league or a farm team and, sorry if I offend, but its probably not accurate to classify professional wrestling as a "sport" and subject to WP:ATHLETE. The main argument from the only other person to vote was specifically that the sources "are primary, trivial, or not reputable" and would imply that the problem is the sourcing. 72.74.207.201 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — 72.74.207.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment At the time when Rombola was with OVW, it was still a developmental territory of the WWE, thus not "fully" professional, and if WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply, then the only notability guideline here is WP:N, which the article also does not meet. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You keep repeating that because OVW had a long-term business deal with WWE, the promotion is not a "real" wrestling promotion and thus those who have competed in the promotion are not notable. However, I think you're misinterpreting the term "professional league". This as a sports entertainment company, not an athletic organization. The company itself is a notable promotion on the independent circuit as are many of its former and current wrestlers. The sources provided, which pass WP:N and WP:V, support the claim that he was a notable competitor in the promotion. By the way, I have made frequent edits to Wikipedia (including AFD discussions) and I think my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Since I was offering comment rather then casting a vote, was it really necessary add the above tag ? 72.74.207.201 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — 72.74.207.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Maybe I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that OVW was at the time Rombola participated a developmental league. My understanding is that a developmental league is similar to minor leagues; not every player in a minor league is notable. There may be notable players in those leagues, but they have to meet WP:N on their own. As to your participation in AfDs, the tag was entirely accurate; looking at 72.74.207.201 you have only commented on this AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your assumption would be incorrect, it seems. OVW is, and has always been, an independent wrestling promotion completely separate from WWE. While you are correct that not every wrestler who worked for the company is notable, the sources provided clearly support the assertion that he himself was a notable competitor during his time in OVW. Notability here is clearly established. In checking my contributions, you fail to take into consideration that the computer I'm currently editing from used a proxy IP address or that I might be using a different computer then I normally use. The tag's use, in my experience, it is generally used to identify suspected sock puppets and the like on AFD. I don't vote on AFD but I do put in my two cents when its warranted or when there's little discussion taking place as in this case. Placing the tag implies that I have some ulterior or dishonest motive for contributing to this discussion. It also serves to devalue anything I have said. I think that's in poor form considering I have been more then civil in this discussion. 72.74.207.201 (talk) 04:03, 7 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. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (author)[edit]

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

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that 2 SPA's working togeather have created this WP:RESUME of a prolific, yet non-Notable author. No award or honor's I can find, nor do I see his books becomming part of the enduring historical record. Even the Pic has problematic issues (but bots will eventually sort that out). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These seem acceptable ... Nomination Withdrawn ... although I would like to see them in the Article after its conversion from a WP:RESUME. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even with a scrambled brain Kitty has managed to show pretty clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 3 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. TravellingCari 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kalishnakov[edit]

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

It looks as one more hoax: no proves of the very existence of this person. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google has 0 hits for "Ivan Kalishnakov". Perhaps there's a spelling error in the article title. Either way there's nothing showing notability Bill (talk|contribs) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it appears to be a hoax. Google has no relevant hits for Ivan Kalishnakov, Ivan Kalishnikov (checked on the chance it was a typo), or "All for Gold", the supposed best known work by this author. Mantisia (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find a thing. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Me neither. The man and his book "All for Gold" are nowhere to be found.    SIS  01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the more likely spelling would be Kalashnikov, but the only thing I can find for that is some energy professional. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 2 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. TravellingCari 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qaisar Abbas Gondal[edit]

Qaisar Abbas Gondal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Username and article title are very similar, raising questions of COI, no references cited, notability is not established. Terrillja (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not shown. Can't find anything useful on Google. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:32, 2 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. stub with potential to grow. Relisting isn't likely to grow any more consensus. TravellingCari 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skala (sports organization)[edit]

Skala (sports organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. VG ☎ 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a stub, but it's referenced from a scholarly book. --Eastmain (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned in passing if you look at the page numbers. VG ☎ 21:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am all for expanding articles related to Polish history, but I am concerned about notability here. Not all organizations are notable. Why would this one be? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Never heard of the Jewish Section of the Communist Party of Poland. Communists were rather over-nationalistic, their motto: proletarians of all nations, unite, not separate. Looks like an OR to me, but I may be wrong. It needs some explanation, and now is the best time to do it. greg park avenue (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, notability might be an issue, but its certainly not an OR issue. Jewish sections were established in many communist parties at the time (see Yevsektsia), and the reference clearly identifies the organisation as connected to the Jewish section of the Communist Party. --Soman (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; still, we need something to make this article notable, say, a name of a notable sportsman who made it to the Olymplics, or if not at least to the National Championship or any notable competition. Otherwise, it looks like a Little League in Baseball or a Day Care Squad in Soccer. Thanks. greg park avenue (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Eastmain's observations. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Piotrus, can you see if there are any references. Sports clubs like this usually do get into publications, though this is almost certainly pre-Google. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one other definite hit (different book) in Google books. Based on the snipped I can read on Google, it's still only a mention in passing. You can definitely mention it one of the substantive articles Aponar gave, but a separate article seems unwarranted. VG ☎ 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which book is that? i couldn't identify it (it's not in top 10 hits when i google). --Soman (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Emancipation Through Muscles by Michael Brenner, Gideon Reuveni, Universität München Institute of Jewish History. VG ☎ 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, it's the same book that's cited in the article. And mentions Skala in one short sentence "At least one local sports club---Skala (Rock)---consisted primarily of members of the Jewish Section of the Communist Party." Nowhere near enough to base an article on. VG ☎ 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, http://www.olszowka.most.org.pl/histspzyd.htm seems to mention Jewish Communist sports movement in the 1930s. Could anyone give a translation to Komunistyczna Partia Polski i ZKM zrzeszały w 1927 roku 76 klubów żydowskich? Also, could the name 'Skala' be incorrect? --Soman (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: from a few minutes research, it seems this was an initiative of the CP Jewish sections during the Popular Front era. It was one of the competing organisations of social/sports clubs tied to political parties during the inter-war years in Europe and the US. Its the same thing as the Maccabi clubs (Zionist), Hapoel clubs (Labour-Zionist), etc. I'll add a couple of leads for refs on the article talk page. T L Miles (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope those references are better than two sentences in a book (I checked page 99 as well; it is another one-sentence mention). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. VG ☎ 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be enough material for an article on interbellum Jewish sport organizations (history), but I don't see enough material about Skala to meet the notability guidelines, let alone those for organizations: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. VG ☎ 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no nontrivial references in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But please expand a bit - way too stubby and also contextualize notability. Sources do seem to exist but we're dealing with timewarp issues (most sources arguably offline) and likely language barriers. Also noot some sources on talk page. -- Banjeboi 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Jewish section of the Communist Party, mentioned at http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9027932395&id=82ncGA4GuN4C&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&ots=wlRamGIAQ3&dq=zydokomuna+endeks&sig=oiNo2S0bQl7bW6EUb3edvKEcKXg#PPA290,M1 . --Soman (talk) 08:56, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaphas Cain[edit]

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

original research and plot summary that fails to establish WP:GNG through citations to significant coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main character in a series of novels--has anyone checked for reviews of them? Presumably he's given significant mention. Although I do not know the literature for this subject, , I know when there's no assertion that a search has even been attempted. DGG (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- a Google search for "Ciaphas Cain" doesn't yield any reliable secondary sources. All the sources given in the article are primary. The aricle is riddled with original research. Reyk YO! 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You might not have noticed, but there are entire books on the article's subject. 88.64.187.89 (talk) 22:21, 5 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. Shereth 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Rouch[edit]

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

This just doesn't seem to be a notable author. I can't find any reviews for his books. The only reference in the article is a website he is involved with. miniluv (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see any evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE; lots of false positives on the news searches, and nothing useful in LexisNexis or any other databases to which I have access. Very little indication that even his books would be notable, I'm afraid. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority of Rouch's career was pre-internet, so it is difficult to find (legitmate under Wiki notability standards) reviews and what not that have been archived or even posted on the 'net. I would point out that several of his books, which are no longer in print, are going for rather large sums among collectors. Now, that in itself is not an 100% lock for notability, but it indicates that something is there. Also, Imprint Publishers is currently developing a magazine and wargame based upon the novels. I have tried to link that in the article, but it keeps getting pulled by editors for copryright reasons. Barton Foley (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There being nothing on LexisNexis however, which indexes news and periodicals going back many, many years is kind of worrisome. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . None of his books are held by more than 10 libraries in the US according to WorldCat. Though a UK author, that still is about as non-notable as one can get. Checking the used book dealers, the prices range from ₤1 to ₤30. This too indicates no substantial notability as a classic.DGG (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A little obscure. But the arguments for deletion do not convince. Proxy User (talk) 03:24, 2 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. TravellingCari 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Circumference Game[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable game, apparently made-up in one day. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be mostly WP:OR or WP:MADEUP, also none of the "references" are verifiable. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 01:01, 2 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. COnsensus is this doesn't meet WP:ORG TravellingCari 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Falls Church of the Nazarene[edit]

Idaho Falls Church of the Nazarene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability appears to be missing with this subject. Does this article have a prayer to stay online? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are articles for every non-notable podunk airport in the United States. Surly this is more notable than an unimproved 900 foot runway in Southern Oregon that happens to have an ICAO designation... Proxy User (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...and don't call me Shirley! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Proxy User, this has nothing to do with airports. There are notability guidelines for churches, and this doesn't meet them. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there's no speedy tag, and as nobody here has called for a speedy, I'll not speedy it, but it at least approaches A7's criterion of "no assertion" — there's no way this is notable. And unlike little airports (most of which don't have articles, at least in Ohio), there isn't a detailed registry system for churches. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Airport? Airport? Did someone say airport? The discussion has gone off on an interesting tangent. Just so everyone is clear, as Alex said, the article has nothing to do with an airport, a runway, an ICAO designation, a list of airports in Ohio, etc. The text of the article: "The Idaho Falls First Church of the Nazarene (founded 1928) is a Church of the Nazarene located in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The church has been at its current location since 1978, and is led by associate pastor Steve Morreale. The church holds an Easter musical at the Idaho Falls Civic Auditorioum. In May 2006, twenty four members of the Idaho Falls First Church of the Nazarene participated in an overseas mission to Ukraine as part of the first Extreme Nazarene Team." Okay, I guess the 24 people did fly to the Ukraine and the takeoff and landing did occur at an "a-word". And I'll have to concede that if the church had its very own airstrip, that might be notable. But as the text shows, this church is not any more notable than any other church. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a member of the Church of the Nazarene and I can honestly say that, IMHO, no one Nazarene church is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Hence an article with no substantial content. I should have nominated this long ago. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:11, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il sorpasso (economics)[edit]

Il sorpasso (economics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An 11-year-old outdated Italian neologism? Hmmmm. I think we have some WP:NEO problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is important in Economics, and still in use: see here or here. Jmgonzalez (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 'surpass' isn't a noun, by the way; do any of our existing economics articles relate to this government-manufactured 'event'? Do any reliable statistical sources bear it out? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete is provided by the nomination and the topic is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember this being a widely discussed phenomenon in the UK when it happened, not just in Italy, and my memory is supported by the sources in the article and those linked above, as well as loads of book sources such as these:[92][93][94][95][96]. I also rather suspect that this whole book is about the subject, given the publisher name and publication date. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 5 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. TravellingCari 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Fur[edit]

In the Fur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Decidedly off-key article on a non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised what you find in WP:BACKLOG, TPH! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the A7 speedy; I'll do a search for sources in my library database. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing turns up in a search at Google News archives, and I could find nothing in a library database of newspaper articles. Delete – absence of adequate sources for WP:N notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not much else to say, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 2 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.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Second Album[edit]

Untitled Second Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:HAMMER LegoKontribsTalkM 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as being rather misleading(at any time, any number of bands could have a untitled second album. Also, fails WP:CRYSTAL as the article mentions Although rumors are circling around the internet, no official news has been announced regarding the release of Dethklok's 2nd album. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point the information on this subject can be put into the Dethklok (or even the Metalocalypse) article. When this album actually comes out (or generates significant pre-release notoriety beyond what now exists) then a separate article may be justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantisia (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources at all, WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and permanently protect title WP:HAMMER, vague, and title that can be used by almost any second album. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crystal hammer — At least next time put the name of the band on the title! MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: total speculation. Almost looks like snow. Cliff smith talk 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER and because this is completely unsourced, based on rumour. I can't believe people keep creating such vaguely-titled articles. I agree with the above -- if you must do this put the performer's name in the title! It's worth noting that the creator of the article has only 2 edits - the creation of the article and a post-AFD nomination edit. That calls into question whether the faith of the article, too. 23skidoo (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to The Telescopes, the 2004 re-release of their second album was given this name, unless numerous bands have done the gag, in which case a dab page should be created. Might stop crystal balling. Hiding T 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already been covered, Hammer and Crystal. --Banime (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No title, no release date, nothing but rumors and the article isn't in Wiki format (not a reason to delete but annoying). The band that this article is about is a notable, fictional band (well, their previous album - a collection of songs from the the television series they appear on actually charted on the Billboard Hot 200 album chart), but that does not make them so notable that mere rumors that the show's creators are making another album is enough to give these rumors and article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:39, 2 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 Casey Jones. TravellingCari 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casey jones[edit]

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

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Being a contestant on Dragon's Den (a sort of game show for entrepreneurs) does not confer automatic notability. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to either Casey Jones or Casey Jones (disambiguation) as a plausible typo. If it is felt that the article should be deleted to do that, so be it. If we can withdraw this debate and just do the redirect, so be it. Let us, as editors, not forget all the tools in our box. Hiding T 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, redirect to Casey Jones; someone typing this is more likely to want the railroader than anyone/anything else with this title. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casey Jones. This person is NN. Being a one-off contestant on a television reality/game show does not make you notable. However, the title is a salvagable redirect to Casey Jones. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casey Jones (disambiguation), since people aren't necessarily looking for the ballad-inspiring engineer. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought originally (because of the song by the Grateful Dead), but Casey Jones is where the article on the engineer is, and a link to the disambiguation is right on the top of that article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:30, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Are Here (programming block)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_2&oldid=1081072225"