Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

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.

Lieutenant Charlie Feng[edit]

The result was speedy delete as obvious hoax. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Charlie Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like an article about a fictional character and includes the same paragraph repeated over and over again. Another editor tagged it with db-bio which technically doesn't apply. (tag removed by creator) Bringing it here because it doesn't seem to fit any speedy category. Bollocks or "made up in school one day" would seem to apply. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it is not entirely made up then it is from an extremely unnotable piece of fiction as I have been unable to find anything what-so-ever about a Lieutenant "Charlie Feng". - Icewedge (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fiction, non-notable... 'twas generous to AfD this, I would have speedied it... brianlucas (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an article of a fictitious, non-notable soldier lieutenant. Alexius08 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no context for this fictional character, it sounds like it qualifies for a G3 speedy as WP:MADEUP.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't really pass anything to make it worth saving. Wheres the sourcing? rootology (C)(T) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Fails notability. JavierMC 09:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete if it's a fictional character then db-nocontext; otherwise db-vandalism. JuJube (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, indication of any notability. Should probably have been speedied as nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorshowj (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal at WT:CSD for a new category that would cover articles like this. It's been described by one editor as "coherent nonsense". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "was sent to China in the 2018 Pan-Asian War"!!! Probably a hoax? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 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 Withdraw. MQS convinced me again. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Pictures[edit]

Sherwood Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has produced three movies, one of which is 5th in the box office right now. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. It needs reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Producing major notable films is notable. Thats what film companies become notable for. DGG (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nom is right, not inherited, similar to below. Notability requires 3rd party sources, just like any other article and most "sources" I find are blogs and church newsletters. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this article might be a usable source to establish notability as it tells an interesting story regarding the topic. Jeremiah (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is about a film. Schuym1 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further down in the article it discusses the previous films the studio has made and the story behind it. I'm not saying its enough to establish notability, but if someone wants to try to improve the article with it, this could pass the Heymann Standard. Jeremiah (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is still mainly about the film. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - check google news. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. Those sources are about films. Schuym1 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me give an example: Lets say Bilbo K. Johnson builds Gibson Guitars. What he makes is notable, who he is isn't. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on use of the criterion n. The very meaning of the concept for a company is prominence in the profession, which can be shown in various ways.. Producing the films is the evidence for the notability, and the reason for it. Without them, a production company would not be notable. It's not material in newspapers about the company that makes it notable, though that is one kind of evidence for it. But the films show it adequately by themselves. It's easier generally to show notability for the films, but the true notability is the people who make them. If a production company can be notable at all, its by making notable films. Proper use of not inherited would b to say that bcause the company makes some notale films, everything it makes is not notable. DGG (talk)

I still don't agree that that makes the company notable. I am still going by notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG. Its kind of like WP:MUSIC #3 which very clearly states that producing very notable records makes the artist notable, so it seems logical to say that producing very notable videos makes a film company notable. - Icewedge (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but does that make the production company notable without other sources? That would be the comparison here, not the artist (comparing the musician to the actor might apply, but that isn't this argument). Not inherited. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter about WP:MUSIC. It matters about WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, most certainly WP:MUSIC does not dictate the notability of this company but I cited it show that in some cases notability is somewhat inherited; the "notability is not inherited" clause was developed in response to claims that a work was notable because it has a notable author however it seems perfectly logical that producing many notable works would make the artist at least somewhat notable. - Icewedge (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Icewedge added a reliable source, but it doesn't show notability because it's about the people. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have withdrawn my delete !vote (with some reservations as to quality of source) to free nom to withdraw nomination if he chooses. I still don't agree with inheritance at this time. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that that was a good idea. After all these keep votes, there is no way that I will have a reason to withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one source is marginal, but enough that I have to change my delete !vote. I did not change it to keep (I think one source is too weak, but appreciate that others disagree). As to withdrawing the nom, you don't need a reason, it's your nom. I'm fine either way, as I said, I would have changed it to Neutral regardless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of the notability of its films this source along with the later half of this article seems enough to justify inclusion at this time. - Icewedge (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those articles focus on a film and people, not the company. Schuym1 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also count the article about the film as a mention of the company since the article focuses on the film. Mentions do not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Including the one about the people involved. Schuym1 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is true that the ABC news article starts out talking about the film but the later half of the article is dedicated to a step by step discussion of the groups history and I cannot tell how you can claim The Trades article is a minor mention; the entire article is about the history of the company. - Icewedge (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still mainly focuses on the film. Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by it mainly focuses on the film, is that the film is the only reason why there is an article. Hence the title. Schuym1 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Facing the Giants" was an important independent film release. It is not a question of inherited notability -- without this company, the film would not have been made. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the company made a notable film, does not make the company notable. Notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but with that line of thought we would need to delete articles on MGM, RKO, United Artists, Paramount Pictures, Toho, Gaumont, etc. -- you cannot separate a film from its production company. It is not a question of inheriting notability -- the film exists only because of its producers. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With respects to User:Schuym1, whose opinions I have learned to appreciate, I believe DGG has it correct. Though notability is not inherited, that is not reson for the notability in this case. I am not using WP:WAX, but one still must consider the bigs like Sony Pictures or TriStar Pictures. They make films that have notability, but that is not what makes them notable. Same here. That's not the qualifier. The notability is in who is doing it and what they have accomplished. This production campany has earned their notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But those articles have reliable sources about the companies. I still don't agree. Schuym1 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that every film company with notable films is notable? Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does the article pass WP:CORP? Schuym1 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yikes... too many questions at dinner time. It seems to easily pass WP:V through WP:RS and WP:GNG through its accomplishments. Give me an opportunity to look further before pressing me for immediate answers... and please note, I was only using the BIGS as exmples of companies notable because of what they create... and certainly a company with hundreds of millions to spend on advertising and with a global distribution process will have more sources found online than a company doing their work on a showstring with volunteer. And no, I am not saying every production company is notable if they make a notable film, as one must consider the assertion being made in context with what is being asserted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the reliable sources aren't mainly about the subject, then it doesn't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • And what do you mean by assertion being made in context of what is being asserted? Schuym1 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And just in case you didn't notice, I am not patient at all. Schuym1 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:RS states "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". It does not anywhere state that the sources must be entirely focused on the subject... only that they should directly support the presented informatons. In this case, where an article about one of their films also covers their part in the production of same, it meets WP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to Eco Dude, those articles have reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:02, 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. Xclamation point 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Films[edit]

Young Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source that I can find is the official site.Schuym1 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect If his 10 produced films are in their credits associated with Young Films, otherwise delete. rootology (C)(T) 05:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It can't harm to have one, if the films are indeed Young Films. Otherwise, delete. (I should point out the error in the nomination, the official site is not reliable.) -- how do you turn this on 22:47, 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. Xclamation point 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Heliport[edit]

Davis Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Directory listings do not constitute notability. One helipad owned by a company is not a notable helipad. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question before you say delete Whats going on here? Category:Heliports in Oregon, but I don't see any other states, unless they're named a different syntax for the cat? Are these like Olympians and airports, automatically notable? rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You would need to ask the category creator, but I believe that category was created to move all the Oregon heliports out of the main Heliports in the US category. One editor made stubs for every single heliport/airport in Oregon, so there were a lot, and that's why the got moved and why other states did not need them (not enough articles to populate the category). And no, unlike Olympians that are notable per WP:BIO's athlete inclusion criteria, all airports/heliports are not inherently notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You're right, I created the category because I found out that Category:Heliports in the United States was full of a bunch of stubs for questionably notable heliports in Oregon and those stubs were obscuring other articles that people might be looking for in the US category. If other states had several heliports i would have created cats for them, too. There's probably only one or two stubs in the Oregon category that are potentially notable on their own. My personal opinion is that the majority of them should be merged to articles for their associated facility, like a hospital, TV Station or other associated facility. ie Trojan Heliport to Trojan Nuclear Power Plant and so on. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JavierMC 09:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent notability. I did find a few news articles about/mentioning B L Ranch and I would say to merge it to a ranch article, but none appears to exist. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prior AfD records at WikiProject Airports indicate general consensus that private-use airports (ones which are not open to the public) fall below the threshold of notability regardless of required government filings, such as with the FAA for US airports. (That's the basis for private-use airports being considered non-notable in the proposed guideline at WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability.) Therefore fails WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 06:59, 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 no consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capalaba Park Shopping Centre[edit]

Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An article on Yu Feng or its owner [1] may be more appropriate than individual mall articles. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Withdrawn in view of state award (see below). WWGB (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The article needs a good rewrite, but I think it (barely) passed notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a shopping center for goodness sake... not a national landmark. Are we going to have articles about every mall now? Oops, I see more below. Yikes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology (C)(T) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I agree a rewrite is in order. Google turns up enough hits to pass WP:N, if barely. JavierMC 10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G-Hits don't show notability... only shows how many people are looking for a new washer/dryer combo or a new pair of shoes. This article most definitely does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which states: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". I do not care how many blurbs you come across praising its many stores, that does not make it notable. I have yet to see even one reliable source given that directly shows notability... and my own searches I have found only that it exists. THAT is not notable per WP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is notable about this mall? And how do the keep voters know it? cos it sure isn't sourced here. Having both a subway AND a McDonalds is not a criterion for notability - this sounds like every mall i've ever seen.Yobmod (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actually "not to call an ambulance before notifying ..." is a notable aspect of this mall as it goes counter to most rational thinking. Although cleanup is in order. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has a Malls Policy got to do with "Trivial or incidental"?!?!?! There is nothing trivial about delaying/denying EM Services to a patient. PS It is also actually a Award winner. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have found a source that expressly shows notability. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booval Fair[edit]

Booval Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology (C)(T) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "general notability guideline" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article contains no references to any sources whatsoever -- no coverage has been demonstrated. Therefore it fails the notability test. (And an article from a local paper that merely confirms the existence of the shopping centre is not notable either. To be notable, the subject must be special in some way that distinguishes it from the masses of other shopping centres like it.) brianlucas (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, no. The guideline says that the sources must exist; not that they must be in the article. Your reading comprehension is fail. Rebecca (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, how do you know if they exist or not? Schuym1(talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What makes you think that this mall is more notable than the many other malls? Do you think that every mall should have an article? Do you have any reliable sources that you can add to the article? Schuym1(talk) 13:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you do have reliable sources, do they show why the mall is more notable than other malls? Schuym1(talk) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable mall. Schuym1(talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebecca is right that the section says the sources must exist. But she forgets that the notability must be shown in those Reliable Sources... having adverts and blurbs in such sources do not create a notability. The article must assert a notability that can then be sourced... not the other-way-round. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails [[WP:Corp}}. Fails WP:N. Smacks highly of WP:SPAM Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it doesn't appear to exist. The refs that are available aren't independent of the subject - that is, they all appear to be sources related to the promotion of the centre as a whole or individual shops. The only news ref was about petty crime relating to the centre. Murtoa (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = there's a bit of information around about the shopping centre, but (having searched the main Australian news databases that I can access) I can't find any significant coverage for the last ten years. Given that the centre was built in 1969, there is still the possibility that there may be sufficient older sources to establish notability, but I wasn't ably to dig up anything worthwhile. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to show why this mall is more notable than any of the other bazillion in the world.Yobmod (talk) 17:42, 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford City Shopping Centre[edit]

Stafford City Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng.Mattinbgn\talk 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why. Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing. And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) brianlucas (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a shopping mall, not a national observatory. Why is this even being contested. An advert is an advert is an advert. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology (C)(T) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:N says Reliable Sources sources must exist to prove any asserted notability. But it also indicates that notability must be supported in those Reliable Sources... having adverts and blurbs in such sources do not create a notability. The article must assert a notability that can then be sourced... not the other-way-round. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails [[WP:Corp}}. Fails WP:N. Smacks highly of WP:SPAM Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Sources simply do not show why this mall is notable compared to thousands of other malls, Shopping centres are not inherently notable.Yobmod (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have struck my delete per improvements by User:Bilby Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Delete. Notability for malls is commonly considered a regional mall somewhere above 350,000 sq ft. At 26,484 m2 (285,070 sq ft) the mall is close to that number. Maybe with more work on notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 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 no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capalaba Central Shopping Centre[edit]

Capalaba Central Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why. Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing. And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) Finally, it reads like an advertisement, referring for example to "our Customer Service desk". brianlucas (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It is a set of stores... That you might have a selection on shoes or washing machimes does not give notability. Yikes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology (C)(T) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the "general notability guideline" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article contains no references to any sources whatsoever -- no coverage has been demonstrated. Therefore it fails the notability test. brianlucas (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely! The section says the sources must exist. But it also indicates that notability must be shown in those Reliable Sources... having adverts and blurbs in such sources do not create a notability. The article must assert a notability that can then be sourced... not the other-way-round. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails WP:CORP. Fails WP:N. Smacks highly of WP:SPAM Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think that an admin should delete all these mall articles, that are in AFD, right away, because there is no way that the AFDs will end as keep. They are all non-notable. Schuym1(talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not really one of the most significant shopping centres, it does seem to be reasonably large, and the constant changing hands managed to get it a reasonable amount of coverage. I've cleaned it up a bit to try and address the concerns, adding some references as I went along, but the biggest problem seemed to be copyvio (which should be fixed now). My feeling is that if anyone cared to do some real research they would dig up a few more good refs, especially if they looked closer to when it was opened. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reasonably large does not mean notable. Only reliable sources can show that, and this article has none to indivcate notability over any other mall.Yobmod (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sorry, I should have been clearer. I've added some coverage from reliable sources, and expect there to be more (I had hundreds of hits in NewsBank). In particular, the article in The Australian was quite extensive about the Shin Yen purchase. In reference to other malls, I'm not convinced that this one is particularly significant (although the constant changing hands is a tad unusual given the short time that it has existed), but that leads me to suspect that many shopping centres of a reasonable size are going to have had sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. Probably because large centres are very important to the regional communities, and that they tend to attract large scale investments, both of which lead to non-trivial coverage in newspapers (and some local histories). - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bilby's comment above. Melburnian (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck my delete per improvements done by User:Bilby Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article is now well-sourced and notability is proven. - Dravecky (talk) 14:50, 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:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:SNOW. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMMA - Greatest[edit]

EMMA - Greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • NOTE: I should have done this earlier, but "What I Am 2008" should be deleted as well.
What I Am 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a hoax. There's no source, there's no proof, there are no search results in Google, etc. Emma has made no mention of releasing a greatest hits album. So it should be deleted. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to, but it doesn't really fit in any category. I could have g3'd it, but I think that would have been a bit questionable. :T SKS2K6 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I would have thought such unsourcable speculation might qualify as WP:MADEUP and thus go per G3. No matter, it's already snowing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 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. - Philippe 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gravatt Plaza[edit]

Mount Gravatt Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subregional, only 35 stores. Not notable by usual standards for shopping centers. Rebecca, do we perhaps need an article for the company, which could mention the centers? DGG (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator I would not be opposed to a merge of this article (and the others recently listed at AfD) into an article on parent company. There has been no evidence supplied of the notability any of the listed centres (other than a personal assertion) but there has been some demonstration of the notability of the parent company. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why. Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing. And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) But I do like the suggestion that the malls be deleted, and that someone do research on Yu Feng. A company that owns a large number of shopping centres might be notable in its own right, even if the shopping centres aren't. brianlucas (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Centro Shopping Centres in Australia where the inclusion has merit and context. Delete. Maybe combine ALLthese "Australian shopping centre/mall" articles into one grand AfD... as responding one by one by one by one by one is getting tedious, and each has makes the exact claim or lack of notability... and all were authored by the same person. Fails WP:N as WP:ADVERT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, or at least not shown, as all the others. Have those copy/pasting looked at the articles?Yobmod (talk) 18:04, 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. BJTalk 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Taigum[edit]

Centro Taigum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why. Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing. And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) brianlucas (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:N and an overabundance of WP:SPAM. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • What third-party coverage? None is pointed to by the article. The "general notability guideline" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" but if no sources are provided then the guideline is not met. brianlucas (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed! Notability must be shown in Reliable sources... having adverts and blurbs in sources do not create a notability. The asserted notability must be explained and THEN sourced. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails [[WP:Corp}}. Fails WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an article in the Courier Mail on 10 October 2003 entitled "Top building trio snared for $200m city project" talking about how this centre was a runner-up for a major award, also there was an article in the "Bayside Star" newspaper about this shopping centre a few weeks ago (in the context of the likely collapse of Centro Properties Group), which I will add in once I actually find where I put the damn thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Was the mall itself a "runner up" or was it the contruction or design company? And how does not being a winer make anything notable? And we do understand that (not) being awarded a construction contract is not the same as (not) being awarded a first place in architechure or design. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage in multiple sources, for whatever reason, is coverage in multiple sources. The reasons for that coverage are irrelevant in terms of WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sorry, that is an incorrect reading of WP:CORP, which states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, more info may be found for this shopping centre. Second, look at all the other Centro Shopping Centres who have articles, most of them are a lot worse. Third, Yu Feng is a group which own shopping centres in Australia, however it is now fully owned by Centro. Iam currently in the process of improving all the Centro Shopping Centres' artciles. Sheepunderscore (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, pointing out that other even crappier articles exist is not helpful (WP:WAX). We are not here discussing other things... only this article. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". I do not care how many blurbs you might find praising its many stores, that does not make it notable. I have yet to see even one reliable source given that directly shows notability... and my own searches I have found only that it exists. It nay be a delightful place to buy new shows, have one's hair done, check on real estate, have lunch, etc... but THAT is not notable. And to repeat the WP:RS must deal directly with its notability, as simply having a trivial mention does not create notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep - enough 3rd party ref's for WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove to me that they are "trivial or incidental" mentions. In this case, it cannot be done, so I will err on the side of Keep. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have withdrawn my delete per sourcing done by User:Bilby. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article is now well-sourced and notability is proven. - Dravecky (talk) 14:56, 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-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, very few verifiable sources. Despite last keep result, no new sources to establish notability have emerged. Per WP:BLP, people who are notable only for one thing (so what, he's president of a company) should not have a biographical article. -Nard 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's had a NYT feature story on him, in the article, and a Business Week story, presented by the nominator of the previous AfD (!) - which is no longer in the article. So he is clearly notable. The first AfD was closed as keep, can't see what has changed.John Z (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject might be notable, but the article currently does not establish notability according to WP:CREATIVE or general WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Establishes notability by the NYT feature. "one thing" does not mean that someone notable for only one profession is not notable. The NYT story discusses many notable accomplishments and controversies. DGG (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if some of the WP:Peacock can be removed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:RS -- and there is nothing wrong with having The Jewish Daily Forward and the trade magazine PR Week as sources. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As obnoxious as his minions are, and despite the article formerly being a glorified promo for him and the company, he has been the subject of features in NYT and Businessweek. Meets WP:BIO. --Mosmof (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the profile in the New York Times along with the other reliable sourcing should be enough to provide information for a verifiable stub at the least, there is a definite case for merging into 5W Public Relations but ultimately that's an editorial decision. Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an individual who has been profiled at length in The New York Times and Business Week -- among many other publications -- in articles that cover Torossian individually and in gory detail. Without any doubt whatsoever he meets WP:BIO and any other standard of notability one could ever conjure. The first AfD for Torossian was a rather bizarre affair, with an AfD created by an apparent sockpuppet and a number of participants, virulently opposed to Torossian, who advocated for deletion and have had no other involvement in Wikipedia other than related to that AfD. I'm not sure what happened to this article in the past year or so, but the current article is little more than a stub. This version from the close of the first AfD in November 2007 provides a much more comprehensive biography, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. This version from mid-July 2008 represents the peak in size for the article, and there is plenty of worthwhile material that has just been hacked out and no longer appears in the current version. I'm not sure why the Torossian article has been targeted for deletion, either before or this go around, but there can be no possible doubt that he is notable. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I am not going to vote here, most involved know that I began the initial article on Ronn Torossian, as I also did the 5W Public Relations article. Considering AlanSohn's comments, I would ask objective parties to look at 5W's article for similar choppy edits as Alansohn suggests happened here. I would hope that should this article survive the delete request, Wikipedians treat this article as they would all others, and not as a reflection of anyone's views on the subject here. It is also good to see some of the users who have added their thoughts on this nomination. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:47, 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. Xclamation point 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dijedon[edit]

Dijedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable Albanian given name, with no notable people of that name. A Facebook search yielded only 2 people (out of like 70,000,000). Tavix (talk) 21:27, 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 Snowball Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky)[edit]

Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable local church. No verification in article. Possible spam. --Purple hills (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been updated with NRHP infobox since deletion nomination. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, an infobox was added after nomination. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but the fact that it was on the NRHP was in the article. I went to look at the article in order to !vote once I saw the AfD in the log and while I botched the link when I first added the infobox, it would have been clear when the nom saw it. Looking at the history of the nom's talk page, this may not have been a good faith nom. TravellingCari 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, clearly. NRHP properties are inherently notable, and the Park Service citation should eliminate verifiability concerns. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Amen to Andrew Jameson's observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article warrants expansion, but the church's presence on the National Register is sufficient notability to keep the stub. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as church deemed notable by U.S. federal government agency. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep The NHRP does it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it's on the National Register makes it notable. I don't know where the spam part comes from. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The church is a notable historically significant building. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 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 Withdrawn First mall in California is good enough for me. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visalia Mall[edit]

Visalia Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a particularly large mall, no substantial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claims to notability, nothing seemingly notable in it's description or the article. Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 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. Xclamation point 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL and the Hammer law. Most sources are interviews. No name to the album, no release date, no information on tracks. There is really nothing that would transfer to the article on the album once it is released. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:04, 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 merge and redirect to Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard as none of the sources in the article establish the notability of the character, but instead focus on the game itself or on the marketing efforts for the game. Notability—separate from the game—of the character has not been established. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hazard[edit]

Matt Hazard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, newly created video game character, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - game not yet published. ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. As the article itself states, Matt Hazard is a character in a "nonexistent" game series, is a character which "never existed before September of 2008" and his "history has been fabricated". Can we really take this seriously? On the flip side I am getting a pile of ghits but can't find any to infer any notability. Nancy talk 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gimme a break. The entire article is unsourced original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google it and gimme 20 minutes to source it.--Blinkstale (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Twenty five minutes later and this article is never leaving the face of Wikipedia again. Notable, source, whatever. This thing has substantial information, proof of noteworthiness, and it's all cited. I'd like to see you try to take it down, the impatient lot of you. Thanks for making my day so much more fun. --Blinkstale (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of those 6 "references", Facebook, the Wordpress blog page, and the unofficial fansite are not reliable sources per WP:RS. Of the other three, probably only gamespot counts as a reliable source.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even though the unofficial fansite is linked to by the official webpage? Honestly, do you guys have no exposure whatsoever to viral marketing? Here, let me help. Viral Marketing. And no, I'm not being kind about this process or anything anymore. I'm trying very hard to do what I think is right for what looks like a brilliant way to introduce a character into the video game industry, and you guys are acting like you're doing everything you can to stop that. --Blinkstale (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V violations; the very existence of the article reeks of "viral marketing" and other forms of disinformation. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope 16 sources are enough for you guys, especially with 4 in alternative languages. If you want more, I can get them, or you could, y'know, use Google? That might help a little. IGN, 1up, Gamespot and Gamasutra are THE top name gaming websites in the industry. If you don't trust them, you should NOT be voting on this issue due to sheer ignorance of the subject being discussed. --Blinkstale (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no need for the ad hominem comments. Anyone is entitled to comment an Afd, and remember it is not a vote. – ukexpat (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did not intend for it to come off as an Ad Hominem, I believe the same should apply to all fields of study, and similarly I should not be the one deciding whether a history article is relevant given that the only major history source I know to be trustworthy is National Geographic. I do not know that field, and as such, I should not be telling people what's noteworthy in it or not. Those are my own, personal beliefs, and I shared them as such. I apologize for my temper, it's been a long day on Wikipedia given that I find this to be an absolutely genius move on the part of D3, the publisher, and would like to share that with the world. I have had similar ideas for ways to hype a game tumbling around in my head for months, and when I saw this unveiled today, I almost wanted to go out and start the world's first Matt Hazard fan site that was not Viral Marketing, but true fan love of a series or idea in a game series. Again, I apologize for my earlier actions, but I have done everything I can to prove the legitimacy, notability and my own personal, non-profit associations with this. There's not much more I can do right now, until I know more about the game itself. --Blinkstale (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - this reflects my contempt for viral marketing, stealth marketing and other versions of the Big Lie; it almost feels like I'm consenting to the creation of all these hoax websites, etc. by the publisher. Nonetheless, Blinkstale has done a fine job of establishing notability in its field for this particular scam/hoax/whatever you want to call it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMike, are you saying that it is the campaign that may be notable as opposed to the character itself? Either way I have doubts about any "significantly lasting and historical interest and impact" - this thing is just another meme at the peak of an entirely manufactured hype which will probably be somewhat transient in nature. Nancy talk 08:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it appears to me that, while the game itself (Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard) may be notable as an upcoming video game that has received coverage by the major gaming websites, the character is actually rather irrelevant. The sources support this - of the ones that aren't released by the publisher, and therefore are irrelevant, most refer to the game rather than the character, only discussing him in brief. Suggest deletion of this article and movement of any relevant content to an article on the actual game. Also note that even if it survives, it needs a significant rewrite to remove the very unencyclopaedic tone (Wikipedia is not the place to make in-jokes - 'OMG he's a baddassss' etc.) Ale_Jrbtalk 11:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT and WP:CRYSTAL.--Boffob (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (as the redirect is a useful search term) to the yet unreleased game. The sources, even if reliable, as the in-passing type to the character, and better part of the overall discussion of the unreleased game. Should more development information and reception (after the game's release) is available, this can be recreated, but not until then. --MASEM 13:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard. This will make for some good content regarding the marketing of the game, but there isn't enough for an article solely about the character. Pagrashtak 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with game article and provide redirect as stated above is useful for someone researching the game. This character is just not notable outside of the game in which it exists, and until such time as that game achieves a popularity which garners its characters notability, there's no need for a separate article. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:15, 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 (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zumbi (song)[edit]

Zumbi (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unnotable song because it didn't chart anywhere and isn't a single. See WP:MUSIC for more information. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) *Redirect: to Jorge Ben. A non-notable song. Schuym1 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has been recorded by more than one notable artist, so a redirect would be inappropriate, and it passes the general notability criterion as shown by the sources in the article plus others found by Google Books and Google News searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to keep: per sources found. Schuym1 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A rather well-known tune in Brasil, and notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:26, 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 keep. - Philippe 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Souvenir (indie rock band)[edit]

Souvenir (indie rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am requesting deletion of this page because the band is not notable per WP:MUSIC. In addition, the page reads like an advertisement and there are no secondary sources for the band on its article page. Tavix (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for "Souvenir" is obviously going to bring back lots of hits that are not about the band, but allmusic has an entry with 2 reviews. They have been around for 9 years and released 4 studio albums in Europe, the US, and Japan. I've tidied the article up and will improve it further later. The article should really be moved to Souvenir (band).--Michig (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They meet WP:MUSIC's 5th requirement: Released two or more albums. A websearch turns up a lot of reviews and the Spanish Wikipedia knows them too[2].    SIS  21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot the second part of requirement 5: Has released two or more albums on a major label. How many of their albums were on a major label? Try zero. Tavix (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it asks for "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." - Shelflife looks like it might fit that bill. Jabalina is a Spanish label that has been around for 15 years, with a long list of releases, and should also fit that bill.--Michig (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't "forget" that part, I didn't quote it because it was irrelevant. As Michig has just explained above. (Thanks, Michig!)    SIS  21:51, 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 05:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTX Jackhammer[edit]

MTX Jackhammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication given for notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even I've heard of this one. Google searches turn up thousands of results. This bass has even made appearences on shows like Pimp my ride. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gotta agree, this is the largest and loudest woofer made, and there are plenty of references. They just don't exist in the article. You might should have researched this a little better before noming, and just tagged the article for references. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just, literally in the last hour, bought one for $7500. It means nothing to this AfD, but, in the future, if I'm not on wikipedia, that means my head exploded. :) Undead Warrior (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have wasted your money, I heard they are not notable... ;) PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well oh poo. Now how will I annoy my neighbors. I need to find a notable noise maker. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I sugggest this one? PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an electric kazoo, I will hook it up to the jackhammer and have some fun. :p Undead Warrior (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't see that one coming. I just bought it. 19.95 wasn't too bad, considering I'll probably get on the news for what I'll be doing. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:06, 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. - Philippe 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dri Duck[edit]

Dri Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, lack of references to reliable sources; article created by former employee. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The notability of this company is borderline, and, given the fact cleanup tags have consistently been removed by the creator (and I had to remove the promotional language myself after the creator stated there isn't any, see this revision), I am inclined to say the article must go. It should be recreated from scratch by someone more neutral. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree 100% that the notability is borderline, but I found two of the sources seem to pass, and the others are weak. That means multiple sources and yes, that means it passes the Wikisniff test. I think the article can be fixed without that much trouble, as it isn't really spammy. Tags, yes. Delete, too much. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see which sources provide non-trivial coverage. VG ☎ 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I was going shopping for outdoor clothing, or looking for a company to invest in, I would love Dri Duck based upon this article... which reads a bit like a WP:CV and a bit more like a WP:Advert. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic alternative theories[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Titanic alternative theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a collection of ideas that have received very little in the way of independent, third-party acknowledgment required by our various notability and fringe theory guidelines. Sure, people published these weird ideas, but if nobody takes notice of them, then they don't belong in Wikipedia since there is no chance we can reliable source verifiable statements about the ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix, notable idiocies are notable even after being proven idiotic. DGG (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like when Little Mikey died after eating pop rocks? PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as I do occasionally deal with people who have heard these theories and think there may be something to them. But I could live with a merge that adds Biruitorul's suggested text to the main article, as proposed in the original nomination discussion. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have posted a thread on the sources at Talk:Titanic_alternative_theories#Sources. Some of these "theories" have received some coverage. For example the coal fire, [3]. The pack ice and the mummy may also be notable for inclusion. The others should go, I think, or only be briefly mentioned (there's still [4]). As most of this material is not mergeable (clearly WP:UNDUE), I'd vote either delete or keep. There's already a mention in Titanic, Titanic#Alternative_theories. I'll wait and see if the article improves. Cenarium Talk 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has improved in a few days. It still needs much work, but deletion doesn't seem to be justified. The "theories" are together notable, and reliable sources exist. So definite Keep. Cenarium Talk 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the point of that page is not to come up with as many fake theories as possible, but to obscure the whole idea that a fraud may had been perpetrated by diluting it with numerous bogus propositions such as mummy curse, god's wrath, etc. of course, in the present form all 5 or so of those theories look about equally 'wacky' - and that's what some editors were keen to accomplish. it's like a multiple choice question, full of distracting foils.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked over the article, which seems to be sourced ok. The "idea" of this article seems perfectly logical, just as there are alternative theories to JFK's shooting, etc. These may not be true, but they DO get significant coverage. I would be shocked if the Discover channel hasn't produced a show that basically covers this topic. Regardless, the topic itself is notable and there are no flaws in the article that would require a rewrite. I think the theories are BS personally, but the article seems to be exactly what an encyclopedia is for, to inform. Even in the intro, it clearly states that most of these common theories have been debunked (but seem to live on). PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silly as they may be, and most of them perhaps not individually notable, still a collective article makes sense, as for other notable instances. Cenarium's comment above about why this should be an article distinct from the main one seems correct to me. DGG (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present, smeared form, the article is better off being flushed.24.11.214.147 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is "smeared form"? I see each section at last marginally sourced, so confused. If you want to pursued, please expand. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • i only refer to gardiner's part. that section is backed by recently added unreliable sources. 24.11.214.147 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you want to delete the entire article because someone recently added a source in a single section that you feel is unreliable? And that source is the actual book? PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced theories. Alexius08 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The theories is are sourced. Nor are they hoaxes, real people have proposed these theories, silly as many of them are. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searches such as this indicate that there's lots of coverage out there for these theories. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly well sourced. I'm uncertain what the nominator's definition of "third party sources" is if published books are not acceptable. 23skidoo (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, they're sourced, but per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we need not be devoting an entire article to this. And as Mgy401 1912 noted, I do have a condensed version - complete with one reference per theory - ready for inclusion in one of the other articles on the Titanic. Biruitorul Talk 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Individually, I would agree, but as a group of alternative explanations, they are notable, because, well, there are a group of them that some people still take serious and get coverage. Please note, wp:undue says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them, so doesn't really apply here. If you wanted to devote half the article on the Titanic to these theories, then it would. WP:FRINGE seems to say you CAN and SHOULD create this content as a separate article (see the example section, or Paul is dead as an example. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fair point. Anyway, in the event that we do keep, a lot of improvement is possible - shortening the Gardiner section, sourcing the expansion joints one, etc. Of course, the talk page is there for that. Biruitorul Talk 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, shortening it, eh? well, 3 days ago 2/3 of it already got chopped, so now it looks like a joke already. that's just too funny.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or another about that section. The SUBJECT MATTER is notable, that is all that matters in this AFD. Your personal opinion of one of the theories is beyond the scope of any AFD and not important. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neither are your suggestions on 'improvement'.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might try paying attention to who is writing what. I never made any suggestions. More than one person disagrees with your being disagreeable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nope, it looks like you were the only one who was throwing around value judgments, though i care less what you had to say.24.11.214.147 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well written, notable, sourced - no reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, people published these weird ideas, but if nobody takes notice of them... I believe these ideas were explored in secondary sources; they weren't just self-published. We should have an article about these just like we have articles on conspiracy theories, UFOs, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:29, 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. - Philippe 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin (song)[edit]

Mannequin (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamilk[edit]

Cinnamilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax - current source very weak. Looks like the "product" is from a novel. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article with haste. Cinnamon is definitely a historical curative... cinnamilk is a literary device. I struck my earlier postion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The term "harnesses the power" should have been a dead giveaway that it was a hoax article. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm in (weak) favour of having an article on this, which references the fictional novel Stupid and Contagious. ISBN 0446695726. as the source of the idea. This particular article though is the worst sort of hoax-based bogo-science and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, the article has some reference problems, but the phrase "Cinnamilk" has been coined in the past and sources do back up several of the article's claims. Why don't we just edit out the BS and keep the article? Drakula1112 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:27, 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 per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums discography[edit]

Albums discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate discography with an emphasis on a particular genre. A complete discography would be of unmanageable size. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 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 Underdog episodes. MBisanz talk 08:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky Tap by TapTap[edit]

Tricky Tap by TapTap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This episode does not assert notability of any kind, and it fails WP:EPISODE. It is just a single plot summary that does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:
The Big Shrink (Underdog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Go Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Simon Says 'Be My Valentine' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tickle Feather Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weathering the Storm (Underdog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TTN (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:NOT#PLOT, and several of them being almost entirely incomprehensible. There is already a List of Underdog episodes, and these article provide no content other than plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per reason given above unless someone gives a good reason that these articles should be converted to redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to List of Underdog episodes. This would also give these the oppotunity to potentially "grow" into articles. - jc37 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list, because I dont think there' sreally all that much to say. DGG (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. I guess the redirects should exist, although "Go Snow"'s value as such is dubious. JuJube (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and redirect to the LOE per WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:PLOT. Optionally recreate as redirects. There's not much verifiable material to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 8 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. - Philippe 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Group J-4[edit]

Pop Group J-4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax entry about a pop group. Claims to have had no.1 hits called "hidden" and "Touch", but Google doesn't know about them. Claims to have won Best R&B Track at the 2008 Teen Choice Awards, but that was Chris Brown, "Forever". Claims to have been nominated for Best Pop Video at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards, but the WP article doesn't agree. The first reference says "Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name popinternationalj4 is available to register!" I checked two more references at random, which didn't mention J-4. I didn't waste any time on more checks. The author's record does not inspire confidence. Delete as blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax.--Terrillja (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources mention J-4. Hoax GtstrickyTalk or C 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this hoax per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One more in a long line of hoax articles by this user and friends as a way to get their names on Wikipedia a week at a time. I removed all the unsourced information, non-notable band member names and citations to its newly created blog in the article in two large chunks. Perhaps reducing the exposure the information gets in the main space will help dampen their enthusiasm for recreating these articles. If not, I stand corrected. Flowanda | Talk 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: removing all that leaves an innocuous, though unsourced, one-paragraph entry about the group's formation and name. When considering the AfD, editors should bear in mind that the version originally nominated, including false references and blatantly false claims of awards and No.1 hits, was all the work of a single author, so that even what remains depends on his credibility. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 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. - Philippe 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AwesomeFunny[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AwesomeFunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable website. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Previous AfDs ended, barely, in "no consensous". No reliable sources provided, none found. Previous keep votes seemed to hang on arguments that How to Kill a Mockingbird was, gulp, really funny and mentioned on a lot of blogs. Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boggles my mind that it survived the previous AfD when in clearly fails WP:WEB. VG ☎ 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Prior AfDs were in 2005. One was before WP:WEB existed, the other was when it was a proposed policy.[5] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Neither notable nor covered in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources. AwesomeFunny doesn't even own AwesomeFunny.com, even though their web site still links to that address. Wronkiew (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never been to the site, but couldn't find any sources from anything close to wp:rs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: actual site was a plain link farm. Appears to be non-notable. Alexius08 (talk) 01:05, 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. - Philippe 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achyutananda (Achyut) Das[edit]

Achyutananda (Achyut) Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely WP:HOAX article, or at least not verifiable. Article states that the subject founded the "Mayfair academy of Dance". This exact term yields a mere three posts on blogs when checked. If this would be the Mayfair academy (which is also an performing art college) the information included is not correct according to the academy website. Searches for the name of the article subject end up finding a 16th century poet. Any searches including additional search terms such as "Dance" come up blank or just discuss the same poet. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment looks like a real person. Apparently celebrated his 80th birthday a few years ago: [6]. Another brief note here. Neither helps with verifying the content, though. One possibility is that the name has been transliterated wrong – that's quite common with Indian names. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not a real person, there is no claim to notability whatsoever--no awards, no suggestion that the troupe he formed may be notable, no notable achievements in the schooling cited. An article needs to claim notability to be included. Bongomatic (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more important than notability, is that we can't verify the information. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 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 speedy delete - requested by creator. ... discospinster talk 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Luciano[edit]

Dominic Luciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fifteen-year-old local musician who doesn't meet notability standards nor any has multiple, non-trivial reliable sources describing him. Two local events-listings notices do NOT count. CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are two newspaper references and a reference to a Harley-Davidson page (which happens to be a very trusted franchise, and a legitimate source) not substantial sources? And how do you know he is just a "local musician" just because he has no "major" newspaper or press articles. The fact is he is known as far across the world as Italy and Greece. Just Google his name and if you look, he practically owns the first page. Just because any of you have never heard of him doesn't mean he's not a "notable musician" or just a "local musician". For example, I know dozens of people that haven't even heard of Paramore or Love Equals Death. Does that mean they are not notable? In fact, go look at Love Equals Death's article. Their sources are just a bunch of irrelevant links to pages about them and their members. "The Rock N Roll Palace Of Love" is a comic strip. And besides that, they have ONE link to a newspaper. ONE!!! Dominic Luciano has TWO to a newspaper. So let us just delete their Wikipedia article, OK?

Also, I have checked out all the other references and external links for Dominic Luciano, and all of them are his personal pages, and were edited all by Dominic Luciano. How are those NOT substantial sources when all the information is "straight from the horses mouth"? This is ridiculous because someday someone is going to post this article again. So are you all just going to keep deleting it just because he doesn't have 5 manufactured studio albums? How about instead of flagging it for deletion, you go and read about his and check out what the sources say. Do any of you know what Cerebral Palsy or Neurofibromatosis is? Anyone who is able to overcome even one of those drawbacks and make as beautiful music as Dominic does is a NOTABLE PERSON. Not just a notable musician, A NOTABLE PERSON. I went to his MySpace page and listened and was in awe.

Like I said, this is ridiculous! Please remove the deletion tag at once, or I will risk being banned by removing it myself because the world deserves to know about someone like Dominic; Someone who has triumphed to be a very talented and gifted person. Have a heart guys.

Thanks.

--Rrindie126 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) — Rrindie126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am the creator of this article. I know Dominic Luciano personally. All the facts on the article are 100% true. He is not at all just a local musician. The fact that rrinde126 stated above that he is known halfway across the world is true. It was a post on one of his first blogs when he first started selling his music. And I also checked out the Love Equals Death page that rrindie126 was also talking about, and it is true that their sources are worse than that of Dominic Luciano. I am with rrindie126 on the fight against the deletion of this article, and if it's sources you want, I will find them.

Don't delete this article, or I swear I will be the one to continue reposting this article until Wikipedia gives up on deleting it. The world wants and needs to know about him. And go ahead and ban me too. I'll just keep coming back.

You're going to have to leave this article someday.

Thanks for not deleting.

P.S. And If all you can do to get rid of his article is call him a Pokemon, you guys really do suck.

--Quixotic92 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC) — Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This material was copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dominic Luciano by User:Alexius08. I've put it in a pink box, to make that clearer. AndyJones (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out an important note:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

According to this, this article should be kept due to the fact it is "unusual enough to deserve attention". I'd also like to add this quote as well: "Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." . Therefore this article should not be deleted'

I consider this case closed.--71.34.239.151 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another supporting topic/statement:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Seems he's met 3 of these criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see not the slightest sign that he's met any one of them.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I will show you how:

  1. "Terminal" charted Top 40 on the online international music charts.
  2. He is one of the most revered pianist in Medford, Oregon. That's fact not statement.
  3. His award for "Best High School Jazz Soloist in Oregon" was won through a competition at the University of Oregon. That is a major award from a major facility.

If that's not proof enough then you're obviously a blind fool. So look again and while you're at it remove the deletion banner, or I will do it myself.

Gracias.--Quixotic92 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Which international music charts would those be? '[O]ne of the most revered...' is an objective fact? With objective standards and a reliable source backing it up? The University of Oregon gives out major music awards? None of those rationales--and they're rationales, not reasons--comes even close to meeting the cited standards by any reasonable measure. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Those charts would be OurStage where some of the best musicians in the world compete. Check 'em out. Get educated.

That fact he is the best can be proved in several ways. The unfortunate thing is a moron like you would never believe any of them.

And yes. The U of O does give out major music awards because they host major music events and competitions. I myself have been a part of a few of them in fact.


I've had enough of this. I am requesting to have this case reviewed by several other non-biased administrators since you're too moronic to realize that these are legitimate reasons for inclusion. Have you even read the article?


And who the hell made you an administrator?

And go ahead and ban me for saying that and go ahead and delete my article. All I've ever heard all through high school and college is Wikipedia was full of idiots, and I guess they're right. I bet you're just some snot-faced nerd sitting behind a computer and you don't want to include this article because you're jealous because of the accomplishments this fine young man has had, and the struggles he has had to overcome. So you know what? Bring it on because this article is gonna make it on here someday.

--Quixotic92 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'OurStage'? Yes, a music chart so prestigious that there isn't even a Wikipedia article on it. Also, you ARE aware of the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective', and that 'one of the best' falls squarely under the former? Finally, perhaps you could point to some evidence that the University of Oregon 'give out major music awards', while you at it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmzgirl-Proof? I WAS THERE TO SEE HIM GET THE AWARD, Annual University of Oregon/ Lane Jazz Festival, if you want straight evidence because you probably think I'm lying, here's some proof! This is an actual article from our newpaper in Medford: <http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0216/life/stories/rod_and_custom_show.htm>, read that. Dominic Luciano is an incredible musician and friend. I was a senior at North when he won the award. I was also at the motorcycle thing. I am disgusted on how you argue your case, if you are indeed an adminisitrator, then you should treat this with more respect, even if our responses aren't so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC) — Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: the first ten hits were:
  1. A MySpace profile (which Rrindie126 claims to be an evidence of notability)
  2. A fanclub page
  3. An online shopping site
  4. An irrelevant LinkedIn profile
  5. A MeetUp profile
  6. An irrelevant Classmates profile
  7. An empty profile at an unpopular social networking site
  8. An unpopular mapping site
  9. A non-notable music community
  10. An empty profile at another unpopular sports site
All of these are trivial. Also, please salt to keep Quixtoic92 from reposting it. Alexius08 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you salt it doesn't mean I'm not gonna find a way to repost this, or someone else isn't going to repost it. This is a credible article. It is not spam. Please reconsider.

--Quixotic92 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC) — Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I will not reconsider that. Notability is not established. Also, please stop removing the AfD tag at the article. Alexius08 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then quit screwing around and delete it already.--Quixotic92 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, Kmzgirl is correct. If you go to the article she posted a link to, which happens to be a resource on the article, there is a paragraph about him winning the title or award or whatever you want to call it. And since all you administrators don't go check this stuff out, I will post that paragraph here for your convenience:

A freshman at North Medford High School, Dominic recently won best solo in the state at the Oregon Jazz Festival in Eugene playing the piano. He also builds and programs computers.

Now that proves the point that he has won a major award. So therefore I have won, I have proved my point, and I consider this discussion closed and the article saved. You've heard it from TWO people now!

And by the way CalendarWatcher, does everything have to have a Wikipedia article to be important? Does everything have to be correct and worthy in you eyes to be important? I feel bad for you if that is the case.

And quit being sarcastic with me because that's not the way a leader should act. I don't see the President of the United States going around being sarcastic with someone just because what they stated wasn't in the Constitution.

--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:MUSIC. Has intense amounts of COI too. I have filed a checkuser for the Ip above, Quixotic92, and kmzgirl. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC + WP:BIO. I'm sure he's an amazing and talented person but that does not mean that he meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. That is not a judgement of him or his accomplishments. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where there is conflict of interest and I will believe you. Tell me how this is not an interesting topic. May I point out that on the WP:BIO page it says an article must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." That article is 100% neutral, and interesting with two supporting newspaper articles. I bet you if you left it up you would get hundreds of hits a day. Why do you guys keep making stuff up just to get this article deleted? First it was a Pokemon, then it was "OurStage has no Wikipedia page", now it's a conflict of interest on a completely neutral article that provides two reliable newspaper support articles. is the newspaper now a "trivial" source as well?

Grow up.

--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go then. 1.) On the image page listed for Dominic, which you uploaded, you state that permission falls with Dominic or you and you appear to come off as close friends. Also, I have reason to believe kmzgirl is a sock puppet of you, along with the IP. I'll have my proof when the checkuser is finished. Consider this your final warning on AfD. If you keep this tone, you WILL be blocked indefinitely. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we appear to come off as close friends? Just cause I'm able to obtain permissions? Just cause I have a few pictures of my own of him? By the way, that doesn't make my article is biased in one way or another. And I in no way have any relations to kmzgirl, and I can prove that. And the IP address listed as a signature was me, I just forgot to sign in. That's not a crime, it was just a simple mistake and I apologize for that. And the reason I have this tone is I'm tired of all of the admins just pushing me around with lame excuses. I'm sure you can understand that. Only one of the posts on this page by an admin has been kind and courteous towards me and my beliefs.--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kmzgirl has 1 edit and that is here. That is extremely suspicious. Also, the reason people are getting pushy is because you kept taking off the AfD notice from the page and then you claimed that you would re-create this page if it was deleted. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I have absolutely no relation to kmzgirl at all. And the reason I was doing that is because someone kept taking all the pictures off the page, and plus I'm sick of this discussion because the general consensus has obviously been reached. You're all against me. I mean, just look at all the times admins have said delete or speedy delete. So why is this discussion being perpetuated? Is this some kind of conspiracy or something to get me perma-banned? All I'm asking is someone please make the decision and quit this madness, because I don't even care anymore. I don't even care if you ban me alongside the article. I've lost so much respect for Wikipedia through this that I don't even want to come back. I used to be the guy arguing Wikipedia's case in school. Obviously my legitimate thoughts and opinions are not valued, so why should I contribute? Why is what I say important to all of you anyways? I thought they were supposed to be important because the first thing I see on the Wikipedia homepage is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Well obviously not! So you know what? I'm gonna help you all out. Just forget about all this and just delete it and we can all go about our merry little ways. But just remember that someday he is going to be "notable" by your definition, and he will eventually make it on here. But if he knew what was going on here, I don't even think he would want to be on here.

Happy lives.--Quixotic92 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have it your way. Ending this drama/troll-fest by tagging for G7. MuZemike (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion. I believe you have all been unfair to quixotic92 as well as Dominic Luciano.--Rrindie126 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok perfect. I know have proof that you all have teamed up on quixotic92 using a strategy called "groupthink", not the so-called consensus you're supposed to reach. I also have proof that Wikipedia is a corrupt system and unless you're an insider, anything you do is shot down. So basically just because quixotic92, kmzgirl, and I are not insiders, even if our words are legitimate, they mean absolutely nothing.

Shall I post a link to my facts? Also I have noticed new sources have been posted on the article. They are non-trivial as well.

But you know what? I'll post the link so it doesn't look like I'm bluffing.

My Proof

So basically this this blog is saying that unless you're a Wikipedia insider, you have no say and you are meaningless and anything you do will be deleted or removed because of the prior.

Sounds a little bit like whats going on here. Now if the article is actually correct, I'm sure I will be banned and this entire fiasco will be formatted off your servers to protect all of you.

Or maybe the article we are debating over will have the deletion notice removed and this discussion will end.--Rrindie126 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to just say I do not, even though you doubtless may not believe so, am in no connection to any of these other protesters, only connection we share is we have the same cause, not collaboration, but merely defending our friend. That is the only reason I did this. Delete me as you must, little do I care. I apologize for any rude statements which were not meant to be so, but please at least read the article I posted. That is all I ask. Please. I won't say anymore after this, and though if you find it false, I will be saddened, but what's done is done, and Wikipedia has seen the last of me for good. Sorry Dominic I tried. And sad story or no, I am truly sorry Dominic. =( I still support you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) 23:30, 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. Satisfies notability requirements as currently written. - Philippe 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ayers[edit]

Tim Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I first put up a notice for deleting this article it was immediately removed with the summary stating that "Former mayor = notable". This is not necessarily an absolute statement, at least as it pertains to Wikipedia:Notability (people). The applicable section would be under Politicians with the two salient qualifying criteria being:

  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
  • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Both of these require "significant coverage" of the subject in order to be met. To date, Tim has not received what could deemed to be this level of coverage in either the press or from reliable independent sources. I'm sure he's a good guy, just not notable. Ohioisthekey (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)— Ohioisthekey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep WP:POLITICIAN states "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." I think that the article can be improved, however. In particular, the inclusion of local newspapers would help though these are not always online and need to be looked up in print or microfiche formats. Wikipedia is a work in progress so the lack of those sources being included in the article is not a reason to delete but a reason to improve the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only because we don'treally have a population cutoff established. We ought to. His city is 65,000 and I think that very borderline.DGG (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The only reference provided was written by the article's subject. Article creator has only made edits relating to the Ayers brothers, which has me suspecting WP:COI is an issue also.Horrorshowj (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Reread history, he's focused on the town not the brothers. Horrorshowj (talk) 17:28, 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 delete. - Philippe 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Kill a Mockingbird[edit]

How to Kill a Mockingbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web meme. No reliable sources provided, none found. Previously deleted (as a redirect), then restored without any apparent discussion. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Flash-in-the-pan web animation of no lasting importance. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as web memes go, this was pretty funny, but not notable, verifiable, or encyclopedic. Note that it was successfully deleted by AfD in 2005, and if anything it's even less acceptable now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to To Kill a Mockingbird as a plausible misinterpretation. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even Atticus Finch wouldn't defend this one! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 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 Mass in special relativity. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic mass distortion[edit]

Relativistic mass distortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a redundant collection of Mass in special relativity, General relativity etc.. No references were included and no Wikipedia articles refer to it. D.H (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If that is the case, just redirect it to mass in special relativity or something like that. No need to delete it. --Itub (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Itub. Nothing in the history is so pernicious that it needs to be blanked; the redirect is not ambiguous or likely to cause confusion. It's tempting to take this sort of thing to AfD when you're worried about a possible edit war with the creator, but really, it's not what AfD is for. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's not simply a redirect case, because it contains stuff on both general and special relativity. So a redirect to mass in special relativity is not appropriate. --D.H (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed that point, but it doesn't change much — you don't need to care about the current content of the article when you're redirecting. All that matters is the title. I think a redirect to that article from this title should be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect My first reaction is to simply delete per the nominator's comments. A redirect seems unnecessary since the title does not strike me as a phrase that is going to be typed into the search bar very much. But keeping as a redirect isn't going to do any harm, I guess, so that's acceptable. Joshua Davis (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: What Joshua said.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced personal essay. If redirected (probably not necessary), Mass in special relativity is the current target for the relativistic mass redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose and also contains some errors. SBHarris 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no such scientific term as relativistic mass distortion. So the redirect will be not only useless, but misleading. Some parts of this article seems to be OR. There are no sources. The terminology used in this article does not comply with conventions of the modern science. I agree with User:Eldereft that the article is a personal essay. So I think I gave plenty reasons to delete this article. Ruslik (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, not delete. A google search confirms that the term "relativistic mass distortion" is used on (very rare) occasions--e.g., when people have referred their friends to this very article. So a few people will actually go to this exact page trying to find information about "relativistic mass distortion". These people will be ill-served by finding a nonexistent page. They will be very well served by being redirected to Mass in special relativity. Having the page be a redirect doesn't mean we're endorsing the phrase "relativistic mass distortion" as a legitimate scientific term, and I don't see how anyone would interpret it that way, especially not if they read through the article to which they're redirected. In conclusion, I believe there's a minor but legitimate reason to redirect, and no reason not to. --Steve (talk) 22:09, 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 delete per A7. NAC. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Death Squad[edit]

Legendary Death Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails Not notable. Iam not sure what the other rules are. It certainly fails many policies SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Curran[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a fully professional league (the prod was removed because "he plays in a semi-pro league", which obviously means he fails to meet the criteria). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 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. No consensus among editors where to redirect to, so that could be discussed at Talk:Underdog (TV series). Cirt (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Lackey[edit]

Cad Lackey (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) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Underdog (TV series) over a speedy delete seeing as it could easily be eligible for A3 but seems a likely search query. treelo radda 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-line article about a topic not notable outside its fictional universe. VG ☎ 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to the list of characters -- it's at List of Underdog characters not at Underdog -- he's there as "Cad", but a sentence would need to be merged in to explain who he is. If kept as a separate article, there would be more to say about him than just this--and in fact the main article, Underdog, does say a little more. DGG (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no real world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not one of the main characters. Nothing in the article to keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike Simon, no Gnews sources. No scholar sources. No book sources. Unlikely to see RS web sources. Fails WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 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 merge to List of Underdog characters. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riff Raff (Underdog)[edit]

Riff Raff (Underdog) (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) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No content, no outside notability assertions. treelo radda 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Major villain in very important childrens series--at the very worst redirect to section in main article. I continue to think it as a general rule inappropriate to nominate for deletion when redirection is possible. If there is some special reason, it would be helpful for it to be given in the nomination. DGG (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirection is only really a necessary/desirable option if the article title is a likely search term, which this is not mainly due to its disambiguation. Even without the dab it would probably lead to a disambiguation page anyway, which wouldn't list this character as there wouldn't be a separate article about him. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Characters currently on list pages indeed are and should be noted on dab pages. The whole point is to provide the reader an aid to navigation. - jc37 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a Underdog Characters page or some such. I'm finding lots of fairly trivial references to this character in books [[7]], and news [[8]]. A character list would meet notability requirements. No objection to a merge to underdog for now. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Underdog characters and List of Underdog episodes. There is salient primary source information here. Deletion of this isn't any more appropriate than any other character article or episode article. That said, the article still needs some work and development, and though it normally should be retained as a stub, I understand that there are those who appear to be "anti-stub", and so development on a list page is, I suppose, the next best thing. - jc37 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a redirect. Article doesn't cite (or seem to be able to cite) third party sources. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that a rd is unnecessary - no references to demonstrate real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of Underdog characters. Deletion (i.e. no redirect) would be unhelpful to readers and casal editors. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merging unsourced "facts" damages target articles. It's not a viable search term for redirect due to disambig.Yobmod (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Delete without merge would make the List of Underdog characters article have a big hole (Riff-Raff's henchmen are described but not Riff Raff?). Hobit (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major villian in notable series. Failing that, Merge to List of Underdog characters. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bar Sinister[edit]

Simon Bar Sinister (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) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Principal villain in very important childrens series--at the very least redirect to section in main article. I continue to think it generally inappropriate to nominate for deletion when redirection is possible. It would be helpful if the nomination indicated with specific reference to the article why considered unsuitable for redirection. DGG (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most notable villain in a notable TV cartoon series and its film adaptation. Besides, there's no need to fear... Oops, wrong character. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as proposed above to a character's page. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although not as well-known to a generation that didn't grow up watching Underdog, he was the chief nemesis on that show. Since there appears to be a policy that major characters in notable television shows are themselves notable, he would pass under that standard. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As the main villain, it probably have some notability outside the show. Right now I don't see any but hopefully someone can add some references or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to List of Underdog characters. No sources... wreaks of WP:OR, a lot of fluff. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Google book search [9] shows several mentions of him, such as how his voice sounded [10] , evil devices he employed [11] , [12] , and his frequent appearance in the show [13] . Google News Archive [14] has several articles which mention him: "Dinklage gets evil for Dis' 'Underdog'" Pay-Per-View - Hollywood Reporter - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Mar 31, 2006: "Simon Bar Sinister was one of the show's recurring villains and, unbeknown to the tykes watching the show, his last name slyly translated to "Evil Bastard." Bar Sinister has the status of a cultural icon, such that he gets mentioned without mention of the cartoon show he was part of: "IDOLATRY; AMERICAN IDOL MANUFACTURES THE STARS WE LOVE - OR LOVE TO...- Winston-Salem Journal - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Aug 19, 2004: "One judge, Simon Cowell, has settled into the villainous Simon Bar Sinister role of The Man You Love To Hate.." General acknowledgement of persistence as a cultural icon, and lots of brief mentions of his role ion the show, may add up to notability. Edison (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I must be missing something. There are no sources to support any facts in this article except that he was the villain in the series. If you removed all the unsourced WP:OR you are left with one sentence and at that point he can be included in the List of Underdog characters. We still do require sources to back up facts right? GtstrickyTalk or C 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, perhaps you may be missing something. There is a difference between the (acceptable) usage of primary sources, and "original research". (Which is clarified at WP:OR). - jc37 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not cleanup. If there is WP:OR in the article (rather than some information from primary sources), then clean that up, don't delete. - jc37 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Underdog characters. It is true that AfD is not cleanup, but the fact remains that there are no verifiable secondary sources present, and it says on that itty-bitty template on top of the article that "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." MuZemike (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to merge to the same article listed above. I want to add that this may fit better in the corresponding list article after the sources above can create a more concise coverage of the subject. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major antagonist in a well-known animated series. I really would advise against boilerplate noms like this one. JuJube (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - no demonstration has been made to disprove any of the points advanced that this "does not establish notability independent of its series; has no coverage in reliable third party sources, and is anything other than unnecessary plot summary and original research. Boilerplate keep votes that cannot be bothered to assess the article on its encyclopedic merits and according to our policies and guidelines should simply be discarded. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think you know what "boilerplate" means. JuJube (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "no coverage " claim is not in accord with references provided above. Edison (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Book sourcing exists, although a claim could be made that those sources are trivial. Web sources are not promising, but at least the text string sees a lot of hits. GNews sources exist, with the same caveat as regards the book sources. Scholar hits come up for the text string, but I don't know about applicability. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major villian in notable series, numerous sources have been found by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 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 Recess: School's Out. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillium Benedict[edit]

Phillium Benedict (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) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect principal villain in notable childrens' film, though considerably less important than the major series for the two previous nominations. Quite possibly a redirect is suitable, and it would help to know why the nominator thinks otherwise. DGG (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Web sources are not at all promising. Zero GNews sources (I always search for all dates, I wish I could set that to default). 1 book source is a directory by a research or simply noting the voice credit. Lack of possible sources is fatal. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 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. Xclamation point 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Goof[edit]

Max Goof (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) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep A main character within the series Goof Troop but that on its own isn't really defining the character as notable. treelo radda 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant Real world content in article, not "just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research" The nomination in this case does not seem relevant to the particular article. DGG (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only real world content is a mention that some guy dresses up in a costume as with every other Disney character. The other claims are just original research. The rest of the content is just made up of summaries of his appearances (plot summary) and a description of the character's personality (OR). My description seems to match quite well. TTN (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep central character of 79-episode TV series, 2 movies, comic series, and at least one video game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the character appears/appeared in various media does not inherently make it notable. If it were so notable, surely there would be references to secondary sources discussing the character. Yet there are no references at all, so the article fails WP:V as well as the general notability guideline. The article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for a year and yet no one has added any references of any kind. If this article is salveagable in any way, it seems no one is interested in improving it and therefore there is no compelling reason for keeping it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources. Both the show and movie were widely reviewed when they came out. I found this in less than a minute of searching. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case the sources should specifically discuss the character, not merely the show or film in general. Such sources are certainly appropriate to the articles on the show or film but are insufficient to show why this particular character is independently notable outside the contexts of those works. The source you've provided seems to be reliable yet probably cannot be used because the site requires registration in order to view the article. And even so all it would seem to say, judging by the title and lead, is that they added the Max character to Disney on Ice and updated his look a bit. If you feel you can come up with additional reliable sources, then by all means flag the article for rescue and FIX it. But I would feel more inclined to keep it if such sources had been added sometime in the 4½ years since the article's creation, or in the year since it was tagged as unreferenced. It shouldn't take an AfD to force interested editors to start looking for sources, and when an article has gone this long without meeting our core policies such as V and NOT, deletion is a perfectly reasonable option. However, as I say, if you feel you can improve it to the point where deletion is no longer a valid option then by all means please do. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know where you got the idea that newspaper articles requiring registation can't be used as sources, but that's not true either by policy or current practice. Even aside from that, you miss my point completely. People haven't been dutifully searching for sources for four years and not finding them... our sourcing policies years ago were weak and vague, so many older articles lack sources. This doesn't mean they don't exist. If I found a source in under a minute with a simple Google search, then so can ou, so can the moninator, and so can anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That may be, but it seems that, other than yourself, there is a lack of interest in finding sources for the article. Per WP:V ample time has been given for such sourcing to be done. As I mentioned, it has been tagged as unreferenced for a year, and our sourcing policies have been well established since well before it ws tagged (Oct. 2007...one would think that at least one interested editor would have shown up since then and scrounged up a couple of sources). Also per V, the burden of sourcing lies with those wishing to keep the content. I don't feel that the source you found would add anything substantial to the article that would demonstrate notability. I did a quick google search myself and didn't find anything in the first 5 or 6 pages of hits that would pass WP:RS...mostly wikis, forums, fansites, blogs, and episode guides; no reliable secondary sources. You had luck finding 1 source, and it seems to be a very trivial one. Nevertheless, you're welcome to continue searching for sources and improving the article, and if you feel that it's improved to the point where deletion is no longer a valid option then this AfD can always be closed. A year has gone by and no interested editors have done the legwork to find sources. An AfD lasts 5 days, so hopefully that pressure will spur others like yourself to jump in and find them. If they don't, then that's a good indication that sources probably don't exist and deletion is a valid option. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Goof Troop, not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sources have been shown to exist, and not having those sources in the article isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1 very trivial source has turned up. This is insufficient to justify a keep. That other sources may exist out there in the ether is irrelevant if no editors are willing to search for them and add them to the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind and DGG. Major character of a major TV series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet another boilerplate nom ignorant of the actual notability of subject. AfD is not a venue to force clean-up. JuJube (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are people confusing this with one of the primary Disney characters? This character is from a spin-off show that only ran a little over a year, a few spin-off strait to video/DVD films, and a few minor cameos. If I had nominated Pete (Disney character) for deletion, that argument would make sense, but not for this one. TTN (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is real world information. I can see a photo in the article as well! The character is notable outside the cartoon TV series. Since it's a meetable character, I think it's obvious it's recognizable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG, Starblind. Notable character who has appeared in multiple media including cartoon shorts over 50 years old. 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Where are you getting 50 years from? The article states that this character debuted in 1992. He may have been based on some earlier characters, but that doesn't mean that this character has existed for 50 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 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. Xclamation point 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sellbot VP[edit]

The Sellbot VP (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) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No real content edits since December last year and little means by which to establish just how this character is of any note. treelo radda 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article, Toontown Online, so it explains that this is the principle antagonist for one of the four main tasks in the game. There is no additional content here, so there's nothing to merge. It might be better to change the title to "Selbot", or to add a redirect for that as well. DGG (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs. Nifboy (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nifboy. WP:FICT is disputed, but I can't see that any compromise could include every "major antagonist" in any fictional work. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a big fan of this repetitive nomination rationale, but it's true in this case. JuJube (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 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 Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. History retained if editors want to add stuff into Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Parsec[edit]

Ty Parsec (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) 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Minor character, most of the content is episode synopses. treelo radda 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Does not seem sufficiently important for this elaborate treatment, and the description in the main article Buzz Lightyear of Star Command appears sufficient. Thus a redirect, not a delete, is what is appropriate. DGG (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 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. - Philippe 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie and Harry[edit]

Elsie and Harry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character article does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero content and even seem fairly minor in-universe. treelo radda 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect possibly too minor to be worth the redirect, especially since the names are not distinctive. I agree with Treelo on this one. DGG (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor characters, not noteworthy in the slightest. JuJube (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insignificant and unencyclopedic.nips (talk) 23:51, 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. - Philippe 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladsville Hornsby Soccer Referees Association[edit]

Gladsville Hornsby Soccer Referees Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a suburban soccer referees association, which is clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:34, 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) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian P. Flitney[edit]

Adrian P. Flitney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:PROF particularly third party evidence of significant contribution to field Michellecrisp (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This does not seem to be explicitedly stated in the article that he is actually a pioneer. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Granted he is cited in New Scientist and Physics World, this does not mean he has been widely cited. He will likely be a notable figure in the future, but there is no need for an article on him now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF yet. The citation record is OK for a recent PhD but is certainly still far from the notable range. GoogleScholar[15] gives top citation hits of 23, 22, 12, 8, 7. Similar results in WebOfScience, fairly little in GoogleBooks[16], nothing in googlenews[17]. Based on the article it appears that he may still be a postdoc at Melbourne. No significant academic awards or honors yet. Does not pass WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Nsk92. That seems to solidly prove Flitney is not a pioneer. If he was, he would be widely cited and credited. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think the record shows that he's not a pioneer. But if he is one, it will take a few more years for that to become apparent; per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait until that happens before adding an entry for him rather than rushing to do so now. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. He may well have already done something brilliant and groundbreaking, but it would take a few years for that to be reflected in the citation record. If that happens, it will be quite appropriate to create an article about him then. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nomoskedasticity, David Eppstein, and Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is not a pioneer, but one of the early pioneers. Scholar Google reveals the first paper in the field was written in 1999 and his first publication in the area was in 2000...so he was right there near the beginning. Also the field as a whole has about 1000 citations, whilst his citations are about a 100. That's not bad taking a 10% slice of a whole new field. This is notable in my opinion. There are a lot worse articles you should be deleting such as Carroll Alley who has fewer citations and no substance at all in the article. Personally I would leave it in hopes that someone will improve the article. CruftEater (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis of "A. P. Flitney and D. Abbott, "Quantum version of the Monty Hall problem", Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 062318 Cited in popular articles on quantum game theory in New Scientist (January 5th, 2002) and The Dallas Morning News (January 28th, 2003)." (from [18]. Incidentally, is he perhaps notable as a chess player? I dont know the standards there. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. References to him are in passing only. Every working academic is required to have made some original contribution--regardless of how modest. Citation of such a contribution is not a claim of notability. Surely this individual is talented and intelligent (surely much more than many others who have in fact crossed over the notability threshold), but there is no indication of notability. Bongomatic (talk) 05:18, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991[edit]

Dalmatian_anti-Serb_riots_of_May_1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is lacking sources and hasn't been worked on for a long time. For months i've been trying to start the discussion about it,but nobody is responding on the talkpage.The article should be fixed or deleted.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD is not cleanup, however I don't think this event is notable per WP:NOTNEWS. No one was killed in the event so it isn't that important, just a single riot in the midst of a grander war. So I would say Delete. Tavix (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so interesting that people don't even come to vote :)))--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because this event has attracted coverage beyond immediate news coverage in history books such as these as well as the one already referenced in the article. It seems that that even though the riots didn't cause much death and destruction in themselves they were fairly significant in the build up of tension that led to all out war. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This "news" wasn't given any importance untill Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen used it in their politicised speeches during the Hague ICTY trials.There weren't any deaths,but personal property was destroyed. It didn't lead to tensions çause the tension was already caused by the killings of Croatian policemen by terrorist rebel Serbs.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Certainly passes NOTNEWS criteria; as for sourcing, by a look at google news it also has quite a number of news reports from 1991 that can use. No doubt it needs work.--Aldux (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Noone is working on it.Half of the "refferences"/external links don't work at all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:28, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Abuse Survey[edit]

Extreme Abuse Survey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a survey published as book, but it does not assert the notability of the book/survey using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOR and WP:RS. There is an author biography as the last paragraph, which leads to some WP:OWN problems. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The study is notable because it has been written about in several reliable sources and there have been several presentations at international conferences about it.
Becker, T. (2008). Re-searching for new perspectives: Ritual abuse/ritual violence as ideologically motivated crime.In R. Noblitt & P. Noblitt (Eds.), Ritual abuse in the twenty-first century (pp. 237-260). Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed.
Becker, T., Karriker, W., Overkamp, B., & Rutz, C. (2008). The Extreme Abuse Survey: Preliminary findings regarding dissociative identity disorder. In A. Sachs & G. Galton (Eds.), Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder (pp. 32-49).London: Karnac.
Rutz, C., Becker, T., Overkamp, B., & Karriker, W. (2008). Exploring commonalities reported by adult survivors of extreme Abuse: Preliminary empirical findings.In R. Noblitt & P. Noblitt (Eds.), Ritual abuse in the twenty-first century (pp. 31-84). Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed.
presentations at conferences about the study include :
United Nations 51st Session of the Committee on the Status of Women, New York, NY.
Tenth Annual Ritual Abuse, Secretive Organizations and Mind Control Conference, Windsor Locks, CT.
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, Philadelphia, PA.
Fourteenth Annual Northern California Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Conference: Sacramento, CA.
13th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, San Diego, CA.
the author biography paragraph has been deleted Baawip80 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Yes it is truly shocking that the researchers who created the survey have published their findings in books edited by their SRA advocacy pals. The fact that advocates of a fringe position support the work of other advocates does not establish notability in the least.PelleSmith (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The books are notable. The opinion "advocacy pals" is not proven. Extrabreeze (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Keep, but only with considerable attention to context and POV and RSs. The article does not exactly make it clear that the survey is dealing with not just satanic ritual abuse, but abuse by government mind control experiments, and various even more unlikely things going up to abduction by UFOs. If the survey has been noticed by mainstream work at all, there is undoubtedly published criticism that needs to be included, which I imagine will to say that the questionnaire is first of all a survey of self selected people who responded to an announcement, that the announcement specifically stated the phenomena were real and asked their help by participation in a survey intended to prove it, [19]! As might be expected from such a study group selection, the questions are suggestive, many listing possible symptoms and asking how frequently the person has had them. [20]. It even asks questions designed to suggest particular names and codes used by abusers, If there is not yet such criticism, then there are not yet RSs. I see the supporters of this article have listed no such study, or any analysis by any uninvolved people. However, even taken at face value, it's a useful study in credulity. Absent such analysis, the article needs to be written as one would report any other self-documented pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established here at all. DGG's appraisal of the survey seems correct as well, from what I can tell. If notability is established by reliable secondary sources in the relevant fields we can have another crack at it, but Wikipedia is not a repository for every non-notable study that has yet to receive appropriate criticism or secondary analysis.PelleSmith (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All "sources" are self-published or otherwise non-notable. If some reliable source can be found, and the content of this article sourced to such sources, then those sentences might remain, but there's no reason to believe that keeping this would be helpful to creating a new article on the survey. (Note: I got here from reading the neutral note on Talk:Satanic ritual abuse.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in order to assert notability there must be evidence of interest by reliable, third-party sources discussing the survey itself, not merely reporting the results. We do not have a page on every single journal article that is published for the same reason. Probably the best notability guideline to look at is Wikipedia:Notability (books), which it does not pass. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Keep but in a greatly altered form as per DGG above. It could either be part of the SA article or a daughter article. The issue about Satanic Abuse/Mind Control is not just a question of whether or not it exists (and here should state I personally am of the "does not exist" camp). However, the whole thing is a bit of a social phenomenon in its own right. I see the questionnaire is self-selected but assuming those responses in the P-EAS actually are the various professionals they state they are, its still part of a phenomenon that's worthy of consideration and an article. In that respect its no different to any other pseudoscientific topic. Surely there must be some criticism/commentary relating to this survey by now?Fainites barley 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found this at the SRA page. It is a social phenomenon and deserves mention. The P-EAS responses are from professionals. It has been presented at international conferences. Karnac is a respectable publisher. Extrabreeze (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the policy for deletion, guidelines regarding notability, guidelines regarding notability of books and arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. The rule of thumb is if the subject of the article is covered by reliable, third-party sources, it is a legitemate topic. A lack of separate sources that discuss the survey itself suggests that it's not notable. Reporting the results isn't the same thing as a discussion of the survey. You are mixing reliability (publisher) with notability, and the second source is self-published, making it useless for virutally anything on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going to the notability article you put above, the survey does have significant coverage. Extrabreeze (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, integrate the new sources into the page. I'm assuming you have new sources because the current ones merely report the results of the survey, they do not discuss why the survey is notable (in addition to the second being unreliable). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not about the social phenomenon in general, but about a specific survey thereof. VG ☎ 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons explained above. —Cesar Tort 18:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habib ben Elisha Faturechi[edit]

Habib_ben_Elisha_Faturechi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I created this article on the reassurance of an Internet friend that it is genuine. I actually tried to look up his references, and they are all bogus. I think this was some type of joke, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhatJew (talk • contribs) 2008/10/03 05:35:14

  • Delete, and thanks for the refreshing honesty in the nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Author's request and failure of verifiability. I'm inclined to Speedy Delete per G3, except that the author posted the article in good faith, and not to disrupt - which takes it out of Vandalism and into whatever it is. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:30, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pipal[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails BIO ATHLETE and NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No information or reliable sources forthcoming, couldn't find anything out there. You may want to put the proper template on the article, though ...  RGTraynor  16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeKeep with Joseph Pipall--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Detail Correct spelling appears to be "Pipal". Featured in NYT and SI, "Pipal was credited with devising lateral pass and mud cleats for football shoes" Merged in information from Joseph Pipall, recommending deleting that article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or keep Pipall as a redirect page? If it was confused before, plainly there's a need.  RGTraynor  18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coach of a major college (Oregon State) plus also changed the game with his innovations. 09er (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 09er. Notable coach and innovator and article has been cited with multiple notable sources. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Provided key innovations to the game and major college coach. No question this is a keep. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a Keep. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of people who have been pied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#IINFO. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. When notable people are hit in the pie it is frequently newsworthy. I don't see anything in WP:NOT#IINFO that specifically covers this. This article is a subartcile of pieing. It is an appropriate topic for a standalone list, WP:SALAT. It is well-sourced and neutral. The article was Afd'ed less than six months ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The part of NOT#IINFO that I believe applies is ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And, to a degree, point 5. Not everyone on the list appears to be notable, nor are they all referenced. What encyclopedic value is there in a list of people who've gotten a pie to the face? That said, to be honest, I don't AFD much of anything ever, and did not realize that this had been AFDed before until it was already listed. I was a bit surprised, actually, that it had survived, much less twice. Also, I was unaware that there was a six-months between nominations standard. Not my normal side of the building, here, so to speak. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I beg your pardon, but are you FUCKING serious??? Hell, I've been pied, it's nothing important, nothing newsworthy, and certainly not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your face is sticky for five minutes before someone hands you a towel. People with cell phone cameras take your picture as you're covered in [pie filling/whipped cream/pudding/other crap] and slap it up on Youtube, people laugh for a minute or so at you, and they all move on. Forgotten the next day. For that matter, many of these are referenced to Youtube or other video sites, known as Bad Sites for being unreliable, poorly accessible for those with slow connections or inadequate plugins, and easily vandalized or just generally unstable. I can possibly see a short section in Biotic Baking Brigade for a list of people they have personally pied, since that is what they are known for, but people being pied by "16-year old boys", as one entry shows, is completely pointless. Oh, what a surprise, there's no reference for that one either, as well as five other entries. To that end, this list is completely unmaintainable. People get pied every damn day for random reasons. If one of them happens to have an article here, we're supposed to add them to this list just because someone threw a pastry in their direction? Heck no. We have better things to cover. This is a complete violation of WP:BLP#1E; unless, for some astounding reason, the pieing has some actual lasting importance (and by that I mean more than a month), it's not even worth mentioning in the subject's own article. This is utterly, completely, and in every possible way, a ridiculous subject for a list. I rest my case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note in response to your If one of them happens to have an article here... comment, not all of those listed have articles here. And some of those also lack a reference. Just to strengthen your argument for deletion. :) Jennavecia (Talk) 03:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pieing of public figures and economic leaders, as a political, social or economic statement, is a notable subject. Of particular relevance to the subject is identifying those people who have been pied in that context. This is not a list of just anyone who has been pied, or pieings just for humour. There is a significant statement associated with each of these particular instances. The article could certainly do with some clarification in this regard (and perhaps a clarification of the title), but that is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Each of these events are very minor news stories, a protest from activist organizations. Each event is no more significant than a petty crime. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pieing.    SIS  14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- A major public figure getting pied is a notable event. It seems to me that a list of notable people who've gotten pied would be reasonable. If there's red-links/non-notable people on the list, then that needs cleaned up, but the list itself should stay. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a random kid off the street pieing someone as a practical joke notable? As I said above, if they're pied by a notable group such as the Biotic Whatevers, that can probably be mentioned in their article, but we don't need a separate list for it. This list doesn't even have any information on why these people were pied, so there's not even an attempt to make this encyclopedic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're notable events because they don't happen often, and when they do, odds are that its going to receive a good bit of news coverage. Not enough obviously to warrant seperate articles on each incident, but certainly enough coverage that citing it wouldn't be a problem. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Pieing good. Who gets pied, couldn't give a damn. Fails on the whole "no collection of random garbage which are vaguely related guideline we have. treelo radda 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#IINFO. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Although "pieing" may seem like fun stuff in the movies, it's assault and battery in the real world. Generally, it's done by targetting a prominent person and using the act to call attention to a cause. I've never considered it to be humorous. I think that the message it sends is pretty damn scary-- if someone can get close enough to strike you in the face with a harmless object, then they can get close enough to use something else to kill you. Mandsford (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a wonderful and important addition to Wikipedia, as will be the articles on List of people who have been robbed, List of people who have been raped, List of people who have been cheated on by their spouse, List of people who have been abducted for ransom, List of people who have been denied a credit card and List of people who have been treated by a podiatrist. Please drop me a note when they are created so that I can read them as well. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap, man, now somebody's going to create those articles. Haven't you ever read WP:BEANS? Sheesh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I be worried that I'd appear on 5 of those 6 new lists of DRosenbach's? I won't say which 5. Oh, and delete per nominator's rationale. Keeper ǀ 76 02:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose that there are some communities where the throwing of pies is part of the daily routine.... Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep based on the fact this passed AFD with a keep decision only a few months ago. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time. Since this is a rerun, I will simply cut-and-paste my previous comment from the AFD: well sourced and populated with notable people. "Pie in the face" is a notable (if silly) form of expression that receives great attention when it is applied to political leaders in particular. As with all these types of lists, should be policed to make sure no unverified claims are made (especially any that violate WP:BLP), but as it stands now it's sourced, a notable topic - that makes it viable. It could stand to use a better introduction, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only votes I see in any of the AFDs that even come close to valid is the political one. In such a case, the article should be renamed to specify it's about political protest and be limited to political figures. Jennavecia (Talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Sources are mostly crap, and six months is more than enough time in between AfDs. GlassCobra 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In response to the "notable", "well-referenced", and "political" arguments, I just went through the whole list.
    • 10 are non-notable (no BLP).
    • 5 have no reference, or the provided reference lead to a "not found" message.
    • 8 have image-only references, which gives no context.
    • 1 was sent as an anonymous email (the account of the pieing).
    • 5 were missed attempts, mostly missed or victim not the target.
    • 6 are blogs/webzines
    • 3 are copy-vios (with a few more possibles that also failed for other reasons noted above).
    • 1 was a celebration, one friend pied by another (musician).
  • Several of the others entries have foreign language refs that prevent me from determining if 1/ they are a reliable source, 2/ confirm the pieing, or 3/ serve as a "notable" political event. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is out of 72 references, you're criticising just a few. And some of the criticisms ( because WP doesnt have an article about the person, because a link is broken, because it was only an attempted pieing, because a convenience link was a copyvio of an article published elsewhere, or because it was in a foreign language ) are hardly reasons to disqualify the sources, just some citations need to be fixed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you joking? That's 39 sources, which is more than half, not just a few. Redlink = not notable. When sources provided lead to nothing, that counts an "unreferenced". A person hasn't been pied if the "attack" was a miss, thus they don't qualify by the title. And they certainly shouldn't be added if they were pied accidentally for standing to close to a target. And what is a "convenience link"? We don't reference things for "convenience". The references are copy-vios. Copyrighted youtube links. Lastly, I think it's pretty clear what I was saying about the foreign language links. I can't verify them. Nice attempted strawman, though. Jennavecia (Talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding issue-by-issue:
  1. More than thirty references still isn't enough to estabish notability?
  2. The article on Abraham Lincoln was a redlink at one time, too.
  3. Im sure the people who only attempted to pie dignitaries still got arrested, and there was still a big fuss. Or do we want to be academic and create a separate article for "people who almost got pied"?
  4. The ones who got pied because they were standing next to a target are debatable.
  5. There's no requirement for a source to be available online. Sometimes people link to web content that is a copyvio of news articles or TV shows. But the proper way to handle those is to remove the link and cite the book/news article/film as dead-tree format. The citation template is important. A "convenience link" to a web site hosting that content is an extra.
  6. There's nothing wrong with non-English sources. Especially for a topic that is more relevant to Europe.
Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I addressed this in my nom. Just because it's verifiable does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
  2. Looking at these redlinked people, I don't think they'll have bios any time soon.
  3. This list isn't about the people that did the pieing. It's about the people that got pied. If they had a pie fly by, that's not the same.
  4. Debatable? It's possibly notable that a guy got pegged by some pie because he was standing next to another guy who was the target?
  5. That's fine and dandy, but when the information given is a link, and it's a dead, un-retrievable one, then it fails WP:V.
  6. Apparently I've twice now failed to communicate that my only reason for mentioning the foreign language sources is to note the fact that in addition to the 39 inadequate sources, there could be more, but they are in languages I can't read, therefore I don't know. That's all I meant by that. But, just so we're all clear, there is a policy that specifically speaks on this. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a valuable pie fork. This contains comprehensive, sourced information best kept in list form. XF Law talk at me 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absolute bollocks and totally worthless - but as long as it is verifiable, so what?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS, most of these are not notable. Unlike many of the lists of people, there is no lasting coverage and the events are not significant enough to be mentioned in the articles about the people who may have been pied. If it is kept, anything without reliable sources should be removed. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mack Sennett would have been pleased, but this article has no encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's such an unusual form of protest, almost like challenging somebody to a duel. For editors who aren't familiar with it, it actually happens in certain countries and with certain groups, and it's not something that only happens on The Three Stooges. I'd say keep this well-sourced and politically significant article as a subarticle of pieing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where a notable person has been pied and the event itself is deemed notable, that information surely belongs in their article (subject to the usual WP:BIO verifiability criteria). Where that's not the case, we have no business recording it. EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strongly agree with rationale provided in above comments by Will Beback (talk · contribs), GrantNeufeld (talk · contribs), and 23skidoo (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:20, 8 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. Xclamation point 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Philharmonic Society[edit]

Monash University Philharmonic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC, lacks third party sources to prove notability Michellecrisp (talk) 08:00, 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. Xclamation point 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Herrick (broadcaster)[edit]

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

This article is written about me, it is innaccurate and I don't think I meet the criteria for being notable enough, especially seen as seasoned reporters who work for my company aren't on Wikipedia, when I am, after a year of regional reporting. Seems to be an inconsistency, please delete it RobHerrick (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is unreferenced and appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems no more notable than most regional media presenters and as WWGB points out, entirely unreferenced. (OT Interesting, and somehow appropriate, that journalists are classed as Creative professionals in WP:BIO. A ring of truth there! -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I support the subject's claim that he's not (yet) notable. The 'quotes' section is extremely quotidian. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the subject himself says that the article fails WP:NOTABILITY it should not be staying on wikipedia. It should be deleted without further nominations of any sort. Kalivd (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one; Maybe an article will be warranted in the future? Delete per WP:N. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notability grounds (not because the subject of the article has requested it), would not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 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. Xclamation point 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Martin (television character)[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT. Only "source" is a book about the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Has been tagged for notability and other issues since February with no improvement at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make her notable per Wikipedia guidelines. If there are reliable sources in magazines or books please point them out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as important character in a very important show. the importance is shared with the show, so that's the notability, and primary sources are adequate for the content. Alternatively, do a combination article for the characters--there does not presently seem to be one -- and expand when there are sources.DGG (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep core character of long-running and influential TV series, played by two very notable actresses. As for "Only "source" is a book about the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources." that's self-contradictory. A book about the series is an excellent source for character information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that self-contradictory? An official book about the series has long been established to NOT be a third party source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's an "official" book, and thus an improper source? It was published by Penguin and written by an author with no direct connection to the show. And even if it were official, that doesn't disqualify it as a source. We have many articles that cite the subject's own autobiography (quick examples: Anne Frank and Winston Churchill). And this isn't the only book about the Lassie show, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge? Ace Collins's book was used in the Anniversary DVD set, with the company tapping her to create an abridged version for inclusion in the set. Also, I did NOT say it disqualified it as a source. It is a great, reliable source. It does NOT however establish any notability for this character). It adds nothing new and nothing specific to this article. It is pure plot regurgitation with little actually being attributable to the book except the first and perhaps second trivia note. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an abridged version of an indepandant book? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. He is the official "Lassie historian" per the trademark holder, Classic Media, and contributes regularly to the official Classic Media Lassie site. While a noted writer of many other books, in the case of Lassie he is not a independant biographer but very closely tied to the company/franchise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ace Collins was not "tied" to Classic Media when his 1993 book was published by Penguin. So later he was recognized by CM as something of an authority on the subject and invited to write an introduction for their DVD collection. So what? The DVD insert is not cited in the Ruth Martin article anyway. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major character in major television program satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? Being a major character in a major television program does NOT satisfy any official notability standards. Notability of the series does NOT confer to the character. Without reliable, third party sources discussing such aspects of the character as creation/conception, reception, and cultural impact, she does NOT have notability.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please produce them. Claiming there are "abundant sources" without demonstrating doesn't really show this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many to conveniently list them all here. Here's a dozen:
  • Children's Television, 1947-1990
  • Children's Television, the First Thirty-five Years, 1946-1981
  • Encyclopedia of Television
  • Forced to Be Family
  • Reaching a Critical Mass: A Critical Analysis of Television Entertainment
  • Saturday Morning TV
  • St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture
  • The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States
  • The Wow Climax: Tracing the Emotional Impact of Popular Culture
  • Total Television: A Comprehensive Guide to Programming from 1948 to the Present
  • TV's Greatest Hits: The 150 Most Popular TV Shows of All Time
  • What Would Murphy Brown Do?: How the Women of Prime Time Changed Our Lives
Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to primarily be sources for the SHOW (obviously notable), not this specific character from a show which 50 years later still notes that Lassie was the star and the rest were just there. Only two appear to be ones that may discuss the actual character of Ruth Martin. And, of course, I notice that you did not list specific page numbers or quotes, which makes me wonder if you actually checked any of those or if you are simply listing a ton of books that may be sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep/WP:Speedy keep per all other !votes. Any other editors can now feel free to perform a Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep my butt. No one gave good reasons to keep the article. Schuym1 (talk) 14:19, 5 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. The show 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 -- WP articles Gloria Stivic, Catherine Earnshaw, and Desdemona, for example, do not cite primary, secondary, or tertiary sources! There's nothing in the WP article to suggest Desdemona is "notable". The WP article on Ruth Martin is considerably better documented than these articles! Ruth Martin appeared in spinoff materials such as novels, comic books, toys, film, film posters, and lobby cards -- thus attesting to the character's popularity, her recognizability by the public, and ipso facto her notability. Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in university journals. While such sources are desirable, they are not required beyond a shadow of a doubt. If that were the case, WP would lose 98% of its content. Primary and secondary sources are enough for inclusion at WP -- and "Ruth Martin" has both. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Martin IS discussed in a secondary source: Ace Collins' book Lassie: a dog's life published by Penguin Books, 1993. The Collins book is NOT a primary source, it's a secondary source. Collins was not affliated with Classic Media when the Penguin book was published in 1993, and even if he had he been, I'm not sure that would disqualify his book from being a source. His insert material for the DVD package (which was published, I believe, in 2004) has not been cited in the Ruth Martin article. WP is flexible; we are asked to be bold, and to use sense and discrimination in creating articles. Primary sources -- such as Lassie episodes are acceptable sources for "reporting the fictional facts". The article has its Primary Sources for the fictional facts of the character and a Secondary Source for "real world" material about the character. WP guidelines do not state the 2 or more Primary or Secondary Sources MUST be cited to establish notability or inclusion. While tertiary sources are preferred they are NOT required to establish notability nor inclusion at WP. An article cannot be deleted simply because it does not cite compendia, other encylcopedia, or textbooks. The Ruth Martin article with its Primary and Secondary Sources satisifies WP notability and WP requirements for inclusion. KEEP. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Major character in a major series. Notability is established. Character played by two notable actresses. Article is under construction and appears work is being done. Cites primary and secondary sources per WikiP guidelines. STRONG KEEP.
  • Redirect: to Lassie (1954 TV series). Notability is not flippin inherited! The sources that were found prove that the series is notable, but not the character. Schuym1 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book reference does not show the character's notability, because it is about the series. Schuym1 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the book is indeed about the series, there is nothing in WP guidelines or policy forbidding the use of a book about a television series to glean material about a series character for a stand-alone article. There is no policy or guideline stating a TV series character MUST have an independent full-length book published solely about that character in order for the inclusion of a stand-alone article about that character at WP. Guidelines ask for secondary sources, and, while multiple sources are preferred, they are not required. A single secondary source (in addition to a primary source) is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the article about Ruth Martin -- considering the article's depth. Additionally, June Lockhart received a 1959 Emmy Award nomination for her portrayal of Ruth Martin. The nomination constitutes "Significant Coverage" and the character's NOTABILITY is confirmed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Sourced, notable character from notable series played by notable actress who was nominated for notable award for said portrayal.Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Lassie characters. Fictional character without a shred of real-world significance. —Angr 05:50, 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), as per consensus. Looks like this Stain is not coming out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stain[edit]

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

It is partially nonsense. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not the world's greatest article, but not terrible either. Nothing here is nonsense, either patent or otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the previous editor has told "not a great article" but definately has something and can be improved rather than being deleted. Kalivd (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not so much nonsense as pointless. Especially the included list of "Substances that may create stains" is a joke. There's a fine definition of stain on Wikionary[21], and this article appears to ignore WP:OR and WP:NOT completely.    SIS  14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Abstain. No pun intended.    SIS  22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ugh. I'm sure the topic should stay, but that's not much of an article. Surely someone has written a book on stains at some point, right? Maybe something from Textile engineering? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic, I added some of the dozens of current books as general references; there are historical ones also. . But probably the title should be "Stain Removal" DGG (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I've made a stab at rewriting the article, cleaning out the stuff that doesn't make sense or is uncyclopedic, and trying to find some real sourcing. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly an improvement over the article as it existed when nominated, which included a list of things that coulc cause stains, things that could be stained, and things that removed stains. As the article (in both versions) pointed out, there are purposes for the "discoloration that distinguishes itself from the material on which it is found". Mandsford (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - The article has been rewritten, everybody votes keep except me, and I still think "Stain? You might as well have an article on Kitchen Smells. What's going on here?" In other words, I get the feeling I'm completely missing a point. If somebody would be so kind to explain on my Talk page how 'Stain' can be an encyclopedic entry, I'd be most obliged. I'm not being cynical here, I really don't understand. All I can think is WP:NOT. What am I missing? Genuinely puzzled,    SIS  21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article about unintentional discoloration of surfaces or materials by exposure to colorants or chemicals. There is an article Wood stain about stains intentionally applied to wood, and there is an article about Staining used in bio labs, like Gram staining , which by-the-way has a thorough "how-to" section, and which needs it, to explain what gram staining is. An article on unintentional stains suggests a section on stain removal, which runs the risk of being the dreaded "how-to" of useful information which Wikipedia forbids for some reason. Hundreds of books exist about stains and their removal [22] , and hundreds more books discuss particular types of unintentional stains [23] , [24] , satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 22:13, 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. Xclamation point 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bungles finger[edit]

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

Previously speedied as a hoax. No sources, Google indicates nothing of interest: "Bungles finger" (428), "Bungles finger" Bill Hill (2, 1 of which is WP). Name is also apparently an obscene slang term. GlassCobra 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE - This is obviously not a hoax as there are clear references to articles on the BBC website and links that help identify some of the musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk)
Links that help identify some of the musicians, not links that indicate that this band actually exists...and if it does, that they are notable. --Onorem♠Dil 14:51, 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-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Record of Lodoss War episodes[edit]

List of Record of Lodoss War episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simple plot summaries only, no references. Details have been "coming soon" since March 2007. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NOEFFORT, afd is not cleanup, and episode lists are long-established valid form of spinoff. If it bothers you so, feel free to edit the article. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referenced episode lists are valid. Not cruft like this. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:ITSCRUFT. Again, afd is not cleanup, feel free to add references if it bothers you so. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per official policy, being incomplete is not a wikicrime, nor is needing cleanup. A check on the main page finds links that readily verify most of the basic facts of the list, except for the events of the episodes which per WP:WAF implicitly reference the episodes themselves -- and these are trivial to copy over. Per common consensus, a list of episodes is a standard spinout from a notable series, especially when (as here) the original article. Keep and remand to the relevant wikiproject's cleanup team for scrubbing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep or merge as some of this can be verified by watching the show. needs alot of clean up though... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So, you've had since March 2007 to do some trimming, make a table, find some airdates and google some easy-to-find references, but instead of doing that half-hour of work you opted to do nothing and make an AfD case? Pfft. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. I can think of a recent AfD where the article was nominated for basically the same reasons - it had needed cleanup for forever and a day, and the nom felt it would be more worthwhile to just start an AfD than to do some rudimentary cleanup and list the article with the relevant wikiproject for further work. On a related note, I marked the Lodoss War episode list as needing urgent attention, so someone from our project should get around to it eventually. —Dinoguy1000 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a list. It's unreferenced. It's been unreferenced for a long time. It doesn't belong here. The people who create articles have at least SOME responsibility to source them. You vote keep. Are you souring it? No? Then don't tell me to do so. Fails WP:COMPLETECRUFT and we all know that WP:ANIME 's cleanup department has a backlog that won't ever get worked through. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a policy-based reason for deletion in there? Do you feel it doesn't meet WP:N? Hobit (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know that, do we? I knocked two articles off the cleanup group's list today. The list is growing only because the assessment team is actively going through everything in the project scope and compiling a centralized list so the cleanup gang can scrub 'em. (But anyway, what some of the keeps above are doing is pointing WP:BEFORE at the nominator, as there's no sign that it has been honored.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when did we have a WP:DEADLINE? I note, with some interest, that you don't have a link to this alleged WP:COMPLETECRUFT. <--- NOTE THE COLOR OF THAT LINK. You vote delete. Are YOU sourcing it? No? Then don't tell me what to do. BTW, did you know that there's an entire wikiproject for lists? That there are even FEATURED lists? Your position is pretty solidly in a minority. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you enjoy that little histrionic outburst? Mm? First of all, WP:ANIME has been jacked up since it was founded. I can bring up all the Gundam stuff was sworn up AND down that would be sourced that didn't get sourced and got the axe. As for this? If this was a list of articles, if it was a list of plot descriptions, hell, if it had more than ONE source indpendant of a cartoon guide besides than encyclopedia, I'd be all for keeping it. Right now? It's a list. Go look at Featured Lists, and figure out what a good list needs. You say keep? Keep away. In a year, when it's unreferenced and unimproved, it goes to AfD again. I'm all for eventualism, but a list like this cannot be encyclopedic. Vote however you like. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 03:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you haven't looked at the list in question today ... —Quasirandom (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs major cleanup. Having a list of episodes is not really an issue. Why does this list of episodes follow the style it currently has and not the style of all of the other episode lists of other anime? Odd. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be as simple as the creator wasn't aware of the "proper" style. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that per policy, editors don't need to follow style, just do whatever they can. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Just something that needs to be done in cleanup, that's all. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep AfD is not clean-up. JuJube (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page needs condensed, reformatted, and finished, but there's no reason to delete a page for being currently lousy when the page would just have to be recreated later. Also, there are no RS concerns with plot summaries. --erachima talk 19:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The only things wrong with this list is that it is poorly organized, has an insufficient lead, needs to be reformatted to conform to standard episode list formatting, and the episode summaries need to be trimmed down to 150 to 200 words or so. The source for the summaries actually does not need to be cited as it can be assumed to be sourced to the episodes themselves (WP:COMMON SENSE). --Farix (Talk) 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, list needs some clean up, for sure, and those plot summaries need a complete re-write, but that is no reason to delete a valid episode list that is now referenced. A simple note at the Anime and manga project could have taken care of the need for work, which isn't the purpose of AfD at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given above. There is no legitimate reason offered for deletion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article needing cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 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. Xclamation point 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.O.T.S[edit]

R.O.O.T.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL No reliable sources quoted in article, none apparently available. No announcement from label or artist. —Kww(talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.    SIS  11:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. --Winger84 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont' delete. Wait for more information, just like my article, and it should come. And besides, one of tracks are already out. Go to YouTube and search Guarantee. You'll see it. DJ BlackZilla (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: speculation. Cliff smith talk 06:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. The sources are from TV and radio interviews therefore can not be referenced on the internet, and as it was in a smaller country discussion as not yet reached the Internet, but the information should come soon therefore this article should left and not deleted, this way the article can be expanded on as information comes to hand. The announcement was also made by the artist himself.User:Wilsontoddlive
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, same reasons: no announcement by artist or label. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. With the release drawing near an announcement is near, would you like to come to my house to watch the interview i have recorded? User:Wilsontoddlive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsontoddlive (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I have found the audio of the interview on the radio stations website where the artist announces the album. Added the reference to the page. User:Wilsontoddlive —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I listened to the interview, and it doesn't confirm a release date or tracklist.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, that still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it does confirm album name, so in that sense article should remain, I can not find the MTV interview online where artist speaks of possible collaborations. So unreferenced information should be removed. --Wilsontoddlive (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have found another interview with the same radio station where he touches on collaborations, still nothing solid but then still no reason to delete this article. It is mentioned around 3.40ish http://www.zmonline.co.nz/WhosOn/NightCrew/Highlights/Detail.aspx?id=9733 --Wilsontoddlive (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album. Also, the title, track listing and release date need to be publicly confirmed by the artist or record label. Cliff smith talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK so delete?--Wilsontoddlive (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, yes. At length, the article can be re-created once at least the title, track listing and release date have been verified by reliable sources. Cliff smith talk 16:44, 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. MBisanz talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools[edit]

List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

collection of external links advertising products and companies. prod removed by ip, no reason given Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they serve the same purpose. prod on both removed, reason given for one "This page provides valuable information to an important community. There is no valid reason to delete it.":
          :List of OBD-II Cables & Scanning Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
          :List of OBD-II Gauges & Performance Monitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all as link farms. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article states that it is "intended to collect the available tools and keep [on-board diagnostics] from becoming a link farm," which strongly implies that this article is intended to be a link farm. hbent (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't throuw the notable babies out with the non-notable bathwater. so: Add appropriate links to the article On-board diagnostics iaw WP:LINKS then Delete. There is some useful information here (very useful) but it belongs in On-board diagnostics. Springnuts (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - changed my view completely once I read up what a link farm actually is - and this is not one. My interest is in the OBDII software article. This is a straightforward standalone list which is a valuable information source - see WP:STAND. They could probably be merged into On-board diagnostics if wished. Springnuts (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, linkfarm. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 8 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Eta Sigma (high school fraternity)[edit]

Phi Eta Sigma (high school fraternity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written in a highly promotional tone (as witnessed by the occasional use of the pronoun "we"). No sources. Tags to point out these problems have been removed by the creator. No assertion of notability either, and I cannot find anything on the Web about a fraternity separate from Phi Eta Sigma yet bearing the same name. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - What is a 'high school fraternity', anyway? Surely this is just a non-notable student club. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, non-encyclopedic content, non-encyclopedic style, excessively long, no references found with Google.  Andreas  (T) 12:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, WP:OWN and WP:ADVERT. Page was originally in Spanish and it's tone (in both the original Spanish version and the English translation by an anonymous IP) looks like it was copied from somewhere else Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have got no reasons to say that the article must stay on wikipedia all the reasons for the deletion have been mentioned above and hence the article may be deleted. Kalivd (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks the secondary sources to meet WP:ORG and failsWP:V. Smile a While (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. Could it be a hoax, as well? Ancemy (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

See High school fraternities and List of high school fraternities and sororities for legitimate examples.  Andreas  (T) 13:37, 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. Xclamation point 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Wrestling[edit]

World Professional Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined G11 speedy - fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has been speedied three times as either spam or NN and I don't see any improvement in this incarnation. andy (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as this isn't notable and has been recreated without fixing the problems... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really? Poor, nothing notable, looks like self-promotion.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 17:38, 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. BJTalk 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan humour[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of humor. VG ☎ 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just a list of jokes, rather than a discussion of humour in Moldova or by Moldovans. Oh, and the picutre is probably a copyvio. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AlexTiefling (and for being poor jokes ;-)    SIS  12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research, first and foremost. Although humor is an encyclopedic topic, Wikipedia is not a jokebook. These are apparently the best of a comedian named Valentin or Valantan Stratan, who gets 5 ghits in a search. Funny, no? Uh, no. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable (nor funny). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, so a Russian speaker and a Moldovan speaker walk into an internet cafe. And they make up a bunch of jokes, and post it on Wikipedia! acknowledges applause Delete as OR. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Erik the Red 2. What remains unanswered, of course, is how many Moldovans does it take to screw in a lightbulb. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10: 1 to screw in the lightbulb and 9 to write the Wikipedia article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:37, 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 no consensus. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alsek Air Service[edit]

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

Declined A7, as talkpage challenge was convincing enough to take to AFD for the community to decide. The article appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the company in question provides scheduled public transport services with government grants, making it inherently notable. Further, a search with Google News finds multiple articles on the airline, so it is notable per WP:CORP. Arsenikk (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google news search, in reality ([25]), turns up one result. Neither WP:CORP nor WP:ORG says anything about inherent notability emanating from government grants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here [26] is another small town Alaska transportation company. They receive government grant money to transport disabled people around through [27]this organization, they have about the same seating capacity as this airline, but they use cars not airplanes. Are they notable? No. Is this tiny small town airline with not one reliable source related to it notable? No. Extended discussion on the subject here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to an article about little alaskan airlines. Pasting from my talk page:
I suppose I believe that public scheduled air service is inherently notable. From that, I believe that any such Alaskan airline that provides such a service, especially essential air service, is worthy of its own article. See Bering Air, Frontier Flying Service, Hageland Aviation Services, Isla Nena Air, Island Air Service, Servant Air, Taquan Air, Warbelow's Air Ventures, and Wings of Alaska, for other examples.
It will likely be that every little public airport in Alaska eventually gets an article, and it's well on its way: see List of airports in Alaska. These airlines serve to connect those dots.
Put another way, I believe the red links on Template:Airlines of the United States and Essential Air Service should be made as articles. I do NOT, however, believe that the hundreds of charter airlines should get their own article.
Given the AFD on Alaska Seaplane Service, I believe I'm in the majority in thinking these little airlines should be kept, but perhaps those more knowledgeable of Wikipedia Policy can argue the case better than I.
Allstar86 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I note that what appear to be new sources have been added to the article, but upon examination of those sources, they are clearly well below the threshold of "significant coverage". Brining up other AfDs again and again is a WP:WAX argument, generally not considered valid reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have initiated a discussion of the wider issues involved here in order to form a consensus on these issues. Any and all input is welcome. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an Essential Air Service provider. This is in effect recognition by the federal government that the airline provides an essential service, or for me notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate as to why this designation confers automatic notability? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- As for "essential", In any case, it has not yet started operations as such. But one takes essential in such a designation as government-talk, not necessarily encyclopedic notability. If Alaska is so disperse that many of its air services are of trivial size, then they are not notable. DGG (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any airline which offers scheduled commercial service is notable, and most of them have Wikipedia articles. Just look at any airport article with scheduled service and you'll find links to airline articles as part of the "Airlines and destinations" section. Airlines serving Alaska has always been a weak point due to many without articles. Thankfully a number of these articles have been started recently. Also notable is that Alsek Air Service was selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation "to provide Essential Air Service (EAS) at Cape Yakataga and Icy Bay, Alaska, at an annual subsidy rate of $78,000" (see [28]). I see no valid reason for this article to be deleted. -- Zyxw (talk)
  • Comment: In response to the two prior comments referring to Essential Air Service as a "designation", note that all airlines in the EAS program receive a subsidy from the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 2007 those subsidies totaled $114 million. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't argue that the program itself isn't notable, but there are thousands of organizations in Alaska that receive some sort of government contract or government funding and I don't think receiving such funds automatically makes an organization notable, (see my above remark on the taxi company) and I certainly can't find any Wikipedia guideline or policy that would substantiate such a claim. This airline simply fails to meet the general notability guideline as there is no significant coverage of it anywhere. Are we going to give an article to everyone who gets food stamps because the food stamp program is notable? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We had a similar discussion a few weeks earlier: Alaska Seaplane Service, where I commented. So, I am curious if anyone would find it prudent to have a more overarching article that is clearly notable? It appears that we have general agreement that Alaskan air transportation is unique, and (perhaps?) notable. We also have a collection of articles (see above list compiled by AllStar86), which are contentiously notable. Would anyone be willing to research a concise history of Alaskan air transportation (perhaps starting here), discussing its development and impact upon the market. We could merge these mini-articles into the larger article that examines the subject within a broader context. Just an idea. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, this idea was mentioned over at FAC talk by Tony1, in context of "short articles" there; small cyclone articles at FA were the subject. He argued that instead of evaluating large amounts of small articles on cyclones, we focus effort on producing excellent, substantial content that analysed the subjects as part of a phenomenon. I think his argument translates here: perhaps these airlines would be best served within a larger framework. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This carrier doesn't have any data reported to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in Form 41, Schedule T100. I don't know if that's because they're too small, or because they aren't a scheduled air carrier and they don't have to report passenger traffic. They appear to be a really small piece of Alaska's transportation network. I'm leaning toward deleting this article because there's no indication of how much traffic it carries. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that several of the the above votes were WP:CANVASSed. [29] Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless all are welcome to participate in the discussion about what to do with these articles that I have initiated here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The so-called "canvassing" referred to above was actually a "friendly notice" I left on the talk pages of five users who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service (nominated after Beeblebrox added a speedy deletion request to the article), which resulted in six votes to keep and none to delete. If you read Wikipedia:Canvassing, it says: "under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions ... neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion ... for example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". My message met all the criteria and was worded similarly the suggested {{Please see}} template. Finally, note while I voted to keep this article, one of the people I notified is leaning toward deleting it while another suggested merging it into a larger article about airlines in Alaska. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It probably makes sense to regard all airlines as notable, in the same way that we regard all members of national or provincial/state parliaments as notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really guys, I'm not trying to be a dick or to filibuster this debate, but that is an "apples and oranges" type argument if I have ever heard one. Perhaps there is some way to cover all these tiny air taxis (I don't think "airline" is even the right word for a lot of these) in a parent article, but here are the same arguments as at the last article, based on feeling rather than fact. I just don't see how a guy with 2 small planes is more notable than a guy with 2 ten passenger vans or two skiffs providing essentially the same service in the same areas. I don't mean to shove my Alaska-ness in everyone's face but I can assure you these little outfits exist in the hundreds up here, and most Alaskans would probably laugh at the suggestion that they are all inherently notable. It's like saying the local Pizza Hut delivery driver or the mailman is inherently notable. Their overall line of work may be notable, but the individual local outfits really aren't. By the way, those "essential air service" contracts probably are for carrying the mail to small villages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 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 delete. BJTalk 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundelkhand ekikrit party[edit]

Bundelkhand ekikrit party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no references to review so I searched a few Indian newspaper archives for both "Bundelkhand and Pandey" and "Ekikrit" identified nothing related. I think it's fair to say that a political party that isn't mentioned AT ALL in these major newspapers is not notable, Bongomatic (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unable to navigate to the news article referenced by IP address. As mentioned in the AfD page for Sanjay Pandey, Merinews appears to be a "community-based" news service (i.e., user-supplied content is the norm). Bongomatic (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article seems to be down at the moment, see google cache. As per merinews, i did state that the posting was done by the same person that did the wikipedia article, but that the photo itself seems to indicate at least a degree of notability. --Soman (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason I can't see the cache. However, the picture doesn't show 3,000 people (nor would 3,000 people of whom some are carrying a banner for a particular cause demonstrate notability anyway) and the source is as mentioned and agreed suspect. Bongomatic (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, I searched many news papers and news portals of India and search results appeal in favour of Bundelkhand Ekikrit Party for its notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udditeli (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin, there appears to be several sock-puppets taking part in this AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Suspected sock puppets/Chitrabharadwaj Bongomatic (talk) 11:43, 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. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4CE[edit]

G4CE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing notability requirements by a long distance. Almost a speedy as contextless, but as far as I can tell it is a group within a department, within a faculty, at a college. Nuttah (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above comment except the "almost". Bongomatic (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and a speedy would ahve been warranted -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 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. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAFA Calculator v1.1[edit]

SAFA Calculator v1.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece of software to evaluate academic papers. Written by new user Dearsafa and rather short on independent references. I am rather dubious about its notability. (It is not for this AfD to comment on the usefulnes of the tool but I must say in passing that the idea seems as useful as Wikipedia new page patrollers judging articles on layout, wikification and other superficial matters - which of course they never do!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when a new method is postulated, it is not that easy to realize its notability immediately. I think it needs time and user's response as well. At the beginning I was thinking to talk about the mathematical model as if the question of notability did not arise this way. But I realize that it would be difficult for readers to understand the mathematical procedure. I have added a few new sections which will be helpful for readers to understand the approach along with the background of the SAFA. I have been adding new references slowly because I am also learning working with wiki. (Dearsafa 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

  • Delete. I cannot find any third party references to support notability of this software. All the third-party references in article are for tangential topics. VG ☎ 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I need to change the page title to SAFA (Standardized Acceptance Factor Average)instead of SAFA Calculator v1.1. It seems to me that you are trying to say that the references are not relevant to the software. I feel I need to rewrite it with the different title. Then the references would be valid. A new method may not be necessarily very closed to the existing literatures that is what I am experiencing right now. Dearsafa 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearsafa (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - no reliable sources abotu the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 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 delete. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College of Teacher Education[edit]

College of Teacher Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

College part of a university. No references provided to support notability outside the university using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:15, 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) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neenyo[edit]

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

Article about a Canadian music producer. A search on Factiva found nothing for this person, indicating that sourcing this article may be very difficult --Commander Keane (talk) 09:04, 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 keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad Unified School District[edit]

Carlsbad Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school district. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I don't see any guideline or policy that reflects the claimed broad consensus, but this is obviously a WP:SNOW keep. VG ☎ 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - school districts are notable as government bodies. Further, by consensus they provide a convenient merge home for nn elementary and middle schools. Plenty of sources are available - we delete when pages cannot be sourced; when, as here, sources are needed then we tag and expand. TerriersFan (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per broad consensus that school districts are inherently notable. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per policy, there is no such thing as a non-notable school district. A school district is a political unit that oversees the public education of all the children within its boundaries, something that would not be considered trivial. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPast consensus has been that school districts are notable.--Terrillja (talk) 19:44, 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. Additional available reviews in USA Today, Reference & Research Book News, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee City[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable autobiography. The article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, the book was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review, [31], so it may be notable enough, but it seems to make much more sense to have an article on the clearly notable artist first - we don't. Renaming this article to Joe Andoe and having a section on this autobiography seems the most sensible course.John Z (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reviewed by the NY Times establishing notability. The fact that we don't have an article on the artist simply means that we don't but should. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the New York Times isn't enough for you then this has also been reviewed by USA Today [32] and the San Francisco Chronicle [33], easily getting through WP:BK. Of course we should have an article on Joe Andoe too, but that's no reason to hijack this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 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). VG ☎ 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lake, Saskatchewan[edit]

Black Lake, Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sources have been added. VG ☎ 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real, verifiable, settlement. That is the kind of topic traditionally cover, and Wikipedia should be no more restrictive. It is also a good idea to take a quick look for sources if you find it insufficient; try [34], and [35]. From this, it would appear that Black Lake is a fairly significant Indian settlement, with a perfectly interesting history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an actual settlement; remember that (1) a claim of being a settlment is a claim of notability, and (2) settlements are virtually always considered to be notable prima facie. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd love to see more about Black Lake, but per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places there is broad consensus that verifiable places are inherently notable. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above.DCmacnut<> 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It clearly exists, nothing else matters Bodies of water, like most settlements, are considered inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use expansion. --Fremte (talk) 19:51, 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. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrabEmu[edit]

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

Article currently fails notability and verifiability requirements, in that it does not reference any third-party reliable sources. Searching has not brought any sources to light that would satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. Article has been tagged for notability concerns for over a month. Gazimoff 08:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's lots of download sites, and it can be verified to exist, but I can find not writeups about it in reliable soruces -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Game emulators are a dime a dozen, and few are truly notable. This one certainly does not seem to be. -- Atamachat 21:22, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Harrington[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Appears to be a recent PhD (the article does not give a date but since his undergrad degree is 2001, the PhD could not be earlier than 2004). GoogleScholar[36] gives citation hits of 22, 10, 4, with h-index of 3. Similar results in WebOfScience. No significant academic awards or honors listed. Created by User:Aeh345, so a possible WP:AUTO/WP:COI case. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:PROF, per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:PROF as shown by Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recent phd, one significant paper, and,from the article, now working for a PR consultant firm!. DGG (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NO claim of notability. Bongomatic (talk) 05:14, 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. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 15th Iron Maiden studio album[edit]

Untitled 15th Iron Maiden studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by creator. Unannounced future album with no title and no information provided in reliable sources. Article is entirely composed of uncited rumors. ~ mazca t | c 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's Hammertime again folks! Nerdluck34 (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTALHAMMER AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smash it with the crystal hammer! MuZemike (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the hammer. No title, no release date, band isn't even in the studio yet. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep let's see what happens in a month, i mean, give it a month--Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If more information appears in a month, the article can be recreated - hey, I'd probably create it myself, I love Iron Maiden. But the current article really doesn't contain any useful information at all. Even if their next album was officially announced tomorrow, I don't think any of the information in this article at the moment would actually be incorporated into an encyclopedic version, as it's all unsourced rumour. ~ mazca t | c 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources and is unverifiable original research. Edison (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: speculation; no title, no track list, no release date; and no reliable sources. Cliff smith talk 00:22, 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. and not likely to be one with a third relisting. TravellingCari 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Aeon English Qabala[edit]

New Aeon English Qabala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable independent of Hermetic Qabalah. Semi-procedural nom for an IP. There is a related AfD English Qabalah and I listed this one separately just because someone asked me nicely, though I don't personally consider this much different/ notable enough to have a separate article. Sticky Parkin 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:RS- all the books that even mention this are self-published using lulu.com [37]. I know a bit about the subject and three or more of the references given in the article, which are making some people think there might be sources for this NAEQ, are not about NAEQ but about English Qaballa in general- if anything it adds a tiny bit of notability to the other article. Crowley, The Equinox etc were talking about English Qabbalah, not this newer thing derived from it. They didn't always call what they did New Aeon English Qabala, I think they mainly would have just called it English Qaballa, though tangentially of course all three 'groups'- Aliester Crowley, and these two groups derived from his work, believe in the New Aeon. Sticky Parkin 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of sourcing and suspiciously like a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this system was originally developed by Jim Lees, but written about by Carol Smith and Jake Stratton-Kent. It was originally published in the seminal (in its field) The New Equinox: British Journal of Magick (later The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema, ISSN 0953-7015), which was a peer-reviewed journal with a triumvirate of editors. The original articles written by Carol Smith (who was not one of the journal's editors) were in Volumes 5 and 6 of the journal. The system was considered so important that it was recapped in Volume 7 by Jake Stratton-Kent (a significant figure in the UK occult scene and, yes, one of the editors of the journal, but not the author of the system he was writing about). It is my opinion that the following sources used for the article meet WP:RS, and the fact that the system is still written about 20 years later by Greenfield, del Campo, and Crow demonstrates its continuing notability, even if they are Lulu.com publications:
  • Smith, Carol. "The Key to the English Qaballa" in The New Equinox / British Journal of Magick (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. 5.
  • Stratton-Kent, Jake (March 1988). "The English Qaballa" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 1, pp. 17-25.
  • Stratton-Kent, Jake (May 1988). "What is a Qabalah?" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 2, pp. 59-61.

comment to be fair, you can't call this equinox a peer-reviewed journal as it was written by the people themselves- it would be like me and a mate and someone we share an interest with all writing a few essays, putting them together and calling it a peer reviewed journal. I would like to direct people again to the article English Qabalah to take another look- it has been much improved and includes this theory and all the other theories on the subject, so is much more WP:NPOV and encyclopedic, whereas this is just an article about one groups' theories on the subject. As such, this one is superfluous, and it does not have sufficient independent notability from the English Qabalah to warrant another article. Sticky Parkin 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not entirely fair, as they did not write all the articles. For example, the first run of the EQ material was written by Carol Smith, an independent contributor not on the staff, and I understand that prior to 1979, when the title was The New Equinox, the journal was edited by Ray Sherwin. So your criticism does not apply to the initial presentation. With respect to Vol. VII, JSK was summarizing previously published material, not presenting his own, and presumably the other two editors had to approve its inclusion. On the basis of your argument, we would have to delete the article on Aleister Crowley's The Equinox, as he was both the editor and wrote most of the material! In fact, the argument would be even better in that case. Bob (QaBob) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if they wrote none of the articles themselves, this would still not be a peer reviewed journal. The "peer" in peer review has a particular meaning, and requires more than editorial acceptance.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 8 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) 10:17, 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, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe in deleting material that provides information to people like myself
The arguments to delete above are specious.
What does it matter that all the books listed are self-published or from one publisher
Everyone has agendas, including the individuals whom is wishing to delete this material.
I came to this material through Google and it has had value for me.
That alone is enough to keep the article.
I have not read these books mentioned, but likely there is material the seekers to delete this page do not want some of us to have access too.
The material in the books may or may not be valid, that is the situation will ALL books.
All books are written with an agenda
Self publishing is no criteria for not allowing access, or information about access to such books, to others.
Material should be deleted only if it is repetitious, on many other pages, or just does not make any sense in the English language or language it is written in.
Any deletion beyond that is pure censorship, nothing more, one individual deciding that other individuals should not have access and information to read the material, for some reason the delete advocate 'believes' is valid.
This material should be kept if for no other reason than that it is not found on many other html pages, perhaps any other html pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.71.159 (talk • contribs) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep borderline notable, adequately documented, and distinct from the related topics. Needs considerable cutting. some of the absurd keep arguments above are not by themselves reasons to delete. DGG (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this poorly put together piece is a violation of WP:NEO; WP:NN; WP:COI (The former WP:VANITY.) This type of thing needs more time to be taken seriously and not every cult or study group that springs up is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I completely agree with IZAK's reasoning above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to try to claim notability as the English Qabala. This is not backed by the sources though, which don't show notability enough for this group to have it's own article. Maybe a subsection in a more general (and less COI-ish) article, but this one should be deleted. Creating a redirect to the not-deleted English Qabala might be good.Yobmod (talk) 10:11, 8 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. BJTalk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrach zu Thannhausen[edit]

Harrach zu Thannhausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

should be merged with German Mediatisation and then deleted. Anshuk (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable members of mediatised Germany lordship. There's quite possibly an article to be written about the Harrach family, who have included some notable politicians, but this isn't it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of German peerage. Bongomatic (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. German noble of no particular encyclopedic value. Choess (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 SPEEDILY DELETED as a blatant advertisement. No prejudice against a proper article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade: GRevolution (video game)[edit]

Beyblade: GRevolution (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

doesn't seem to be a notable video game Anshuk (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per WP:JNN. Not a valid reason for deletion. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Weak claim of non-notability from nom, third party reviews do indeed exist, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, since it's a real game released by a major company. Article definitely needs to be tagged for improvement. Ancemy (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete — as far as the nom is concerned, I would agree with keeping per the sources present. However, the entire article is written in a spammish tone (akin to G11) to the point where a complete rewrite would need to be in order. Hence, I also see reason to delete but with no prejudice to recreation provided it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic and not in an advertisement tone. MuZemike (talk) 03:32, 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 Short Stack. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmy A Go Go[edit]

Shimmy A Go Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A song released just last week from an unreleased, unnamed upcoming album for a band at AFD is not going to be notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Pn57 added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short stack that "They get played every day by a chain of stations in Australia (I don't know the parent company but in my city, Hobart, it's SeaFM and I think there is SeaFM in other places too). They also get played in "The Hit List" countdown on these stations." so that's a possibility. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the above comment by Pn57 is true. This song has been getting a lot of airplay on major radio stations all around Australia. It even sold out at JB-HIFI. --Candy-Panda (talk) 10:20, 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. BJTalk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training and development[edit]

Training and development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dictdef that's pretty much just a parking place for spam links Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori-Based Dementia Programming[edit]

Montessori-Based Dementia Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Therapy program developed by nn doctor and research institute (who, based on their website, appear to exist to sell training and products related to this program). Not affliated with any Montessori organisation. One self-sourced external link, two non-working external links. Article started as obvious cut-and-paste copyvio and is maintained and promulgated by a series of single purpose accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 23 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) 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability provided. The article does not sound neutral, suggesting that someone with connected with the subject created the article (this is just a suggestion, I cannot back that up, other than by giving my interpretation of the text). Nevertheless, this article does not cite reliable or verifiable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article makes claims of notability in respect of various prizes. They are readily verified using Google. The references are pitifully inadequate and I question the validity of the technique, but there is in fact sufficient coverage (in AARP write-ups, etc.). Bongomatic (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear to me that these are notable awards, nor do the article's references link to them. The claim of notability is not verified. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 3 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, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this and this on Google Scholar. There are over 300 articles in the scientific literature, although this exact title seems to be a trademarked version of the method (which also has scientific publications). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that most, if not all, of the papers that turn up in the first search were authored by doctors from the aforementioned institute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does appear notable enough. It is a well published method by the original finders/authors and the term is used in articles by other authors. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as PMID 10750318 on the subject has been cited 29 times, which is quite a high impact. citing articles Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 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 (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Amendment 50 (2008)[edit]

Colorado Amendment 50 (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. This is an amendment has not even passed. VG ☎ 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sources to establish notabilty found (please add them to the article). VG ☎ 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comparing this to the ERA on the basis that neither were passed into law is...inaccurate. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It directly rebuts one of the excuses for deletion "This is an amendment has not even passed" and is...accurate. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. It is literally accurate to say that neither the ERA nor this were passed into law. It is, however, not appropriate to equate the two as numerous books and countless articles have been written about the ERA. I agree that "not passed into law" is not a deletion criteria, but the claim that third party sources needs to exist still stands. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At no time did I claim that Colorado Amendment 50 (2008) and the ERA are equivalent. All I was going for is literal accuracy in addressing an excuse for deletion that the amendment had not passed. I have done so successfully. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly because "was never passed into law" isn't a reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started adding reliable and verifiable sources, and there should be more down the road as the November election approaches. The notability standard appears to be satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone explain to be why the official 2008 State Ballot Information Booklet is not a reliable source? I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is my first article and I was planning on writing more in the future on the other initiatives on the ballot this year. Just trying to learn how things are done here on Wikipedia! Venom087 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It's not sufficient for something to be verifiable to be added to Wikipedia. It must also be notable (in narrower sense than the general English usage of the term). Searching for "Colorado Amendment 50" on Google I found only blogs and youtube videos. These are not sufficient to establish the notability of the topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. You need to provide some reliable, third-party sources for that. It's perfectly okay however to document the details of the amendment from its primary source (i.e. the text of the proposal). Hope this helps. VG ☎ 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standards in that it has received "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That you would find few references to "Colorado Amendment 50" is probably due to the fact that our article title is not what the amendment is called. Searching for "Colorado" and "Amendment 50" will get you more results to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see a couple of local newspaper stories in the search you've indicated. Nothing that falls outside Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. VG ☎
        • The 'Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post are hardly what one would call "local newspapers" -- the two papers were ranked 31 and 32 by circulation in 2006 -- nor would a lower placement disqualify these as reliable sources. As much as Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is abused, it is most often pushed as an excuse for deletion for a one-time event or incident, which would be of even less relevance than usual here. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monoglove[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 05:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to establish notability, belongs in a bondage dictionary. WJBscribe (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with similar arguments to other related articles. Admittedly, the use of this is much more specialised than bondage hoods. But they are widely discussed, though in informal sources, and sufficient information is available to fit in an article. The article seems to indicate that the closest merge is "armbinder"but that has already been redirected but I do not think really merged in--perhaps the other direction is preferable as a more generic term. -- they seems to be rather distinctive objects. I do not think it right to have a combination article on bondage devices, as that might be very conducive to gradually reducing the amount of material. DGG (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article says someone wore one of these in a Madonna video. Last time I looked Madonna was popular. If people are wearing these in a popular artist's videos then it merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources are given to show this piece of gear is particularly notable even in context. Is it a famously popular tool? Have bondage experts written about it? Does it feature widely in "Beginner's guides to BDSM books? A definition in an informal dictionary shows it exists, but not that is notable enough to need an encylopedia article.Yobmod (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the article can be improved, the item's existence is not in dispute. Therefore there is no reason to delete. Ngchen (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage and discussion in independent WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 8 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 by Firefoxman (G3 - Blatant vandalism) Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockaway beach beastie[edit]

Rockaway beach beastie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Smells like a hoax, no sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Fails the notability criteria - no coverage in reliable secondary sources (no coverage anywhere at all in fact). A mysterious creature claimed to have been heard by a total of two people does not qualify for urban myth status, and is not a sufficient assertion of notability for an article. Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a vandalism/test article. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete & salt This appears to be a recreation of a similarly named article (Rockaway Beach Beastie) that was already SD'ed earlier today. I'll also venture a guess that it's a flat out hoax or (unfunny) joke. The user will probably be blocked soon enough for deleting the AfD template anyway. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete and total trash. JuJube (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G3, salted, and creator blocked for a week for vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USA National Grape Catching Competition Finalists[edit]

The USA National Grape Catching Competition Finalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA National Grape Catching Competition Deadly∀ssassin 04:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete yet another hoax. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as established hoax. Didn't need to go to AFD, could have been PROD'd or even outright deleted by an admin. 23skidoo (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax so tagged. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as a repost. pardon me but I changed the tag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per everyone. Also block user. JuJube (talk) 07:03, 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.

Giordano's Pizza[edit]

The result was keep (non-admin closure) WP:SNOW, no objection posted -Marcusmax (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Giordano's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete for db-spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM. No contest. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Giordano's is almost synonymous with 'Chicago Deep-Dish Pizza'. There are a number of third party references that mention/discuss the Piazza Restaurant, and offeer a brief summary of the chain. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable restaurant chain per WP:CORP. I have added some more references to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. Notability is provided in the initial sentence (one of the creators of the stuffed pizza).Shsilver (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this (and 3 other pizza places) page within the scope of Wiki Chicago and Wiki Food. Very relavent. They are one of the places that make Chicago Style pizza famous. It can't be an ad, I also created Rosati's Pizza and Aurelio's Pizza. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 16:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I freaking LOVE pizza Asserts notability with multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPer refs, one of the major Chicago pizza sellers, and inventor of a well known style of pizza, with substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources.(Just look at that delicious artery-clogging cheese and grease oozing out onto the piece of cardboard!) Google news archive shows substantial coverage in the New York Times [38] , and the St. Petersburg Times (Fla) [39], among others. Edison (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest closing per WP:SNOW. -Marcusmax (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable business.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel[edit]

Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Channel Tunnel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Surely this topic is notable? In fact, there's a whole book about it: Channel Tunnel Visions, 1850-1945: Dreams and Nightmares by Keith M. Wilson, ISBN 1852851325. The history section of Channel Tunnel is about the history of the current tunnel project. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very short article that could not be included in Channel Tunnel.--Grahame (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - This is definitely a notable topic in Anglo-French relations and engineering history. The book Richard Pinch mentions is a good source, though not, I think, the only one. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without a doubt a notable topic (see Massie's Dreadnought, which speaks of several books, plays, etc. on this topic from around the turn of the 20th century), but I'm not sure how well the article reflects this now. I myself can't add anything to the article, as I have no sources; even my copy of Dreadnought is hundreds of miles away from me at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be a reasonable article topic, especially if it was forked from the main article due to size or readibility considerations. I'm not sure that's what we have at the moment, though. I'm inclined to Keep, but let me look at this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No point unless it is expanded. If its going to remain as short as this, there is no reason at all to make a separate article. DGG (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At 61KB, the Channel Tunnel article would probably benefit from a spin-off, with Channel Tunnel#History being the foundation for an article, and "early conceptions" becoming a part of the spin-off. Hard to believe that it's been open now from almost fifteen years. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 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.

Cozat Records[edit]

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

The result was ;speedily deleted by me as vandalism-- introducing false information. As noted in nom statement, there are no G-hits supporting the claim of notability. If assertion of notability were true, there would be. Dlohcierekim 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy declined, but I get exactly 7 Google hits for "Cozat Records" VG ☎ 03:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flood (church)[edit]

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

Simply an average, nonnotable church; all sources are directly affiliated with the church, except a single seminary publication, and that's not enough to confer notability. Average churches aren't notable unless proven otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laudable as their activities are, they do not have any special notability. Sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like most churches, non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge -- It is often worth merging articles such as this (but much summarised) into the article on the place, in this case San Diego, or perhpas the district of it where the church is located. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did this, for NPOV reasons we'd also have to list every other church and every non-Christian religious group in the city of San Diego; the list would be way too long, and it would become a directory anyway. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 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). VG ☎ 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wescorp Energy Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable local company with references only from local newspapers. VG ☎ 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Notability established from reliable sources. VG ☎ 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after Eastmain's model rewrite. It looked like the business had some kind of interesting technology; telling us what it does makes it seem significant rather than spammy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then rewrite from scratch, seems somewhat notable, but way too promotional.--Boffob (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless this gets a rewrite, this is strictly an advertisement and deserves erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Keep It got a rewrite, and a damn good one. Keep it! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of references. Style issues are not a reason for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per amazing work done by User:Eastmain and User:Powzapbiff. I struck my delete above and now support inclusion in Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 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. BJTalk 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barbarich[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:55, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touch & Go (Joe Budden song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Touch & Go (Joe Budden song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:50, 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) 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You (Schiller song)[edit]

You (Schiller song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our editing policy, which makes it clear verifiable information should be retained in some form, whether through rewriting or merging. Hiding T 12:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Song didn't chart and doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Source has been added. We don't delete useful info if we can verify it. Merge it and redirect it per policy. Hiding T 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Merge it where? It is not on the tracklist of the linked album. We delete verified information all the time, if it is not notable. Where does policy say anything that is verified cannot be deleted? I could make an article on myself and provide sources show i exist, does that mean i merit an article on wikipedia? Non-charting singles are almost always not notable (and the sources give conflicting info anyway, seeing a source there is not enough, you have to check what irt really says.)Yobmod (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge it to Schiller (band). From your comments you seem to be unfamiliar with our editing policy, which surprises me a little, so I must be misunderstanding you, or you me. You also seem to be misunderstanding why we delete things. Hiding T 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like irrelevancy for an encyclopedia? Irrelevancy is one of the exceptions listed in WP:EP. VG ☎ 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are asserting the information contained within this article is irrelevant to any article; that there is no article to which this material is relevant and could therefore be merged to? Hiding T 08:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable single. Note, according to the source given, it will not be released until 31st Oktober. So recreation if it charted when really released.Yobmod (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:30, 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 English public schools in Ottawa. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katimavik Elementary School[edit]

Katimavik Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are other other articals about elemntary schools in ottawa, which to me seems that means this one should have the right to exist to. 2. I don't have the time or know-how to find more sources for this aritcal, but I'm sure they exist and others can and know where to find them. 3. Wikipedia's goal is "to create a database of all human knowledge." If you let this artical exist others will come along and help to expand it. Ever notice that the lable for a stub artical says "Please help by expanding this artical," not "please help by deleting this artical"? 4.Take these articals for example: Hawthorne Public School, Castlefrank Elementary School, Pinecrest Public School.

Please reconsider deleting this artical.--Kanata Kid (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline that Wikipedia editors have agreed upon. Unless a primary school article can establish notability with reliable sources, it is frequently merged/redirected to its school district or locality. I would also recommend saving a copy of the article in case of deletion: either to your userspace or to your computer with Microsoft Word or another text-editing document. --Jh12 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable elementry school. I don't support a redirect because the school district doesn't do any better as an article for the school. Tavix (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the discussion here would support keeping this article.--Kanata Kid (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of that discussion merely asked that the schools be considered on an individual basis, including "bringing any of these articles back to AFD individually." Again, I believe the best way to survive an Afd for Katimavik Elementary School is to find notable recognition/coverage. Barring that, the article can always be re-created if/when such sources are found. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 13:20, 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 delete. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Weisher[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD reasoning was that this person does not seem notable, it is an obvious autobiography, and there are no sources related to this person. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 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. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free texture[edit]

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

Basically a WP:DICTDEF. No substantive content beyond that. Free licenses are covered elsewhere. VG ☎ 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE per nom as fails even WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no substantive content other than a dicdef, seems like a WP:COATRACK to hang the external links off. -- The Anome (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure what this is, but it isn't an article. Its more like an idea, but not a good one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:29, 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 - page is now a redirect.ukexpat (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Cutler (sailor)[edit]

John Cutler (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Created this page by mistake as the "John Cutler (yachstman)" article didn't show on the disambiguation "John Cutler" search Rudolph89 (talk) 02:00, 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. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Nicole Harrington[edit]

Erin Nicole Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have watched this article since its creation in hopes that it would be expanded, and the subject's notability asserted but ... it appears to be a vanity entry most likely created by the subject herself. Her acceptance into a prestigious writing program, though referenced, isn't enough to warrant an article. — TAnthonyTalk 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing as of yet to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 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) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension cuffs[edit]

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

No references and tagged as such without improvement for a year. This article belongs in a bondage dictionary or a how-to guide and Wikipedia is neither. WJBscribe (talk) 01:58, 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.

Since I can't figure out where else to state this...I am not a computer geek and usually have better things to do with my universe. Why is WIKIPEDIA DELETING topics such as this one that were being expanded upon in an effort to make them more encyclopedic? I added about 4 paragraphs in October, because this topic needed to be discussed separately from just Bondage cuffs, so that anyone querying wikipedia could learn about the different types that existed and their purpose. I only have a small amount of time to work on this occasionally and would have liked if giving the opportunity to try adding some people and time references to what I had added, but the article is all gone. There was some indication in the above discussion that there was going to be a merge with another article, but I saw no additional information there. And I have seen several other articles that just basically disappeared. Are you an inclusive encyclopedia or not, if not then you are becoming useless as a reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.55.9 (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. All delete !votes were placed before a Heymann job on the article, and I can't possibly see any reason to call for a delete now. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Virginia Land Trust[edit]

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

This article is written much like an advertisement and appears to be being used by single-purpose accounts as a soapbox to promote the land trust. There is no obvious indication of why this organization is notable, as many of the sources appear to be unreliable, passing mentions, or press releases from the trust. This article has been deleted twice under WP:A7 and WP:G11, and was partially restored for an attempt to clean the article up, but the effect of this cleanup appears to be insufficient. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability beyond local newspapers. VG ☎ 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article smacks or WP:ADVERT. No notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ADVERT X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability and, for the most part, an advert. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just cleaned up the article, cut out the spam, polished away the advert edges, and (I think) made it encyclopedic. Passes WP:RS. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now has several references, and there is nothing wrong with local newspapers and television and radio stations as references. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work done by User:Ecoleetage in making the article worthy of inclusion in Wiki. Great job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal Offered The work done by Ecoleetage meets Heymann enough for me. I'm not going to close this yet, since there are still some outstanding delete !votes, but the work done demonstrates to me that there are editors willing to work on this other than the SPA's that have been previously using it as a soapbox. Well done! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:43, 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 Fatality per WP:SNOW. Gazimoff 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat 9[edit]

Mortal Kombat 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 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. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Episcopal Church, Royal Oak[edit]

St. John's Episcopal Church, Royal Oak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable church that does nothing more notable then the billions of other churches in the world. The church is not found in any major secondary source as well. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I would have to disagree with your statement there. Historic churches (including those on the NLHP list) and certain Megachurchs that are repeatedly in secondary sources should have articles on Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He said inherently notable, a statement with which most of us should be in agreement. You've described a couple of sorts of churches that obviously meet WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 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 keep. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of war[edit]

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

This article has existed for four years largely in its present form without any references. A references tag was placed on it in April 2007, but still it has none. A nice essay perhaps, but unverified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If being unreferenced is not a good reason for delete, then why do we bother with references? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons: one is that such a policy was explicitly rejected repeatedly by the community. The other, & the reason for that, is that articles grow, and we need to both attract a comprehensive range of articles and a wide range of contributors. Some of the classic academic topics have few workers here. Unless we want to devote WP mainly to the easily referenceable sports and politics and music, we need to let it develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) Oct 4, 2008
Policy? How about the following policy tag?
As I said above, it's a nice essay. However, without references/cites it was simply an opinion piece, more suitable for a blog than an encyclopedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it has references and cites, will you reconsider your position? Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I wasn't anti the content, I was anti an article existing for four years without references, and more than a year without references after someone tagged it asking for references. Now that it has them it obviously will be kept, so mission accomplished. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually an intesting essay. However it discusses the "rules of war" without telling us where these rules come from, which leaves the reader dissatisfied. I think there must be other articles on WP dealing with these topics. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A very interesting article that has had sources added describing ruses of war from the US Civil War and both World Wars, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources. Issues of the definitions of the rules of war should best be addressed by reference to that article and not duplicated here. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not because it is interesting or useful (which are defacto NON reasons to ever keep an article...hmm.) but because the topic itself is notable. It obviously needs work, but Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines, and that an article hasn't been edited in $x days/months/years shouldn't be used as a reason to delete an article. Tag as needed, but no fatal flaws and it is a notable topic, so you gotta keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An essay, as described above. But likely notable and no particular reason to delete (such as WP:COPYVIO or others). Vishnava talk 00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major part of rules of war in the international law sense. Essentially any book on the overall subject is a general reference. This is a good place to collect the information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable concept with several sourced examples in the article. Edward321 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pharmboy et al. -- Banjeboi 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User: Vishnava Cristian Cappiello (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete wow so many keep votes on such a blatant essay? Wikipedia is NO PLACE for original research. The topic is hardly worthy of an article, as there wouldn't be much in it beyond a dictionary definition. Themfromspace (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't "original research". I'm going to WP:AGF and assume this is a notable, if possibly dated, concept in international law, and that the article is simply missing some contextual information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to see more context and history like the French version [43] but that's worth a flag, not a delete to me. Pohick2 (talk) 00:12, 8 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. BJTalk 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Village[edit]

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

Claims to be the first shopping mall in Idaho, but I'm finding no substantial sources., just about a Sonic in the parking lot. Unexpanded in over two years. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:50, 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 A7 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southdown hardware[edit]

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

This is an unnotable small business (local notability doesn't count) that fails WP:CORP. The page has been orphaned for 3 years. Tavix (talk) 00:47, 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. maybe a case of WP:NOTNOW. Clearly not currently sourced to meet inclusion criteria Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Weaver (actor)[edit]

George Weaver (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not explain notability of actor, page appears to have been created by the young actor himself. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nomination. There's no sources. A quick look on google doesn't give me hope that the article could be built up to something at this point. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:44, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this actor does have more than one credited appearance and is on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.227.41 (talk) 20:01, 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 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Marquis[edit]

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

Declined G11, but nonetheless appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - with the addition of some sources, subject could well be found to be notable. For example, does he hold a position with the National DA Assoc? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 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) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Ditlefsen[edit]

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

Unnotable football referee per WP:1E as the article only talks about one event in which he was "notable" for, even though I would say he was just doing his job in that game. There are also some serious POV issues in the article (although not a reason for deletion). Tavix (talk) 00:24, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judging by this article, the only thing he's famous for is having one crap game - this seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:07, 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Strong Worthington[edit]

Elizabeth Strong Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cant find any references to verify the birth and death date, nor to indicate she died at age 20. I have created s:Author:Elizabeth Strong Worthington on Wikisource to record that she was the author of these two works. It is possible she is also author of a few more, but I cant see any notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep author of multiple books (per Amazon) that appear notable; some still in print [44]. JJL (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those dates are probably wrong; see [45], which is presumably about the same person. It does seem like she was fairly well-known in her day, just by browsing through these Google Books results: [46], [47]. I'll try to dig up some more details on her, since her books have such interesting titles. :) Zagalejo^^^ 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, I'm not having much luck. Can anyone access that LA Times article? Zagalejo^^^ 17:02, 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) 00:35, 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. BJTalk 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hood[edit]

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

No sourcing, and I have doubts about the notability of this. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. not seeing any evidence of non-trivial coverage by sources. --Rividian (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unreferenced bondage-cruft. WJBscribe (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking in the WP:RS department. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHere's another approach to sourcing: GB has a number of instances in fiction, including Hunt, David. The Magician's Tale. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1997. p59. 206, 214; and from a unquestionably famous author: Rushdie, Salman. The Ground Beneath Her Feet: A Novel. New York: Picador USA/Henry Holt and Co, 2000. p.376 -- and an actual academic work about that very point in that very novel, Gonzalez, Madelena. Fiction After the Fatwa: Salman Rushdie and the Charm of Catastrophe. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005.ISBN 9789042019621. p.149+ Interesting when people claim no RSs when they haven't looked (of course, before one could say that one would need to look through the tens of thousands of web results to see if a few met our standards. If you're wondering, I havent; that's why I though of GB.) Why claim that something any adult experienced with the web knows perfectly well is notable is not notable? Maintaining NOT CENSORED takes a little work in sourcing. DGG (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh the Rushdie book mentions "bondage hood" exactly once, in a passage where it's dropping the names of many sex-related items. The "academic work about that very point" merely quotes part of the passage and doesn't seem to even mention bondage hoods itself. These do not rise above trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not censored, but you seem to want to introduce the exact opposite bias... including any topic whatsoever if it's about sex. I'll put it this way, exactly what kind of article could we write using the sources (which is how we're supposed to write articles)? "Bondage hood is something mentioned by Salmon Rushdie on page 376 of a book. The passage was quoted in a book by Gonzalez. It was also mentioned in a book by Hunt". A properly sourced article wouldn't be an article at all. --Rividian (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article. Deleters must live in a bondage subculture if they find this all so commonplace and trivial. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did anyone say they found this commonplace? No deleters did. "interesting" is a classic invalid reason to keep an article... the closing admin should take that into account. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources with substantial coverage have been cited, despite some passing references pointed out above. Edison (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs sources, but that can be fixed. Common items used in less common sexual practices would seem to be notable. It may take greater effort to find sources, as the New York Times doesn't write about them often enough, but that doesn't mean sources (including print) can't be found. It is a real item, common enough to be notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources with non-trivial coverage exist, then they can be found. There might be wonderful sources about my cat, but I'm not going to create an article on the hope that they do. I'd actually have to see them first. Same with this article... we find sources first, per WP:V, rather than fill the article with content then hope some source somewhere backs it up. --Rividian (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went back to GBooks, this time for the non fiction.
  1. SM 101: A Realistic Introduction By Jay Wiseman Published by Greenery Press, 1997 ISBN 0963976389, 9780963976383
  2. Wild Side Sex: The Book of Kink : Educational, Sensual, and Entertaining Essays. Midori, Linda Santiman, and Steve Diet Goedde. W Los Angeles, CA: Daedalus, 2005.

I think there are probably about 50 more books in English dealing with S&M, and every one of them will discuss this. GB is very incomplete in this genre. It's also very incomplete for fiction, though there are about 8 or 10 more on the page. Probably many more using variants of the term. This is part of the general culture and used freely as such; it's part of the generally accepted defining costume for characters in certain situations. some more academic works on the fiction

  1. Fantasies of Fetishism: From Decadence to the Post-human By Amanda Fernbach Published by Edinburgh University Press, 2002 ISBN 0748616160, 9780748616169
  2. Sexual alienation in the cinema By Raymond Durgnat Published by Studio Vista, 1972 DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have sources for claims like "This is part of the general culture and used freely as such; it's part of the generally accepted defining costume for characters in certain situations"? You have provided sources and I'll take your word that they mention this term, but more than casual mentions are needed for an article. People have made claims about how important this thing is, but what is the source? --Rividian (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Bondage hoods have made it from bondage subculture to (some) mainstream literature, movies, and TV. The popular TV show C.S.I., for instance, has had multiple episodes that revolved around bondage hoods. Some correspondents here suggest the references found so far are all "trivial". I suggest a phenomenon can merit coverage in a comprehensive, encyclopedic project, like the wikipedia, even if the mention in the current references seems "trivial". What seems "trivial" or "obvious" is culture specific, and can be tied to the observer's age, religion, education.
I agree completely with DGG, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is pertinent here. SM may be an interest that is not universally shared, or even widely shared. But it is not an illegal activity. A few minutes with google scholar brings us references like this:
The players who talk about the spiritual dimensions of SM seem to be those who are involved in sensory deprivations, such as immobilization bondage with a blindfold or hood...
Or here:
Submission and bondage are immediately connected in many people's minds, and many of the devices used in bondage are also powerful signifiers of submissive status--the collar, the leash, the hood, wrist cuffs worn in lieu of bracelets. The goal during a scene of this type is to create a state of surrender and allow the bottom to go under and yield to your authority...
Or here:
A hurt hand or a fainting spell can ruin an otherwise amazing evening. Knowing which handcuffs to buy or checking a hood before you lace it onto someone's head is part of being a responsible, sexually active adult. It's no different than deciding what method of birth control you're going to use or practicing safe sex...
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:38, 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 merge to Strappado. BJTalk 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strappado bondage[edit]

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

No sourcing, and I have doubts about the notability of this. rootology (C)(T) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Finding definitions for it isn't hard, [48] and surprisingly, the article is very tastefully done, informative, and appears to pass policy to boot. There are enough sources that I saw just in a quick googling that I am pretty sure the citations can be increased. Keep in mind, the term started as a form of torture, and the BSDM came later. As a form of torture, there are examples and references available, and the article does cover both aspects quite well. I tagged it for inline citations, but after some research, it seems clear it should be kept. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest this topic is notable, only reference is to a bondage dictionary and google hits are also for dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a how-to guide. WJBscribe (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WJBscribe said it best (and first) -- this belongs in a dictionary. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge - per WJB's rationale; it's more of a dicdef - Alison ❤ 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (interesting to note who one of the main contributors was)[reply]
  • Merge into Strappado. This is essentially the same torture, but with a sexual intent. So a subsection there seems most appropriate. VG ☎ 03:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless more sources can be found to justify making this it's own article. There are two references listed currently - not enough, in my opinion. Ancemy (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Strappado, since it is the same torture done for someone sexual jollies rather than for interrogation purposes or for general cruelty. Edison (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge perhaps with some other forms of bondage--possibly a general article on arm bondage which would cover several of todays articles-- but probably not to the torture device. For one thing, the literature on the subject is distinct. Some of the above language indicates a somewhat dismissive attitude which is not really in keeping with NPOV, which remains a necessity even on these subjects. I can think of clever things to say here myself, but this isn't the place. DGG (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you perceive a dismissivie attitude, consider that what is being dismissed is an article lacking reliable sources and full of original research, and that what is being dismissed is someone's eccentric personal fantasies of inflicting a particular torture on victims for his own sexual gratification. I have heard of people who had a sexual fixation about rubber bathing caps, but that individual's obsession does not justify a stand-alone encyclopedia article any more than this one does. Literally anything or any image or any practice, real or imaginary, may be the fetish which floats someone's boat, but that is not an alternative to WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Rangers[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The Dark Rangers haven't achieved enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Mythdon (talk) 02:07, 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, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:29, 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. BJTalk 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus tie[edit]

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

Non-notable bondage term, tagged as being without references since June 2007. No doubt this exists but it doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod, however there doesn't appear to me to be content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Lacks sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. A google search does not look promising (results about cars and neckwear). Edison (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge' Although there is probably material available to build a separate article, it would be more practical to consolidate the articles on the various specific positions. If someone does want to look for printed material, I suggest an appropriate bookstore. . DGG (talk) 16:36, 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, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:27, 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, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Porncruft, not notable. rootology (C)(T) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with nominator -- this doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V.Edison (talk) 22:52, 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 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OE 36[edit]

OE 36 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yachts aren't usually notable. This one has some references but i'm finding it hard to make up my mind. Considered speedy delete but decided against. Operating (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to drop a message asking for notability on the subject, Operating. We wound up conflicting, so obviously we're operating on the same wavelength. The linked sites are foreign-language, making them of only limited use. --HubHikari (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have decided i could have asked for speedy delete. The manufacturer of this boat doesn't have an article on WP. This begs the question why the OE 36 should be here? And why not the OE 32 or OE 53 or any other in the range? Operating (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to your standards, please define which level of "notability" would be acceptable. Is the problem here that this is a Swedish yacht, rather than an English one? If so, please go ahead and delete the article straight away. Hakkasberra (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality of the yacht isn't really the problem. It's a well-written article; the only problem is because of the foreign-language aspect, I don't know if anyone who doesn't know Swedish can tell what it is that's important about this particular yacht that separates it from the zillion others that are floating around out there. As much as I'd like Wikipedia to be able to hold data on just about everything, it is bandwidth- and server-intensive, so notability guidelines do have to be set up and, unfortunately, enforced. Please refer to the enWiki notability guidelines for more information. --HubHikari (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense. I fully realise the issue here. As the OE 36 nevertheless is quite popular abroad, especially in Denmark and Germany, and as several OE 36 yachts currently are circumnavigating the globe, I took the opportunity to replace references with the English version of the OE Yacht Club web site instead, http://www.oeyc.org/index_e.html. As you did not notice this option, I suppose no-one else would have. Thanks for pointing this out.Hakkasberra (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the notability of the Olle Enderlein yachts in an international perspective, I suggest checking with Google: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=olle+enderlein I end up with only 2 out of the first 30 hits being Swedish, the rest from Spain, Holland, New Zeeland, France, United Kingdom,... Hakkasberra (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yachts aren't usually individually notable. But this is the name of a class of boat, produced for many years. The sources are sufficient for that, though it would probably be possible to find more. The reason for notability guidelines, btw, is not either server space or bandwidth. The cost of storage for an article is infinitesimal. The cost of bandwidth depends on use of the encyclopedia. As it is, this discussion is probably using up more of both than the article--and the article will use the same space on the server ever if deleted. We want use, and we want content. The reason for notability rules is to make it clear that its an encyclopedia, not an internet directory, etc etc. An individual article on every one of the 150 of the class that has ever been built would be a directory. that's not this article. DGG (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was unaware going into this that OE 36 referenced a class of yachts. Thank you for the edification, good sir. Keep. --HubHikari (talk) 11:23, 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) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable craft supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, DGG and Alansohn. I took the opportunity to rewrite the text slightly, to ensure that the point comes through that this is a class of yachts. Also added some clarifying points in the references on the LYS handicap rating, which is similar to the one as used in golf. Operating, as you started all this, would you please be so kind to make up your mind and share your thoughts with us. Hakkasberra (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging from his talk page, it seems that Operating, who started all this mess with his deletion/speedy deletion of the OE 36 article, on the 1st of October was blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Hakkasberra (talk) 08:17, 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. While a headcount leans towards deleting, I am conscious of Novicka's improvements. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Parental Controls[edit]

Sentry Parental Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was one of a series of spamvertisements masquerading as articles created by Sentryparentalcontrols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hearsomeinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock report)). Restored following a report to Wikimedia UK but no evidence this was office action or anything else that would trump consensus(see the article talk page). I'll notify User:AlisonW of this discussion. No evidence it's notable, and being software produced by a company that has something to do with Drew Bledsoe doesn't give it notability. Thoughts? TravellingCari 20:48, 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, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one source passes wp:rs, article is mainly spam. If it was better sourced, that could be fixed, but it isn't, so bye bye. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, not really notable on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Unnotable parental control software which establishes its notability only buy paying some host on the British version of The View money to promote it. Clear WP:COI. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ADVERT and non-notable and set redirect to Content-control software. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am confused about all the redirects. This isn't a common term, so redirect is not required. If it is so common that a redirect was needed, then we would need to rethink the deleted. I just can't agree with a redirect. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point. A redirect it not needed. Struck that part of my posistion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you do have a point there, I think it's sometimes good to use a redirect to help stave off future attempts at re-creation of a deleted article by demonstrating that the subject is more or less covered, but in a more general way than the deleted article. That being said, it wouldn't bother me at all if it was just deleted either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think its a major company in the field by now. One RS review already there--others need to be looked for. But if not notable we would not make a redirect in the case like this, for that would apply to any non-notable company making a product, and amount to a directory. DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are several companies named Sentry that might be, but this product just doesn't seem to have wp:rs type sources available when I really looked. If you can find others, I will be happy to change my opinion to keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added reference from Marketwire - mentions endorsement by Drew Bledsoe; also ref from Internet Watch Foundation. All add to notability. Novickas (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Also added refs from The Guardian (note: source is the newspaper's technology correspondent's blog [49]) and Liverpool Victoria. Novickas (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I think this product's coverage, while not in-depth, by Reuters, Liverpool Victoria, The Guardian's technology correspondent, the South Wales Echo, the Internet Watch Foundation, and The Telegraph meets that standard. Novickas (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both Marketwatch and the IWF ones appear to be regurgitation of press releases which don't meet RS guidelines and celeb endorsement is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. TravellingCari 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment The blog is no good either, even though it's from the Guardian, it's not an actual article, just a blog. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replies I can't cite WP policy on these 2 points, but the blog is published by the Guardian, since its author is a Guardian columnist. Not self-published. Also, the software is the primary product of a publicly-traded company [50]. Novickas (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment a blog is still a blog and generally not subject to editorial oversight, which is the issue. Being the primary product of a company does not mean it's notable. There's no evidence the company is notable and if it isn't, the products despite being celeb endorsed aren't usally notable. TravellingCari 21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply The guidance on blogs focuses on self-publication: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It would be good if that page mentioned "blogs" published in reputable newspapers by their columnists, since it's a trend, but right now it only discusses self-published blogs. Novickas (talk) 17:05, 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 A7 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Segundos Antes da Queda[edit]

3 Segundos Antes da Queda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Tried to speedy, author decided it was ok to delete speedy tag, so I will just afd it. Should qualify as a SPEEDY DELETE, db-band. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:21, 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 boldly redirected and salted by SirFozzie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelboozer[edit]

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

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Bastard Operator From Hell - article's creation appears to have been a forum joke, perhaps it deserves a mention in the BOFH article, otherwise just delete. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bastard Operator From Hell as per PhilKnight's reasoning. Cyclonius (talk)
  • Keep If this article is deleted or merged, then every article on a movie/soap/play/novel/cartoon character or place or plot device should be deleted or merged too. Which I believe would destroy roughly half Wikipedia in terms of article number, and 80% in terms of views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.98.176 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:ALLORNOTHING. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Genuine reference to a work of fiction, like many other parts of wikipedia. What is initially raised in this extremely popular series will also become used by fellow IT professionals in the future.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_3&oldid=1081072055"