Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn. I think that one reliable source that shows notability is fine. Schuym1 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thief (chess)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. It seems like it is non-notable like most free online games. Schuym1 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral. There are lots of references to this program when googleing the client. The sources however don't seem to satisfy WP:RS, or provide only trivial coverage. Still the multitude of mentions of the software leads me to believe there is a fair chance that there sources, I just haven't found them. I'll search some more, but for now, I'm on the fence. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Relevant in the internet chess community, although the article does not (yet) adequately demonstrate it. Many thousands of people use this program. I'll see if I can improve it when I can find the time. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • this makes me lean towards keep. Significant coverage, a WP:RS reliable source. However, for now, it's just the one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pedasa[edit]

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

This article appears to be a work of original research. I have been unable to find any sources describing a "Battle of Pedasa" and the article is wholly uncited. Quite apart from it being very badly written, the article presents a description of an event that reliable sources don't seem to cover. This obviously raises issues of notability as well, but the original research issue probably makes notability moot in this case. ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--I agree with ChrisO. This battle is new to me also, can't find anything to corroborate this article, which I assume then is OR. And yes, this is very badly written and unsourced: the sources given are "The Persian Army, 560-330 BC (Elite)" and "HaT 1/72 Achaemenid Persian Army # 8117." What are those? Books? A model army, scale 1:72? I can't make heads or tails of it. Seems to be another work in progress that should not have been put up. How user:Secthayrabe could, in all seriousness, remove an "unreferenced" tag and claim the article had sources is a mystery to me (see this. Please delete. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is unreferenced and contradictory. It states it "was a major point in the Ionian Revolt" and "very little is written about this battle." Since little has been written about it, I'm lead to wonder how major it actually was and if it can actually be referenced.AniMate 03:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page and Battle of Mylasa are on my watchlist. Although I don't remember exactly why, it had something to do with me marking them for speedy deletion when they were initially created with virtually no information and the user insisting that info was forthcoming. Well, I still don't see any info. Junk this and Battle of Mylasa. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: both batles (Mylasa & Pedasa) are shortly mentioned in this book with online preview available. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caged Angel[edit]

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

Not notable band in a peacock feathered article written by an SPA. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. and not likely to emerge. Good arguments on both sides, but ultimately whether to merge the content is one for editorial discussion. Not AfD. While there are good reasons for keeping the content in some form and deleting it, there's no clear consensus in either way StarM 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Wikipedia[edit]

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

with 10 participants and 143 pages, I think this may just fail WP:WEB. [1]. Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as you are recommending deleting that article on the Zulu language version of Wikipedia. As for how many people participate, please give WP:BIG a read. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, yes I am recommending deleting that article on the Zulu language version of Wikipedia, care to comment on how this meets WP:WEB? What would be the grounds for keeping this, let alone speedy keeping this. Your remarks actually give no reason at all.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply It is Wikipedia, which is already established as notable. That it is a different language version of Wikipedia is valid as an article without having to independently pass wp:web as it even uses the same domain. As for the other half of the argument, again see WP:BIG. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the relevance of BIG, indeed, used like this, it seems like an argument to keep every website. Perhaps we should redirect this to Wikipedia since the franchise is notable. But the fact that we have an article on MacDonald's is notable, doesn't mean every branch is, unless that branch has some independent claim to fame.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:BIG means that the part of your nomination that says "with 10 participants and 143 pages," is nullified. If you had said they had 1 trillion users, or 1 user, BIG says "doesn't matter". The number of users/hits/members can't be used as a reason to keep OR delete in an AFD. Now we are only left with notability/wp:web, which is a valid nomination reason, by all means. In this particular case, however, I feel that the Zulu version is covered as being an actual part of Wikipedia. It doesn't have to independently establish any notability, pass wp:web, etc. It uses the same domain as the english version. It is notable by simply being a non-english version of a very notable website, Wikipedia.org. That makes it encyclopedic, regardless of the rules. Even it got down to nothing but WP:IAR, then IAR would apply in this case. You are free to disagree. I am not saying that every subproject of wikipedia should get this free pass, but main level projects, yes. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Delete Fails WP:WEB. I'm not sure what the business about GOOGLEHITS is above, but nothing is "nullified" or anything like that. It's simply an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Clearly, the comment by the nom about number of articles and participants was a lead in to saying "it fails WP:WEB". While I would prefer the nom spell out why it fails that particular daughter notability guideline, it isn't mandatory. I see one news hit for "Zulu language" wikipedia, this information week article (which just mentions the subject), and I'm not sure how to properly eliminate confounding terms in a web search. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean one English language hit. You didn't search in Zulu. - Mgm|(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'm not going to search in Zulu. I frankly don't care. This is the english wikipedia. Its readers and editors overwhemlingly speak english as a primary language. As such, our coverage of material will be distorted toward subjects which are covered in english language media. If someone can speak/read Zulu and wants to translate references and source this article, great. But odds are this isn't going to happen. On that note, how many reliable sources have your searches in Zulu found? Protonk (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do any searches in Zulu, but that's irrelevant. I'm not the one saying that there's not enough sources without checking all the possibilities. - Mgm|(talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to prove a negative. I can only make rough assertions about likelihood of sourcing based on searches. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I probably chose the wrong word with "nullified", I meant that I won't consider that in arguing, and others likely won't either (and shouldn't). I didn't mean it as a policy nullification per se. I still believe we should give a pass to non-English top level projects here. Yes, if all else fails, then under WP:IAR, as being "encyclopedic", in the most literal of terms. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 11:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should sister projects and other language wikipedias be given a pass? Surely NPOV would tell us to treat coverage of wikipedia as though it were coverage of another online encyclopedia. We can't be a neutral reference if our article content favors WMF projects (I already have my beef with our WP:EL policy favoring WMF projects, but that's more of an in-house issue). Protonk (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Pharmboy's assessment. The Zulu Wikipedia is part of Wikipedia and doesn't need to establish notability of its own. - Mgm|(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to echo a bit of Pharmboy's statement. In this case, I think notability is inherent, because the Zulu language is simply notable. The fact that that there are few participants in that version of Wikipedia is not relevant. What does it take to get a subdomain of wikipedia.org? Can any average joe make foo.wikipedia.org? I'm asking out of curiosity for that one. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Why is notability inherited in this case when one of our guiding principles is that notability is not inherited? This needs to pass WP:WEB and I see no evidence that it does. AndyJones (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I choose WP:IAR on this one. This isn't a language made up in a day, nor a hoax, but a legitimate subdomain of wikipedia.org. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keep per: ignore all rules" doesn't sound like much of a reason to me. I'll stick with my delete! AndyJones (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is certainly your prerogative, but I'll just quote the actual phrase for the sake of hearing my own voice: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. I don't see how deleting this can be an improvement. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion I almost never cite WP:IAR, but this is a textbook case of why it exists. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 13:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:WEB and other notability guidelines are not rules, there is nothing to ignore. Just give a reason for your opinion and that's fine. IAR has nothing to do with it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now you are splitting hairs. WP:RAP gives an interesting statement, The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles., with that inclusive and between "rule" and "policies", which sure sounds like both "rules" and "policies" can be considered "the rules". As for your last comment, I gave my opinion: deleting this makes no sense, how would deleting it improve the encyclopedia, and how would keeping it be a detriment? Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Come now. Using that logic, then WP:IAR can never apply to anything, ever, as Wikipedia doesn't have "rules", it has "guidelines". It exists to keep us all from becoming Wikilawyers with policy, and to allow common sense to rule in the end. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 14:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IAR applies mainly to process rules (which should normally be followed), notability guidelines are not rules in any manner of speaking. They only record what "usually" gets kept or deleted. IAR should only be invoked as an exception, however notability guidelines can always be ignored. Indeed, I seldom if ever read them. Notability guidelines are NOT rules, however you wish to define rules.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but to break the circular argument. Since I've invoked IAR, and you've declined that, rather asking for a open opinion, would you mind doing the same? Without invoking rules, guidelines, policies, whatever, but using the spirit of the encylopedia, would you mind doing the same, and answer my question which I posed twice, while considering your own comments: how will deleting this be an improvement? Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note As per the IAR essay Wikipedia:Use common sense: Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. and The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter. which seem to indicate that notability or any other rule/policy/etc can be subject to IAR. It does not apply only to "rules" per se. Applying it so literally is wikilawyering. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines are not any sorts of rules or policies. There's simply no need to invoke IAR. Why should this be deleted? Because we need to have some quality control, to prevent any nonsense, falsehoods, and libels, being in wikipedia. Our quality control is that Wikipedia works were multiple editors review articles and fix mistakes. Untruths get spotted. Wikipedia does not work for articles on things that are too "unnotable" because such things will (generally) be seldom viewed, poorly maintained, poorly watched, and factual inaccuracies may remain. Whilst wikipedia is not paper, maintenance requires some level of editor/reader interest. Websites which have 10 participants, and (seemingly) no third party media interest, will almost always have minuscule levels of article interest.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So forgive me if I sound like I am putting words in your mouth, which I am not, but I am trying to interpret that statement. You're saying that the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? Or the material on the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? Or the potential exists that the material on the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? How do other (non-en) wikipedias deal with nonsense, falsehood and libel? How does en deal with that stuff? Sounds like to me, that is a case for administrative infrastructure of that wiki, rather than the deletion of an entire wiki based on the possibility that there may be cases of nonsense, falsehoods and libelous material. Using that logic, en.wiki should be deleted as well, since there are many instances of such. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving you the reason to delete things for lack of notability, the other option is to keep everything, and attempt to maintain everything.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to demonstrate notability. WP:BIG does not work in reverse; the essay linked to is about how large numbers don't automatically make something notable. A website with small numbers probably isn't notable. Sources are what makes an article notable, and this article only has some statistics. There is a consensus that notability isn't simply "inherited" (see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise), there must be sources. Ignore all rules is a dangerous gambit. You are in effect saying "I know this article doesn't follow policy, but this article is a special case." You have not demonstrated how this article is a special case. You would have a much better chance to save this article if you find sources and use them to improve the article, and not have to fall back to WP:IAR. Until then, I have to vote delete. --Phirazo (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't deal with website articles, so I'll not "vote". Two comments, though: (1) An AFD some weeks ago resulted in the deletion of at least one, likely more, article(s) on certain language editions of Wikipedia; I can't give you the link, but I can assure you that the idea of deleting an article on an edition of Wikipedia has at least some recent precedent; and (2) notability guidelines are specifically made to guide us in deletion or keeping, not in showing what usually happens. Showing what usually happens is the job of WP:OUTCOMES. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since what I consider to be common sense doesn't work, let's try discussing something else. The article states that "It is one of the least-frequently updated language editions of Wikipedia". That would make it a record. Still not notable? - Mgm|(talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Records" don't make things notable. Coverage in independent, reliable sources does. I don't know how discussing whether or not an article meets WP:WEB or WP:GNG is not "common sense". Protonk (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheyenne Wikipedia has 14 content pages and 15 active users. ([2]) --Phirazo (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it fails WP:WEB miserably and lacks non-trivial coverage by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. It seems very silly to have an article about each language version. --NE2 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop as it grows and ask people thee to help source. If there are sources in Zulu, they should know. And it seems very sensible to have an article about each language version. DGG (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"develop as it grows", assumes that it will. You have a way of knowing that? "ask people there"? Apparently there are ten users - how many of them are active and speak English? And isn't that original research. It is highly unlikely that there are third part sources for a 10 user website. But don't we demand such verification before we keep things? Your answer really makes not sense to me?—Scott MacDonald (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to concur here with Scott MacDonald. The vote above is just overzealous inclusionism and nothing more. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:WEB, just because it's a Wikimedia project doesn't give it a free pass. RMHED (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. Individual sub-units of an organisation are not inherently notable per WP:ORG, and given the lack of coverage about the Zulu language version, there is no independent notability established. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. The notability RFC might not have reached many firm conclusions, but one which was definitely rejected was that "all spin-outs are notable", and that's the only argument I see given here in favour of keeping. No prejudice on recreation in the far future when it's all growed up, but for now it's just another non-notable website which happens to have some big and flashy affiliates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Because it fails WP:WEB and just because it is associated with Wikipedia is no excuse for overriding a well defined policy. Also, has anyone considered redirecting to List of Wikipedias? For some reason I find that more appropriate. LeaveSleaves talk 10:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mostly per Pharmboy. I don't think it fails WP:WEB as, IMO, it passes criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." Wikipedia itself passes this IMO. Firebat08 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. to delete. Merging or heeping where it is can be decided on the talk page. StarM 02:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian cuisine[edit]

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

Declined prod; WP:NOT a cookbook. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject matter is clearly notable, as is the cuisine for any country. The article needs work, but that is what tags are for. I cut out the recipes already. In the future, please start an AFD by placing the AFD tag on the actual article, NOT here on this page. Otherwise, the AFD process itself would be void, as not giving proper notification of the process. I fixed it. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cuisine is a valid cultural topic. The recipe-cruft part of the article was quickly taken out. If the rest cannot stand alone as an article, it may have a place in Culture of Ecuador#Cuisine subject to verification. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To Gene, assuming that would mean a redirect instead of delete, I can see that if it can't be patched up. Sorry about getting a little testy Kurt, I have seen several missing AFD1s lately. And yes, TW is borked. I double check everything it does. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Culture of Ecuador#Cuisine. It's too short to stand on its own. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep potential for growth. There are multiple cookbooks about it for use as sources [3] Each country's cuisine is distinctive.DGG (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's reason is invalid as this article contained (and now contains only) plenty of non-cookbook information about this obviously notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepp Valid topic, sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a cookbook, but the article isn't recipes. The cuisine of a country is important anthropologically and culturally. It is certainly a topic for a not paper encyclopedia. The article needs to be expanded and sourced, not deleted. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Simon Wilcox[edit]

The result was Keep. JodyB talk 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO ScarianCall me Pat! 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as writer of a charting song. "Wilcox has also had significant success as a songwriter, winning the SOCAN No. 1 Song Award for her song "Stay", which reached the peak of Canadian Music Network's Bravo! chart on October 18, 2005. The song was co-written and recorded by the distinctive Quebec-based star Jorane and appears on Jorane's 2004 album, The You and the Now (an album produced by Michael Brook, and featuring Daniel Lanois)." -- Eastmain (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I added some references, so it should pass now. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a gander at the sources. Two of them mention that she's been a part of a project to make a charity song; no actual mention of how notable the song is. The third one redirects to an untitled error page. Is there a source that says one of her songs charted? Are there sources for the awards? Are the awards themselves notable? ScarianCall me Pat! 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Try Billboard.com (Three Days Grace - "Home"), MuchMusic.com (Much Countdown) (Projet Orange - "Tell All Your Friends" and (Three Days Grace - "Home"). SOCAN administers all royalties for Canadian songwriters, so yes, the awards are significant.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination reasons. Wether B (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment was asked to take a gander at new changes to article. Have done so. Still non-notable, does not meet WP:MUSIC so i still argue for delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the artist's 3 recorded works only one is actually released and available through a recognised label. And, according to her bio, she currently works as a secretary in Toronto, Ontario, Canada??? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously a significant Canadian songwriter. Is there something that precludes former secretaries from making significant cultural contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.172.25 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She currently works as a songwriter for EMI Music Publishing International, just finished co-writing the entire upcoming Paris Hilton record (including Paris for President) and has worked on albums that have charted internationally (Three Days Grace)(US Platinum, CRIA certified platinum) and in Canada (Kalan Porter CRIA certified 2x platinum, Ryan Malcolm CRIA certified platinum). It turns out she also co-wrote the current single by The Trews "Man of Two Minds" and a current top ten single on Canadian radio ("Great Expectations", Ali Slaight, Universal Canada).
  • comment the page is a mess, but this is an important Canadian songwriter, she appears on many albums not even mentioned in the article.
  • comment re: "The Real Libs"- she appears on recordings released by JIVE/ZOMBA, SonyBMG, Universal, Epitaph, EMI UK, EMI Canada, MapleMusic (a Universal Canada subsiduary), Nettwerk...that should be sufficient??
  • comment Here are the singles I could track down, and their accompanying labels...can someone help me out here?

SINGLES Ali Slaight (Universal) - Story of Your Life, Great Expectations BEAST (Maple/ Universal) - Mr. Hurricane Jorane (DKD/ EMI) - Stay - Bravo #1 Kalan Porter (SonyBMG) - In Spite of It All (CRIA 2x Platinum) Paris Hilton - Paris For President Projet Orange (SonyBMG) - Tell All Your Friends (MuchMusic #1) Simon Wilcox (BMG/ Maple/ Universal) - Mommies & Daddies, Eyes On You Song For Africa (Maple/ Universal) - Song For Africa Social Code (Universal) - Bomb Hands The Trews (Universal) - Man of Two Minds Three Days Grace (JIVE/ ZOMBA) - Home, Wake Up (MuchMusic #1, BillBoard #2 (31 Weeks on BillBoard)(US & CDN Platinum) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.67.184 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) User 99.234 appears to be an SPA.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC by having charting singles as Music Notability Policy deems "having a charted hit on any national music chart" as criteria for musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.223.213 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is that sources exist from which to source the article. StarM 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fareed Ayaz[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first ref doesn't even mention the article's subject, but refers to his father. The second ref just confirms he's a Qawwal musician, everything else in the article remains unsourced. RMHED (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • International touring is one of the criteria for WP:MUSIC, and the Times of India article confirms that this musician from Pakistan has performed in India. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poorly written and a lack of sources are not reasons to delete, they are a reason to tag, or better yet, a reason to improve the article. Appears that sources are available, although not all in English (which doesn't matter). Tag and keep. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain's research and Pharmboy's comments. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator says "either it should be sourced or deleted" but it doesn't seem that he/she made any attempt to source it, which should be the first of those options tried. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Doesn't seem like the nominator made any attempt to improve the article via regular editing processes per deletion guidelines. I don't think it's appropriate to have an AfD until it has been shown that the article can not be improved to compliance. All the evidence points to the opposite; there's plenty of sources out there, and lots of room for improvement. Celarnor Talk to me 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Roy Assaf[edit]

The result was Keep. See WP:MUSIC Section 1 subsection 9. JodyB talk 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsouced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A musician is notable if it meets any one of the 12 criteria, he passes WP:MUSIC#C8.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I took a closer look at the ASCAP award, and the article. Being the sole recipient of an ASCAP award would be notable, getting an "Young Jazz Composer Award" along with 27 other people may be notable, but not as set forth in the guidlines. Being talented, getting scholarships and winning competitions may be "notable" but to have an article on Wikipedia the subject has to meet guidlines. I agree that the "tour of Europe" would be enough, but number 4 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.". I have been unable to locate "non-trivial coverage" on the tour in acceptable sources (Not blogs, not press release, not a listing of a show and so on) that talks about Roy Assaf as it's subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soundvisions. Dlohcierekim 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Arnaudova[edit]

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

A BLP with only an external link to the subject's own website. Is this person notable or not, there is nothing in the one line article to indicate so. RMHED (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Angel[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMZ tour[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a tour guide. This article just lists locations that this DMZ tour visits. Completely unsourced so no way of telling the tour actually does visit all those places. Furthermore, not notable. Atlan (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées.
The article does indeed mention landmarks, and does *not* mention contact information or menus. Proxy User (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to mention all of the things. Just some. Those are just examples and not the only things that apply to WP:NOTTRAVEL. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:00, 25 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,  Sandstein  21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) treelo radda 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Agarwal[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Timothy Asch films. content there if someone wants to merge StarM 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bride Service (film)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Tim Asch. Per WP:NF, "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." A google serach reveals very little (if anything) that might form the basis of a seperate article. PC78 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to new article List of Timothy Asch films with respects to the nom, per WP:NF, film is notable per being used in the anthropolgy courses around the world and being in a national archive (Smithsonian). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We know the film exists, that isn't the issue. As I read the guideline, if that is all there is to be said about it, then it can be adequately said in Tim Asch and there shouldn't be a stand alone article. Could be wrong, though. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is curently a looooong "list" in the Asch article, but since so many of these films have 1) won national and international recognition, 2) are used in Anthropology courses at major universities, and 3) are in National Archives... these meet the criteria under WP:NF for their own article... stub or no. A seperate expanded listing to include all the above mentioned informations might best serve if this individual article is not kept as a stub. Though a merge of this one "would not clutter" the fimmaker's page, 24 such certainly would. Interesting situation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have created the article List of Timothy Asch films borrowing the barren list from Timothy Asch and expanding upon it to include all coments and sources of the many stub articles about his films. If consensus decides these stubs should go, their information is now in one place and the list at the Asch article can go as well. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:20, 28 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,  Sandstein  21:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alan P. Barrett[edit]

The result was Delete. There are no sources to verify anything. Sources were questioned yet none have appeared. Happy to userfy this if someone wants to work on it. JodyB talk 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep gbooks picks up 6 of his books, and there are other sources out there. The policy states that a subject must be "verifiable" not "verified". If sources exist, but they are just not in the article, that isn't a reason to AFD. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wish the content to be kept then I suggest you add those sources, all unsourced content will be removed. RMHED (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't use the deletion process to force a WP:DEADLINE on editors. Also, editors are urged to check the subjects out themselves before taking them to AfD. Please consider trying Google first. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so. RMHED (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is what I keep bringing up: forcing a BLP that isn't controversial to AFD just to force sources into it, well, I am not so sure that this is a good thing. I do trust you do this in good faith, but honestly, it borders on abuse if you are not searching before naming so many people. If you see sources that are at least borderline, you can NOT go to AFD in good faith if the bio itself isn't controversial. It simply isn't fair. And you can't justify it by simply saying "If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so." That is showing disrespect for the policies and methods here. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who says the BLP isn't controversial, can you show the content isn't controversial or are assuming as much? The content though is most definitely contentious and any unsourced contentious content should be removed per the BLP policy. RMHED (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You always remove unsourced controversial content. You don't delete the whole article. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain On the one hand there's an assertion that he "is included in The Guardian's list of Britain's most influential independent writers in 20060" which might indicate notability, depending how extensive that list is, and on the other the article seems extremely promotional. This is the sort of career where one really needs to findsome reviews. DGG (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff with this nominator's scattergun approach (please excuse the mixed metaphors) but I can't find anything on the Guardian's website to substantiate the claim to notability[6]. It's a pity the nominator can't provide such links rather than forcing everyone else to do the work. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pharmboy. There are sources out there. We should be focusing on improving the article rather than deleting it; since it can be improved by the regular editing process, I don't see deletion as a viable option yet. Celarnor Talk to me 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. (I think this is a misapplication of BLP.) World cat shows his books in like two libraries world wide [7], [8], [9], [10], so he cannot claim even an assertion of notability as an author. Can't find significant third part sourcing among the 50+ Ghits. or the G news hits. No hits on Galenet via my library access. If the sourcing is out there, I'm gonna need a cane and a guide dog. Dlohcierekim 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

House of Diabolique[edit]

The result was Delete JodyB talk 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources. I did some searching and came up only with this tiny mention in the Village Voice. I've removed part of the article because of a BLP problem. Chick Bowen 05:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: This article from DJ Magazine.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no reliable sources, no demonstrated notability and doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. It's a vanity page.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restating a keep vote Sorry about voting "Keep" twice, I didn't realize the convention.

Having been involved in the Ball Culture & "vogueing" scene of NYC in the 90s and having watched the film Paris Is Burning, I don't think it would be fair to delete this page. The House of Diabolique is well known within that subculture, enough so that an off-Broadway play inspired by the House of Diabolique was written.

Wikipedia's own ball culture entry cites the House of Diabolique repeatedly (#14,a,b,c) Does it make sense to delete an entry for the House of Diabolique, when another article of Wikipedia,accepted to be authoritative, uses the House of Diabolique as a reference?

The House of Diabolique also served as a judge for the Club Systems Awards.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.245.231 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Alptekin[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again, a search quickly brings up references. I didn't even do a regular search, that was enough. I don't think you understand: AFD isn't for article that need work, it is for article you tried to find sources on and couldn't. You tag articles that need work, you don't delete them. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you understand that all contentious BLP content should be sourced or deleted. I'm challenging the content of this BLP, therefore it is by definition contentious. So source or it or it will be removed. RMHED (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Exactly what part of the content is contentious? Yes, we have to get it right, but this mass of AfD nominations looks increasingly WP:POINT-ish to me. AfD is not cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any part of a BLP that is unsourced and challenged is therefore by definition contentious. RMHED (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you please indicate the policy that states this? I have a very different understanding of WP:BLP and WP:V. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right here [11] it states that unsourced contentious content should be removed. Now the definition of contentious is 'likely to cause argument' Well here we are arguing over it so it's definitely contentious. RMHED (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, we have argued about policy. You can't just say "I'm going to argue about everything, thus it is contentious" and make it a self fulfilling prophecy for the convenience of AFDing everything. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As evidenced by Pharmboy, the subject is notable. Upon review of the article, I don't see anything that's negative or slanderous. In my view, the BLP policy is not a license to nominate all unsourced BLP's for AFD. Fraud talk to me 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Failure to follow due process. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable person discussed in reliable sources. I have started to add sources to the article, and it's clear that there are other sources available which can be added that would support most or all of the content of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article can be improved by regular editing processes; there seem to be lots of references out there. Trying to delete the article rather than improving it seems like a non-starter idea to me. Celarnor Talk to me 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuel Melles[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that's even approximately true if the source is notable enough. (and a major national newspaper is exactly that sort of particularly notable source) DGG (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chris Phoenix (producer)[edit]

The result was Delete. JodyB talk 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Phoenix (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability, the article reads like a promotional piece. Lack of significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Second is a press release for the Media 100 - http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/6007313-1.html Dennis Publishing no longer owns Maxim, Stuff or Blender Magazines, and the DMG dept. was closed when Chris Phoenix left Dennis Publishing in August of 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickdacatt (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Reading the notes above, I think it may be important to note that Chris Phoenix used to be in the music industry but is primarily involved in Television Production and Post Production (2 series on BRAVO - Battle of the Network Reality Stars and All-Star Reality ReUnion, 1 series on TLC - Ice Diaries, 1 series on ESPN - 2006 US Paintball Championships, and 2 series' on Comedy Central - Night of Too Many Stars and Important Things with Demetri Martin and a number of TV specials on VH1, NBC and FX - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1785930/).-- • John Pope (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be clear about the links provided by Kickdacatt and John Pope they are not allowed for citing notability at Wikipedia. The "press release for the Media 100" is the same one I already mentioned as a reprint of a press release, the link to Amazon is an advert to buy a DVD and, in general, the IMDB is not always considered a good source as it is user created. What is being looked for here are articles that contain "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A DVD listing at an online store, lists of credits, or reprints of press releases are not "significant coverage". See General notability guidelines for definitions. Also it should be noted that the only Wikipedia contributions from both of these editors have been to Chris Phoenix related articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also note they have not voted here nor have they updated the page, the only direct actions that would contribute to preserving the page. I think they have more information/access to sources than most and would have the best chance at making the necessary changes. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. StarM 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unplugged (internet)[edit]

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

This article is more like a dictionary definition and is not at all encyclopedic. The term itself does not seem notable, nor could I find any sources on it. I don't feel that there is anything more that could possibly added to expand this article, therefore I think it should be deleted or redirected elsewhere (such as to Online and offline). –Dream out loud (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miwok Airways[edit]

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

While its obvious that the PR person who typed this article was creative and understood the basics of writing articles in such a way as to avoid attention, it clear that this article's primary purpose serves as an advertisement for the company and individual (yes, a picture of said person exists in the article) however thinly-veiled it may be. No aircraft exist, no aircraft are planned to exist, the company is not presently active, and the owner's notability is listed as being an obscure dot.com company owner and a former Israeli air traffic controller. This wiki article is aviation advertising spam. McA (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remember the global notability guideline. If the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source and newspaper of record, thinks the company is important enough to write about, then it is notable by Wikipedia standards. And Aviation Today is also a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Howcheng who created the article is if I remember correctly, a long time reliable Wikipedian, so I'm pretty sure he's not the PR person for the company, but at the same time I am surprised this article made it to DYK on September 17 when the company wasn't even running for another 1.5 months. That said, the subject did appear to have received more than advert media coverage and the fact it is the only company offering ultra-short flights to beat traffic jams seems somewhat noteworthy too. I'm leaning towards keeping, but it's pretty borderline. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DYK's standards are 1,500 characters and inline citations to reliable sources, regardless of the content of the article, so the article's appearance on DYK says nothing about the subject itself. howcheng {chat} 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but with the attention DYK gets, I would have expected to see it submitted for deletion much sooner if it was deleteable. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author. I do not work for them (for the record, I work at Move.com as a programmer). I simply read the article in the LA Times, to which I subscribe, and found them interesting as the first company to offer on-demand short-hop flights with pricing by seat instead of by plane. Of course the company doesn't have planes: That's their entire business model; they're really the middleman, not the actual pilots. The photo does not come from the company, either. If you had investigated, you would have seen that it came from a Flick user, who apparently is not related to the company either. You are seeing conspiracies where there aren't any. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LA Times article is substantial and written by a staff writer -- this isn't PR filler you'd see some other places (such as the two newspapers I subscribe to. *grin*) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The relevant notability policy is "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I would say that the LA Times article itself is significant coverage (it certainly wasn't trivial). The fact that it has coverage in Aviation Today only increases its notability. DigitalC (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 0n the basis of howcheng's explanation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 08:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaerea[edit]

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

Possibly a speedy candidate (no context for a start) but there seems to have been some effort put into this article and it at least warrants a bit more debate. I cannot find any other references to Alaerea so on the face of it this fails on notability grounds and as original research. Ros0709 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:NOTE. I see no reliable sources, and no significant coverage (Google search turns up nothing). ThePointblank (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely zero references exist, even in the most simplistic form, on any of the major search engines for this mythical place.McA (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Before I scrolled down to the character list to find out this was fictional, I checked my world mythology encyclopedia that doesn't know the place either. Since this is clearly fiction, we need to be able to put it in real world context to be able to keep it starting with who created it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like somone's homebrew RPG setting. Not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again I ask, who's got time to invent stuff like this? Out of whole cloth? For no discernible purpose? Using so many words? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#OR. Non-notable unpublished fiction at best. Author's original work? Quite possible. Only found on Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Sense[edit]

No Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Solitary album on Cogumelo doesn't meet notability criteria, and no significant coverage by third party reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because:
Out of Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Confused Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why did you only mention the album and not the EP? - Mgm|(talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because, although it does not currently have an article, Cogumelo may actually be notable, whereas the label that the EP was released on most certainly is not. The EP's release is therefore irrelevant to whether the article passes WP:MUSIC or not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Masson[edit]

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

Contested speedy, a résumé-like puff piece. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for suggestion - resume form not correct - sorry, newbie. Webwinnow (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see why this person is notable. As such, delete as per WP:NOTE. ThePointblank (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit/Revise Notable biographical entry about a female physician who has attained the highest leadership roles possible in a field still predominately occluded by the proverbial male “glass ceiling.” Gifted female role models in the upper echelons of the managerial hierarchy of the medical field are atypical and exceptional. Webwinnow (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still fails WP:PEOPLE. Read the basic criteria section. ThePointblank (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Agreed for reason pointed out by ThePointblank. McA (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for references, ThePointblank. Still learning. From WP:PEOPLE "Within Wikipedia ... (t)he 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." Pursuing first attempt based on "worthy of notice" though not necessarily "famous" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwinnow (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please be more specific about why they consider all the positions she's had not notable? - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mgm, for pointing out "all the positions" ... from WP:NOTE "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."Webwinnow (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. Citations/sources added.Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--after spending some time on this article, I'm convinced that it's fluff, since there's no notability and the author has tried to spice it up as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belated and sincere thank you for the effort you put in ... have learned a lot from your edits and it is much appreciated. Would you revisit the hopefully improving version? Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it seems to me that the author is a member of the Masson family--see their other contributions. So let's add COI to the problems. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: interested in biographies of strong women and interesting men. Would like to work on Corita Kent; DJ Hall (the artist, not the football player); Erik Lindgren; Dean Joan Shaeffer (Academic Dean): but, will I survive this? Disheartening. Webwinnow (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ray of hope in your remark, and I agree, the positions alone or en masse are compelling. Avidly continuing to pursue the verification process. RE: MBA - don't know why: speculation suggests adds substantively to administrative success. Webwinnow (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of minor local notability only. JFW | T@lk 06:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional and insufficiently notable. head of a county medical society is not enough--of a state, perhaps. "Assistant Clinical Professor" is similarly not a rather unimportant rank.DGG (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Many grains of sand make a beach." - Old Chinese Proverb Webwinnow (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COmment no prior edits. Dlohcierekim 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was just about to comment the same using {{SPA}}. This user's first edit was to this page—an unlikely choice. It's of little import though, as the reasoning is empty. Wikipedia's goal is not normative, but informative. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normative or informative, YamiSorceress makes a valid point: female physicians are noticeably underrepresented in W. The remark inspired a bit of rough research. List of physicians includes about 446 doctors, about 14 of whom are female, or about 3%. Interestingly, of these 14 women, only 4, less than 1%, are listed primarily as physicians, the rest appear primarily under other categories including writer, criminal, and “other activities.” Webwinnow (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's quite a reasonable point. It's quite likely, even, that women physicians are underrepresented. That is not, however, a reason in and of itself to keep an article which does not meet the notability criteria. Instead, what should be done (if one's goal is to improve their representation) is to create articles about other, notable women physicians. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right; the comment was just a statistical observation. The goal is not to improve their representation, but to simply point out that the representation of female physicians is sparse. The article under discussion represents an example of a physician who has achieved a significant degree of notability, perhaps more than any other female, contemporary physician. Therein is the choice. Your thoughtful remarks are appreciated.Webwinnow (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known as a compelling speaker in Northern California. Merced Pharmacist
The comment signed "Merced Pharmacist" was actually made by Forwardfull (talk · contribs · count) Dlohcierekim 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Wiki's definition of fame is rather capricious. Being Surgeon General is quite a high bar to pass for a physician. Were this person a porn star or musician, simply a published work would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardfull (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Forwardfull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, most musicians and porn stars do not qualify as notable (this is different from fame) and those articles are deleted on a daily basis. It isn't our role to decide which profession contributes most to society. Our role is to document verifiable facts from reliable sources. The problem in this article isn't the "claims", which may support inclusion, it the "verification". No one can find any 3rd party reliable sources that demonstrate that the claims are accurate. That a doctor is "more important" than a porn star is an opinion, even if most people agree, and not the criteria here. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related Observation: It does appear that if a porno-person opens an orifice and successfully sells sex, becoming a star, that is considered potentially “notable”; yet if a physician opens an orifice and successful sells medicine, becoming a well-known spokesperson, it’s somehow “immoral” or considered advertising. Example, this entrant is a nationally recognized medical spokesperson, but it has been suggested, and accomplished, that reference to her numerous speaking engagements be deleted, thereby abrogating a wealth of reliably sourced criteria for inclusion. If our goal is to inform, provide information, and not to judge, isn’t this an arbitrary form of censorship? Webwinnow (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepShe is a nationally known Educator, interviewing countless students for MIT Admission, for nearly two decades, teaching Resident Physicians, giving medical lectures in many states across the USA, and writing medical articles for publication. Piacera (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missingno.[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a video game glitch, showing no evidence of notability. Attempts at redirecting have been reverted, and the PROD tag was removed due to a confusing log that gave the appearance of a previous AFD when there was none. Although the PROD remover has said he is OK with me readding the PROD tag, I'm afraid it won't stick now that it's been removed, so I'm taking it to AFD. Pagrashtak 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Pagrashtak 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep/merge it does seem to be a very well known glitch and there are many extensive guides available on the internet ([13][14][15][16][17][18]), mostly unreliable sources although there are a few mentions is GoogleNews ([19]). Icewedge (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much in those Google News hits. Two are unrelated, one is a forum, and the other two are GamePro how-to cheat lists. Pagrashtak 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the sources unreliable or not mentioned that Nintendo made a statement about it. This still needs to be referenced within the article, but that shouldn't be much of a problem. If the main article on the game doesn't contain this info it should be merged and deletion isn't neccesary either, we can redirect to the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)
  • Delete while this is a glitch of some import in the Pokemon world, outside of it, other than some silly 4chan injokes it's not important. Should be on the Pokemon Wikia (which needs help). JuJube (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Personally, as a Pokemon addict, I would consider Missingno. as "hellah notable". But outside the fan-world there just isn't enough encyclopedic value/outside coverage to hold up an entire article.--Koji† 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Redirect. Deserves mention in Pokémon Red and Blue (which it has). #5 of WP:DUMB? DARTH PANDAduel 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread hijacking[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and unreferenced. Lacks any notability whatsoever. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. It just seems like a neologism. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What the article is talking about isn't new (or particularly notable), but the term is. WP:NEO. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Threadjacking has already been prodded to death twice, and this article may fall under WP:NEOLOGISM. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this could possibly be a neologism. Still, it amounts to nothing more than a dictionary definition and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Without references we can't transwiki it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot but agree with the above comments. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete im in ur thread jacking your article. No, seriously, Christ. JuJube (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: definitely not neologism, it is a common jargon term. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctus (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. One album for the notable Metal Blade, but then split up so not meeting notability criteria; couldn't find any significant third-party coverage either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per {{db-band}} and WP:N, WP:MUSIC, etc. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to be clear, the music notability criteria say: "Has released 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)." It's not the fact they split up, but rather the fact they didn't make a second album what is causing this article to fail meeting the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, of course! Sorry if it was unclear that that was what I was saying! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Flop Summer Tour[edit]

Flip Flop Summer Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, tagged for notability since February with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I thought this article was going to be more notable, especially if the Tour was going to be repeated in 2008. -- Saaga (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: There just isn't enough information out there to make the article bigger and better. -- Saaga (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Come on Over Tour[edit]

The result was Keep both. JodyB talk 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Over Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Up! Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for sources since March with no improvement. No third party sources, just a set list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The tour proved to be a huge success, becoming the number one country tour and female tour of both 1998 and 1999, as well as top five pop tour, for both years[1]. The cited link may be to her own site, but the numbers I found in the wayback machine seem to imply it wasn't just PR speak. Is there some organization that keep records of ticket sales on tours? More importantly, the fact this was the first stage performance of the then unknown Avril Lavigne is noteworthy and mentioned in her article complete with a citation to her unofficial biography. - Mgm|(talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both tours were pretty successful I'm sure there has to source somewhere. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both tours are notable as they were international, the source of multiple music videos, and lasting for more than a year both times. The nominator has done a poor job with this nomination, citing the articles only contain a setlist, though clearly they have so much more. A Google search of the "Come on Over Tour" produces over 11 million hits. Perhaps instead taking the easy way out and continuously and unsuccessfully listing Shania Twain related articles for deletion, this user can spend the time to use any of these millions of sources and add them to the article, instead of simply nominating it for deletion. I will be adding a few third party sources tonight. Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--perhaps the Shania Twain fans who put it up in the first place could have done such sourcing. And you might direct your comment also at the defender of the article whose comments are found just above yours, and who also didn't go source-hunting. BTW, the nominator was pretty much spot-on with his criticism, and that he didn't mention that there were a million tour dates listed also, well, that's really not a serious critique. PS: I love Shania like a sister. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to List of Robot Chicken episodes. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S&M Present (Robot Chicken episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
S&M Present (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Episode article with WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT combined with WP:LISTCRUFT issues, with no (apparent) hope for improvement because of lack of sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Piece of the Action (Robot Chicken episode) was a test AfD which ended in deletion. AfD-Heads-up at Talk:List_of_Robot_Chicken_episodes#Heads-up_on_merger.2Fredirection_of_episode_articles didn't result in any comments or proposals.

I am also nominating the following related pages (all RC ep articles for season 1) for the same reason

Toy Meets Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Midnight Snack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Atta Toy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joint Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiddie Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nightmare Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Operation: Rich in Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sack (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That Hurts Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Black Cherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junk in the Trunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nutcracker Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gold Dust Gasoline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plastic Buffet (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toyz in the Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vegetable Funfest (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Deep End (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Badunkadunk (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– sgeureka t•c 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, there is no spoon. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what is there to merge? (Your anwser would make it easier for the closing admin.) – sgeureka t•c 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's plenty to merge, and obviously it can't all go in. I see the problem that you're describing, since each show apparently has several skits. I'd be in favor of the closing admin giving time for someone to salvage what they want (such as a comment to go with a particular episode). Perhaps the episode list would be split into lists for individual seasons (apparently, this is Season 1). I've never seen the show itself, but obviously someone who cares about the show created the individual articles. I understand that when you say "nothing", it isn't the literal meaning, but rather as a synonym for what you see as "nothing worthwhile". Perhaps you're right. I'm not sure that it's all worthless, but if someone doesn't want to undertake the task of merging anything at all, the articles would expire on their own. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and this vis not the right place to discuss how much to merge or how to divide it (but FWIW, I agree with Mandsford's suggestion to go by season.) It is however possible that one or more might actually be notable, but I have not checked. DGG (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List_of_Robot_Chicken_episodes. As to the reasons for deletion, please see Robot_Chicken for defense. Liobhain (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, if anything. I just corrected one reason not to delete no more than five minutes ago, which proves that there is something to merge. ----DanTD (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive relationship[edit]

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

As is within the article, is either a WP:NEO that isn't notable, or a WP:DICDEF. I've guessing neo. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Y'know, exclusive relationships between data points in the world of computer programming is worthwhile. Kind of reads like a dictionary defenition, doesn't it? Wellll... I think it can be expanded some to go into the history of the development, but I see it as a reference to one of the fundamental actions of database programming. Pretty significant, actually.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. Rescue time? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - I would transwiki this page to Wiktionary instead. Reads more like dictionary piece. ThePointblank (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no problem withdrawing *IF* it really is rescued, ie: sourced out with a few good sources, and adding only enough text that a layman can understand what the article is about. If it is really notable and such, then this is pretty reasonable. I am sure you can see why a layman would think it belongs here or in a dictionary. That really is a very general term. Sounds like "going steady" for computers.... PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article rescue squad is usually pretty on the ball with their rescues, if it takes too long, you could always ask for userfication to whoever has taken the case until it is finished. - Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem to be a significant term of art; as someone in the business, I haven't heard it used so. Perhaps I am in a backwater, but googling turns up a lot of passing references to "mutually exclusive relationships" (with the first word invariably supplied) as something that needs no definition, because its meaning is obvious. The key phrase seems to be "mutually exclusive", and it tends to occur in the context of discussion of how to handle that property in entity-relationship modelling; but I see no evidence that there is any meaning to be attached beyond the commonplace sense of any of the words. Looking up the other relationship types leads mostly to unrelated articles, except for how "many-to-many" leads, poorly, to associative entity and junction table. It doesn't seem to me that the phrase even needs to be defined, much less have an article devoted to it. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And clean-up. I found hundreds of sources with over 70 available at online at Google books and 600+ at Google scholar. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick check of those google results shows that most of the results in the second case don't have anything to do with computer science at all; the first case isn't as extreme, but my review of the first few pages of results reinforces my position that the use of the words is intuitive and not terminological. Also, I keep seeing that word "mutually" as a qualifier. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a case where those familiar with this "specialist topic" would be better to handle the issue. I have experience in CompSci, it might be helpful if others who also have experience and are posting here also say so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so do I; I work with database/query design on a constant basis. That's why I picked up on this. It's obvious that DB design has to deal with mutually exclusive relationships, but I hadn't come across the notion being made into a term. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But many, if not most of those sources do cover this term. Here's 4 search-able books just on data. My intent is not to prove every source on the search is an ideal fit but to show that the subject is dealt with in published studies and books. -- Banjeboi 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to read the results more closely. Of the four results pulled up by your linked search, two of them do not appear to be talking about entity relationships; one is definitely a false hit (the words fall across lines of table); only the first could be argued as referring to the concept. Searching for "mutually exclusive relationship" and "database" gave me three clear hits, which again tends to argue that there isn't a single term for this. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name change doesn't address my concerns at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be wise as before this AfD I had only heard the phrase in relation to romantic relationships. -- Banjeboi 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my logic, and I was trying to find a way to not have to delete, even though I am the nom. As it is now, without changing the name, I would still say delete. In truth, I found the article solely because I saw the title and wondered how they wrote an article about monogamy without it being a wp:dicdef. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is a book that discusses the implementation of an exclusive relationship in SQL. I'll add it to the article. VG ☎ 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment A number of people don't seem to be following my point here. We database design people do talk about mutually exclusive situations, and therefore you're going to find some discussion of it in books and articles. What I'm trying to get across is that it isn't a little subject of its own with its own term. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What credentials make you a "database design people"? I provided a published source. VG ☎ 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed tech[edit]

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

Non-notable college course - fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Eastmain's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TownMall of Westminster[edit]

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

Non-notable mall. Claims to have the first Steve & Barry's in Maryland, which I have not been able to verify. No sources found under current or former name, except for press releases regarding Boscov's taking over the former Montgomery Ward. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vukodlak[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; yet to release an album, not signed to a notable label, no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. They should probably read WP:GARAGEBAND. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - A team in a fully amateur junior league has trouble showing notability. Wide coverage in reliable sources might tip the balance the other way, but there are none provided here. Google does not suggest that there are many additional sources that could easily be added. Only two editors argued for 'Keep', and neither one offered a clear justification based on policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyclare North End FC[edit]

Ballyclare North End FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable football club playing in a regional intermediate league. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by IP.

I'll also nominate Kilbride Swifts FC, Ballynure Old Boys FC, Mosside FC and Woodlands FC (an article which cites a Bebo blog...) for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is the league all the teams play in - Ballymena & Provincial Intermediate League - notable for its own article? GiantSnowman 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its funny because alot of non notable english football teams have their own articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Spurs_F.C. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallen_F.C. you english are so pompous because you always think your stuff is far important than everyone elses that was a reference to пﮟოьεԻ 57 hows the Western League more important or the Bristol and Avon League. They also include no references at least these ones do. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.237.127 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per IP above although he could do with toning it down a bit. Adster95 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask what the IP's reason for keeping it actually was, beyond length (irrelvant). He hasn't actually shown that these clubs are more notable than the ones being considered here. A quick google shows 2,020 hits for Fleet Spurs and 214 for Ballyclare North End. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G-hits are not very reliable see here Wikipedia:GHITS! And I think the IP reason was that these articles have references, websites etc. And he/she is unhappy that non notable English clubs have articles. Is what I got from it.Adster95 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the references on the Ballyclare article are all to the club's own website (as are most of them on some of the others). Plus, WP:Ghits states "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." We are not comparing two different subject areas here - it is two clubs in the same sport - surely if one was more notable than the other (as claimed by the IP), it wouldn't have only 10% of the hits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete All this is a junior league in 1 county right? That means it auto-fails WP:ATHLETE --Numyht (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--serious lack of notability, especially in the light of the plethora of words. To Number 57, please consider that WP probably isn't so much a tool by the British oppressor, and more importantly perhaps, consider WP:WAX. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that in response to the comment starting "Keep - Its (sic) funny because alot (sic)....."? That comment was not added by Number 57...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't? I apologize for my mistake if I erred. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garmadh (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; solitary album on a non-notable label, no significant coverage in third party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Follow-the-sun. MBisanz talk 04:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Knowledge Factory[edit]

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

WP:VSCA; reads like a spammy essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of self published. Borock (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed... Fail WP:RS. The article is also a copyvio as far as I can see... --Pmedema (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure if this is the right forum, but the page is not a spam and please verify carefully the sources of article before flagging it for deletion. The content is verifiable and doe nit violates any copyvio Billyoffshore (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All sources given in the article were (co-)authored or supervised by Dr. Gupta, the apparent inventor of the term, as are most of the 62 google scholar hits I find for "24 Hour Knowledge Factory". The only third party in-depth coverage I find is at [20], and I'm not even sure if that's a reliable source.
    In my opinion the term/concept fails WP:NOTE, and the concerns from the last AfD, of which this is a repost (in violation of GFDL, since that one was authored by User:Yuu.david) have not been adressed. AmaltheaTalk 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note Follow-the-sun where the concept is already described. Might be a merge-target for some of the content? --AmaltheaTalk 23:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons mentioned above. And there is a distinct smell of COI here: I found this statement, "The author of this page is contributing to the English version of Wikipedia," at the bottom of the last of the 'sources.' Drmies (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or refactor/merge with Follow-the-sun, ala Amalthea) I agree, that the article as-is reads very spammy and lacks sufficient links to put into proper context; however, the concept is gaining traction in both academia and the business community (as signaled by the WSJ article, testing at IBM, etc.). Overall, it's a legit concept and should be retained as a reference for the broader community. I am not an author of this Wikipedia article, however, I am sufficiently familiar with the material that I would be willing to rewrite it or refactor it with Follow-the-sun should we decide it is worth retaining in some way. (WolverineMatt)
    — WolverineMatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • "Gaining traction" and "legit concept" is not enough to pass WP:NOTABILITY. For encyclopaedic inclusion it must already be notable. --AmaltheaTalk 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Follow-the-sun. The concept is definitely notable, and there is verifiable material here that can be useful there. I think that more than a short explicit section about "24 Hour Knowledge Factory" would be undue weight though since, per above, the term seems hardly notable outside of Dr. Gupta's research, and I too am worried about conflict of interest, particularly since a surprising number of new accounts are caring about these articles. --AmaltheaTalk 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn in good faith by nom. Article is still fails but will be fixed soon via rescue. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Philip Sousa School (Bronx)[edit]

John Philip Sousa School (Bronx) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability, via WP:ONEEVENT as they are only known for Britney Spears giving them some cash. Is a Jr. High/Middle school, so it doesn't get the pass that I would always give a High School +. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the proper school district. Dang, I like JPSousa!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I seem to recall it has had some famous alumni under its old name, JHS 143. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a source and name for that? That is kinda why we are here, no sources. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - page needs some work and I am presently developing it. However, it is already clear that the sources are available to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delete --JForget 21:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British footballers who have scored in a European Cup Final[edit]

List of British footballers who have scored in a European Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The nationality of a goalscorer is not a notable piece of information, so to group European Cup final goalscorers by nationality is not a notable confluence of information. – PeeJay 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. consensus is this material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If someone would like the content for transwiki, please ping me. StarM 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sciences ending in -logy[edit]

List of sciences ending in -logy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A bit indescriminate. Why are sciences ending in -logy notable? PROD by another editor was removed two weeks ago. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Oh please what next ? Indiscriminate list, can it. ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "ology" means "study of" so this list is merely an extension of dictionary definitions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an encyclopedia article. Basically a list of trivia. Borock (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That pretty much describes every science known to mankind. Most indiscriminate list I've seen. - Mgm|(talk) 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Merge??). I didn't create this list, I just split it out of the article -logy. For a discussion about this split, see Talk:-logy#Split proposal and Talk:-logy#Changes to the order of this article and Citations. If you decide to delete, you should consider deleting List of non-sciences ending in -logy as well. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder how well the distinction between "sciences" and "non-sciences" is being maintained, or can be. I just removed the entry "Escapology, the practice of escaping from restraints or other traps." I wouldn’t call that a science. On the other hand I find theology, known historically as "queen of the sciences," listed among the "non-sciences." That decision lacks historical perspective, if it is not outright POV. If the list survives, I suggest that it be recombined with the "non-sciences" list. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two etymologies for the suffix -logy (see -logy#Etymology). The two lists were originally meant to reflect this, but we never found a way of making this clear to the reader. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I notice that the two lists do not correspond to the etymological distinction. That's another reason to recombine. I'm ready to weigh in: Keep and merge with List of non-sciences ending in -logy. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure that the article needs a list to begin with, of any kind. Does making a list make it more clear than giving several common examples? (I am guessing not) A list for either appears to be fairly indescriminate, and once you break apart science and non-science, problematic. Is theology science? Astrology? I certainly see how examples are needed for that article, but a list of all words with that suffix is still indescriminate. Both of them. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I didn't explain my rationale. I find that the list is not "indiscriminate," and I can imagine likely scenarios in which readers would find it useful, e.g., for distinguishing -ology terms that sound similar but have divergent meanings. The list has potential to be more useful than it is, as pointed out in the discussions linked above (by ἀνυπόδητος). — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I certainly don't question your motives, that an article is useful or even interesting doesn't pass policy nor serve as arguments in this case. Can you show me a citation or reference that says "words that end in -logy are notable because..." as all lists and articles must establish independent notability (can't be inherited) Am I right? I'm very serious, I will be happy to be say I am wrong and withdraw the nomination if someone can clearly explain to me how. To answer below, I see how a list of phobias or manias is notable, but you can't really compare the two directly. You can compare phobia and mania in this context fairly, but not "words that end in -logy". Again, I'm all ears, please point out the policy that says this is the proper use of a list and I will gladly eat crow. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two lists together in order to remove the science/non-science original research problem. I hasten to point out that this is not at all an "indiscriminate list", a term that applies to lists that provide no information to discriminate between one entry and the next (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Generally, these are lists of blue links or lists of words with nothing to show why they are being grouped together. Nor is it unencyclopedic. Lists of phobias, manias, and fields that have the suffix "-logy" are seen in some reference works, such as the "Dunlop Book of Facts" that used to be put out by the same people who did the Guinness Book, and in some almanacs and (as part of a separate table) dictionaries. The problems that I do see are with sourcing, but that's something that is fixable. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Its lists like this that make me laugh, but not in a good way.  :( coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both lists. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is Doxology the study of "dox" ? (couldn't resist)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Good idea. Should then be linked from -logy. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both lists Merging them is completely indiscriminate; putting a word in one or the other, only slightly less so. Theology properly belongs in the "science" group, for instance, because that group is really "the study of" rather than natural science per se. In any case, the list is really a trivia collection of "those odd words scientists use for their studies." As far as inflicting this on Wiktionary, I see no evidence that they have these kinds of articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Fails to establish why the "logy" ending is particularly notable. Makes about as much sense as creating an article called "List of months ending in y". 23skidoo (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Why is logy an important ending? A merge would not be the best path either for reasons already stated. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy B. Hewitt[edit]

Timothy B. Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC ScarianCall me Pat! 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable subject. Being a brief term member of a notable band doesn't equate to notability for the individual. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean, the article says he's currently a member of a notable band. Nothing about that is "brief term", even if it was Notability is not temporary. - Mgm|(talk) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ?? The band has been a regional bar band for years. The nom has been in the band a short time. And in his tenure... they recorded a self-promo'd/independent disc that's peddled at their bar shows and has not been released or distributed by a record label. Twenty three years ago the band "scratched" notability. But that brief notability doesn't rub off onto band members that were only 13 years only when the band had its 15 minutes of fame. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going by what's in the article. Where do you get all that information? - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Prism (band) as failing WP:BIO, as well as there being no significant coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:N, I can't find any news hits at all, main hits are limited to his myspace and such. WP:MUSIC states that: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases - of which there's no evidence. – Toon(talk) 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect can be performed without doing a deletion. In fact, it's preferable because it doesn't give admins extra work. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laggardship[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, and WP is not a dictionary. ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of usage other than one instance. Even if it had been President Bush who had uttered that word, I would still call for a delete. This ain't Money and the ethnic vote. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination as a non-notable dictdef at best. --Lockley (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism which hasn't gained significant usage, seems to have been used only by this person. – Toon(talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per above comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Canada[edit]

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

Article is an unsourced advertisement for a non-profit organization. Speedy tag removed without explanation. No reliable sources provided, none found that are not press releases or other similar documents. TN‑X-Man 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--nominator is absolutely correct. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The SPA editor who created the article removed your Speedy Delete tag, Tnxman307, had a connection to the subject -- you should've put it back (along with a COI tag -- check the editor's name). Nonetheless, perhaps this forum can erase this decidedly non-notable subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it should not be deleted as spam (see this revision, the last one prior to AndreaACE's involvement in the article), it should nevertheless be deleted as a non-notable charity. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AndreaACE was reported to WP:UAA and blocked. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just looked through the first page of results in that search. I did not see any in-depth coverage of ACE. It was mentioned several times in passing (either as promoting a prize competition or team organizer), but I did not see any coverage of the company of itself. Granted, I did not look in-depth beyond the first page, but skimming other results seems to produce more of the same. TN‑X-Man 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Eastmain, but too much of that stuff is PR Web, MarketWire, Business Wire self-promotion. What might help is rewriting the article -- even taking it down to a stub would probably save it. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to North Penn School District. as per normal practice with these. Content is under the re-direct for whomever would like to handle the merge. StarM 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penndale Middle School[edit]

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

I know most schools are notable, but this one lacks any sources whatsoever. The building once was the high school, but it's now the middle school. The only claim to any notability is the claim of being the largest middle school of the three in the district. Delete or merge. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Everything, no matter what it is, must pass WP:RS and WP:N. This doesn't. Consensus in AfD shows that most middle school articles are either deleted or merged. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. Consensus in AfD shows that most middle school articles are merged, which is a version of keep since the content continues to exist (if you can find any, with substantive content, that was deleted let me know and I'll merge the content}. Several types of page are kept by AfD consensus even if they don't meet WP:N, which is a guideline to which exceptions can be made. Examples are numbered highways, inhabited settlements, species of fauna and flora, railway stations, airports, super-regional malls etc. If in doubt, by all means nominate an unsourced page in one of these categories (and there are many). TerriersFan (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a footnote, most sources here are behind paywalls to which I have no access hence my merge !vote. However, if I had access to those sources I see no reason why the article doesn't meet WP:N and I'm sure I could generate a sufficiently sourced page. TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge/redirect to North Penn SD. Not notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would start to develop the article; in due course all schools will get a summary. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per comments above and a now long standing consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodthorn[edit]

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

I hate doing this, but this article is extremely poor. It's written as a fan site and I am almost positive sections were just copied from their home page. Also, google searches turn up very little in sense of reliable sources. Fails notability guidelines. No sources or references to establish any notability. Filled with original research and unverifiable claims. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot find any information to confirm the tours of Scandinavia Europe nor can I find information of them being at Wacken or Inferno. (Hole in the Sky came up with a few results, but a small set of concerts is not a notable event) Undead Warrior (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the official Wacken site claims they were there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, so does the Inferno site. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per A7, so nominated, no assertion of significance or importance, no notability established. ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSIC, multiple releases on the very notable Season of Mist. Sources should actually be relatively straightforward to track down. AfD is not clean-up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three reviews from Allmusic ([21],[22],[23]), and some/all of the following might count as reliable sources: [24], [25], [26]. Album releases are on a sufficiently notable label (although it isn't mentioned in the article at present), so WP:MUSIC can be satisfied.--Michig (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability appears to be in order, but the article needs serious editing to get it into shape. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--I've done some of this editing, but will leave the actual important stuff (sources, etc) for those who know this stuff better than me. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Living Ontario[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Community Living Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete for non-notability. References to this organization is dubious at best, and this article was created as a blatant ad by the organization (whose account here, unimaginatively named communitylivingontario, was recently banned as a promotional username). The last discussion was also not throughly discussed, with only three users voting (one of whom withdrew their comments later). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The one comment that was removed was TPH's and it was the speedy delete that he took back and changed it to a keep. I think that considering the last AfD finished August 3rd, this is too early to consider another AfD unless the article has changed drastically. If that's the case then a revert would be in order... not an AfD. --Pmedema (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient notability. I'm sure its activities and aims are noble, but even the national organization doesn't have an article, why should the provincial one? PKT 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because the national organization does not have an article does not remove notability from the provincial. Plenty of google hits and the organization issues civic awards that are considered distinguished.--Pmedema (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, neither is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. PKT 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GoogleNews, GoogleBooks, GoogleScholar, GoogleWeb and that's only on this provincial body, not including the many local community Community Living organisations falling under it[27]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has lots of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important, well-known organisation. Clean-up tags may be appropriate but deletion, I feel, is not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the noob who tried to fix up this article, I got it from a google search and it was so poor I could not believe it. It is a very notable organization that has been credited as a leader in closing down Ontario's major institutions for people with intellectual disabilities. The national organization is actually much smaller than Community Living Ontario, so don't be confused that the province doesn't deserve and entry. I thought the version I put together was pretty good, I didn't realize I shouldn't have picked a user name that was so close to the topic name, an honest error, I was just trying to fix up the entry. Inclusionforeveryone (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I can't speak to "important" but if it was "well-known" one would expect some reliable sources. As it is, the absence of any reliable sources should have made this a speedy delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article lists multiple sources, with non-trivial mentions of this organization. There's enough there to establish a presumption of notability as per the general notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The multiple sources all one magazine called "Community Action" which appears to be some kind of trade publication (plus a press release). This does not establish notability, as per the WP:GNG
  • Update – I found more sources by searching with the organization's former name, Ontario Association for Community Living. I've added just a few of them (there are many more newspaper articles mention the organization), including a book that calls them "one of the most influential advocacy groups in Canada" for people with disabilities. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment here's what the article has now. Four references that can't be assessed from canadian newspapers because no links are provided. All I can say with certainty about those citations is that the name of this group is not mentioned in the headline. After the four newspaper refs, there's a profile of a man on something called simcoe.com that doesn't mention this organization; the rest are either from the aformentioned trade rag "community living" or a CBC article about a fire at a building this group owned. None of this, wholly or collectively, establishes notability or makes for strong, reliable sources.

Get some live links to newspaper articles that focus on this group's activities and i might change my view. Not close to that yet, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply – "Get some live links"? Sorry, but these news articles are not available online. I've read them, and I can report to you that there are several that discuss the group's activities (even if the article does not exclusively focus on the group), and several more that quote spokespeople from the organization when political issues related to people with disabilities are in the news. There is no requirement that Wikipedia articles use sources that are available on the Internet. Nonetheless, I can offer this link to the book I've quoted, if that's helpful. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yes, really. An article was started as advertising for and by this organization without good sources. Now sources are said to be found, in articles whose headlines don't mention this group and that can not be independently evaluated. I did read the book citation. Chupik does in fact make that assertion about the "ontario association for community living." I understand the name has changed. Does that name change imply that the org is no longer influential, or important? Not clear to me. But either way, I'm not sure if an academic paper (that book after all is just a binding of a bunch of related academic papers) that asserts notability for a previous iteration of this group, would be sufficient for that previous iteration even under WP:GNG. At any rate, that's my take. I'll let others chime in or not.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think I've got this covered now as far as neutral and notable sources, I've referenced everything from the Toronto Star to the Government of Ontario Hansard - all available on the internet. I'm sorry if I messed up some of the formatting, I am new to this, my contribution at this time is to rid this entry of the deletion tag which is ridiculous, as this is one of the biggest and most significant charitable organizations in all of Canada. And no, I don't work for them. I just know their work, my passion for the organization is much like how you would feel about a children's hospital that cured your child's cancer.Inclusionforeveryone (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fosho[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 keep. The citations are good enough for me and it is a scary article.. brr. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barresi[edit]

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

A permanently protected article that we're not allowed to edit for scary scary reasons has no place in Wikipedia. Not tagged for deletion because I can't. -- Gurch (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Scary article. My opinion is just to keep it as a stub. Delete everything except the prose. Also, this following comment should be taken into consideration:
It is incredible how many gay porn stars have tried to use Wikipedia for advertising purpuses. Mr. Barresi used to call up potential actors for his porn videos and tell them to log on to his Wikipedia article to learn all about him. -- THE PLEICANO SECTION was deleted as it was not sourced properly and many of the sources that were sited were self-published by Barresi himself! This is against Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has also been abused as it was used by Barresi or some one acting as him to make threats to people that were in controversy with Barresi! this should be deledte not because it lacks interest but because it has been a channel for self-promotion and abuse!.

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I don't necessarily like it, but there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia I don't like, and that's not a reason to delete anyway. Edit? Sure, but that ain't no AfD reason either. Scary? Weellll, not scary... but even if it were... that's not a reason to delete. So since there seems to be no reason to delete, I have to go with keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Subject seems notable from article and references. Nomination for AFD due to locked dispute seems quite POINTY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dispute? There isn't a dispute, there's an article that can't be edited that nobody seems to care about. This is a wiki, the whole point of it is that the pages can be edited. If we have an article that has to remain permanently uneditable, as in this case, that defeats the whole point of having it on a wiki in the first place -- Gurch (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently unlocking it is impossible, ever? May I inquire who pressed the lock button that no one on wikipedia can unlock? Reminds me of Make Love, Not Warcraft. NVO (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing scary about why the article can't be edited, it was protected by JzG with the note "Full prot while we work out GFDL issues, to avoid screwing up the history any worse". Instead of deletion a request for unprotection after discussion with the administrators involved in this page seems the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was sarcasm, right? Please tell me it was... -- Gurch (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The basis of the nomination has nothing to do with the content of the article, and a discussion without an AfD banner on the article itself doesn't seem appropriate as the editors interested in the topic are unlikely to find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nothing vaguely resembling a policy based reason for deletion presented. Pointy nomination of an article with over 20 references cited. It's incredible how many carbon-based hominids have attempted to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, no reason to limit it to gay porn as an objection.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject clearly meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO ("Barresi earned a 2003 GayVN Awards nomination for "Best Non-Sex Performance - Gay or Bi" for Long Strokes"). Tabercil (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISPs in Mumbai[edit]

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

Author declined PROD; however, the topic is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT a web host, nor a place for ISPs to advertise, nor a place for reviews of ISPs. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, also reasons per above. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one big spamfest. - Mgm|(talk) 18:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear piece of advertising for "Reliance Communications" with no sources and little encyclopedic merit. – Toon(talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article holds no information for long term use, does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards.--Crab182 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how you can justify deleting this article on the basis of it serving as an advertisement or not being encyclopedic content, when articles like List of cable Internet providers and List of British television channels exist. In fact, it was an article like this that gave me inspiration to start this wiki page. Let me reassure you, that i do not work for, or represent any of these ISPs. I am only a 15 year old child, who has tried out 3 ISPs in the past few months, and now i am getting frustrated because there are so many local ISPs here, but there is no proper listing of them, and hence consumers can't find the right ISP to choose. Just yesterday, i found a page listing 2 ISPs that functioned in my locality which i was never aware of. I am aware that right now, the page is devoid of content, but I assure you, i am working hard to fill it, and it should soon be a much more helpful page for all Mumbai residents( which by the way, is a HUGE population of 13 million , so don't say this article is for a very limited audience...). Also, i would like to inform you that an email with the following contents has been sent to many of the ISPs here, and they should fill in their details soon. I will work hard to moderate the page and make sure none of them edit it to favor them or advertise, you can rest assured about that...And to the user who said this is an advertisement for Reliance, it isn't, its just that i knew the details for Reliance since i am subscribing to them right now, and wanted to get the ball rolling by filling in some details, so that people would fill in details for their respective ISPs...

And now, the email that i sent to all the ISPs:

Hello Sir/Madam, I have created a wikipedia listing on ISPs in Mumbai, to make it easier for customers to find the ISP of their choice. I welcome you to add details about your offerings.
Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISPs_in_Mumbai
Link to article on editing Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cheatsheet

You should find it easy to add details by just replacing the ? marks...Any negative actions like deleting a competitor's listing will be recorded, and undone easily by Wikipedia's large group of contributors. I think it is in everyone's best interests to keep this page regularly updated with information. Also, if you feel that a certain field should be added to the table and has been overlooked, please feel free to do so yourself.

and also, as the details start pouring in, i plan to extend this page for ISPs all over India, not just Mumbai, so that it is more extensive and serves to a larger population...But please give it a chance to grow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorned (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines fleet[edit]

Delta Air Lines fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article contains the same information as Delta Air Lines word for word and looks like all of the information has been copied from that one article. All of the info in this article can be found at Delta Air Lines. Spikydan1 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The reason I created the article was to reduce clutter on the Delta Air Lines article, especially now that Delta has bought out Northwest. Because the table would be huge for the combined fleet, I think it deserves its own article. I have restored the Northwest fleet on the article in a separate section, but soon we will have to combine the two tables into one. ANDROS1337 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate daughter article. The information can obviously be removed from the main article. GrszReview! 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The information is all found on the delta page, but, if anything else could be added to this article to make it better, I will change my !vote. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's big enough and important enough to warrant its own article. JodyB talk 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable information. The detailed info should be removed from the main Delta article. Borock (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Delta Airlines is clearly becoming too long, so having a spin-off article is completely acceptable (as long as the info is taken from the main article and a link to the new article is left in its place). - Mgm|(talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this section is obviously getting too large for the Delta Air Lines article, it needs to be moved off to a separate article as to not disrupt the Delta Air Lines article. ThePointblank (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article as it is appears to be a copyright violation (and possible G12 candidate), being copied directly from the Delta Air Lines article without any form of attribution as required by the GNU Free Documentation License under which the material was released. This could be easily fixed by the user who copied the information providing attribution by linking to the parent article's history or requesting some kind of history merge (or splice ?). Guest9999 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this is violating copyright. Copying contents of another article is not a copyright violation at all. Reading G12, it says that users should verify that the suspected source of copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. Therefore, there is no copyright violation at all. ANDROS1337 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe blanking the page and making move proposals for the two fleet sections to be moved to Delta Air Lines Fleet would be a good solution for now? That way, editors can weigh in on if content or what content should be moved at those proposals. Right now almost everyone agrees that the page should not be deleted and that the information should be expanded on or partly removed from the Delta and Northwest page because they overlap 100%. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the copyright issues all that would really be required is for the user who moved the material to give a link to the page history of the parent article with a short explanation of the move - this is normally considered an acceptable means of attribution in these circumstances. Any move discussion would be independent of the copyright issue. Guest9999 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information found on the page can also be found on the Delta and Northwest page. No one would want to read the same information twice. And I agree, the Delta Air Lines article is becoming too long. When the airlines become one, the fleet on the Delta page can be removed and the merged fleet can be on a seperate article. Cashier freak (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article but prune: much more detail appears here than is needed in an encyclopeadic article. The information will need to be regularly maintained, something that cannot be assured in WP. Accordingly, the right place for this infomation is on a comapny website, for which the main artilce can provide a link. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to remember: the Northwest fleet does not belong on the Delta page or the Delta fleet page because they have not combind services and they most likley will dump a lot of aircraft when they do merge (That could be 1-2 years from now)...So really the Delta Air Lines fleet page is really twice as long as it should be right now. Spikydan1 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heckle[edit]

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

This is a rec hockey game that is organized between two internet forums. A Google search shows no verifiable information other than the forums themselves. Farmerman (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no notable references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete annual sub-amateur hockey game, no notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See previous comments. ThePointblank (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Calgarypuck article. This is blatently an ILIKEIT comment, but, it seems as one of the major participants has an article, the least we can do is have a reference to the game, which, while "notablity" is a struggle, it's worth mention somewhere... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Roland Barthes. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fashion System (book)[edit]

The Fashion System (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD, fails WP:NB because of a lack of third-party sources and a lack of notability. DARTH PANDAduel 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan & Jones - Mind the Hedge[edit]

Dan & Jones - Mind the Hedge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AfDing after contested prod - this is a non-notable YouTube comedy duo whose only assertion of notability is that one of them was an extra in a straight-to-video Doctor Who film fourteen years ago. Editor appears to have a clear conflict of interest. McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it weren't for that Dr. Who claim, this could have been speedied. --Crusio (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure if I agree with the above that this couldn't be speedied (working on a direct-to-video episode as an extra? come on!), but I agree it definitely needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better to delete it here, to get it properly on record anddeal with potential re-creation. I think it actually was a good faith asdertion of notability. The problem is that it simply isn't notable.DGG (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Cox[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amateur astronomy. Any mergers from history are subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skygazing[edit]

Skygazing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • This article seems not to be encyclopedic since:
    • The article is for the most part a redundant duplicate of Amateur astronomy with further duplication of other articles (meteorology, aurora, the sun, ect)
    • The major part of the article consists of instruction.
    • There seems to be no way to attributed this article about “skygazing” to any reliable sources material. “Skygazing” does not even seem to exist in any standard dictionary so there isn’t even a basic definition.
  • The consensus view in several discussions Talk:Amateur astronomy#New article Skygazing, Talk:Amateur astronomy#Skygazing should be deleted, Talk:Skygazing is to merge and/or redirect. Merger of any encyclopedic material has for the most part has been effected a wile ago and what is left in this article is instruction and or un-referenced and therefore unusable in other articles.

Redirection is my preference because “Skygazing” seems for the most part to be a slang term for the activity formally known in this encyclopedia as Amateur astronomy. It could be this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia at all because it has no definition in the English language. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—"Skygazing" is clearly a contraction of "sky gazing", and I find the term has been in use at least as far back as 1926. I don't oppose a merger, but I do believe that skygazing isn't necessary amateur astronomy; the latter is a dedicated hobby whereas the former is just a recreation, like swimming. This distinction should be mentioned on the resulting page. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RJH here, Skygazing is certainly a common term, just perform a google search and you will find thousands of relevant hits. I also agree that sky gazing itself is not necesarily the same as amateur astronomy. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Since material from this article has already been merged, redirection is required by the GFDL to keep the paper trail alive on who first contributed this information. Deletion would be a gross violation of the rules and redirection can be applied without performing deletion first. - Mgm|(talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and Mgm. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect reasonable search term, but the article is more a howto than encylopedic. Perhaphs transwiki to wikibooks where it might be appropriate. --Salix (talk): 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merely looking at the sky does not seem like a notable topic. Borock (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Looking at the sky is notable since so many people do it, but a redirect sounds like a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Looking over the talk and edit history of Skygazing and Amateur astronomy I noticed that a refactoring of Amateur astronomy was preformed mostly by Izogi spurred by the discussion about Skygazing. Material from Skygazing was not merged, it was more "boy Skygazing is a bad article, and Amateur astronomy has similar problems... lets fix Amateur astronomy". So Skygazing could be deleted without GFDL problems since material was not specifically used in Amateur astronomy, it was specifically avoided. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I really cannot understand that logic. Simply because an article is written badly is not an excuse to delete it, instead it should be simply tagged appropriately and simply improved. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Improving" the article is fine. But you immediately run into the problem of this article being un-referenced and totally un-reference-able. So we improve it how? It is not badly written as much as it is a badly written encyclopedic article. To be an article in this encyclopedia there has to be reliable sources describing something clear and distinct called "Skygazing". Those don't exist. The only thing I could possible see doing with this article is to convert its topic headings into a new article called List of things seen in the sky. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of unreferenced articles in wikipedia. The way to deal with these is to tag them accordingly. Not delete them. I don't think you can dispute the factual accuracy of the information in this article, for sure it should be referenced but this isn't a reason to delete the entire article and its history.
Note that the article Amateur astronomy is also poorly referenced yet that is no reason to subject it to an AfD. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other stuff exists is not a rational for keeping an article. Skygazing is not poorly referenced, it has no references at all. Being un-reference is not a reason for deleting an article, being non-encyclopedic is . An un-referenced how-to article that is a redundant copy of several other articles and seems to be a dumping ground of random information about the sky is the definition of non-encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an OSE argument, its an issue over whether this unreferenced article belong in wikipedia. My point was that the appropriate way to deal with an unreferenced article and an article that requires cleanup is to tag them accordingly. Not to delete them. Quoting WP regulations to try and counter any of my suggestions here isn't going to help. You can find a WP rule to support pretty much any idea you wish. I for one DGAF Jdrewitt (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I will transwiki this to Wikiversity if it is going to get deleted. --mikeu talk 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or merge. - Should be redirected as something too similar to have its own article, but probably could be merged, also. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is a significant amount of material here which should be first merged into the Amateur astronomy page. Only when this is completed should a redirect be used. This article and its history should not be permanently deleted. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merger with Amateur astronomy is a very bad idea. Almost all of the material in this article relating to Amateur astronomy describes how to observe objects in the sky. Wikipedia articles are not how-tos. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On second thoughts, I change my opinion from merge to keep. This page and its history should not be deleted. Skygazing is a very worthy topic of its own article. The fact that the article needs to be improved is not a reason to delete it. There is material that could be merged into Amateur astronomy, for example under a heading Observations or similar. The article also mentions day light sky gazing. This is obviously not astronomy and reinforces the need for a separate article.Jdrewitt (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Thomas[edit]

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

Article was originally submitted for speedy deletion, but I declined it, because being nominated for the Peasemore Portrait prize could make it notable. Bringing it here instead. Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion A7. _ Mgm|(talk) 12:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Buzz[edit]

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

Fails WP:Note, would speedy but the tag is removed by an anon IP. I wonder who *grin* Blowdart | talk 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The speedy tag was removed by the anon, but they didn't provide any reasoning. Seeing as how the speedy criteria still applied, I performed the deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Kimberley Football Association. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle Bay (Peninsular) Bombers[edit]

Beagle Bay (Peninsular) Bombers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. just deserves a mention at West Kimberley Football Association. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna fingers[edit]

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

There seems to be no notability for this cookie. The references provided are a link to the company's site which provides nutrition information and product description of the cookie. The other reference is to an article that never mentions the cookie at all. Please also see discussion at Talk:Vienna fingers#Notability. A merge was suggested there, but I'm not sure what would be merged to the company's article other than a short product description of the cookie being vanilla wafer and filling. Metros (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you read some of my notes, you must have read them too quickly. It is true that part of my argument is that the Vienna fingers page has more information than many other stubs (like Chips Deluxe). However, a more important part is why it is not only out of proportion with other articles, as all of the discussors have seen, but why redirecting or deleting the page would be harmful to Wikipedia. The page it is usually redirected to is the Keebler page. The Keebler page, if you would look at it carefully, does not show notability of the cookie either. It is barely even mentioned, just as another product Keebler makes. The Vienna fingers page in question shows an awful lot more information and notability, not to mention being even longer than the Keebler page. In summation, redirecting or deleting Vienna fingers would actually be harmful.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
    • Where is the notability proven through reliable sources? The article says "it kept the company afloat" (more or less), but there's nothing there to provide that. Metros (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one and only place I found any historical information about Vienna Fingers was on the Wikipedia page Sunshine Biscuits. A few months ago, I tried to use that as one of my references, but you shot it down right away. Recently, I put up the one reference given for that page, assuming it would have the same information. That particular article did not have enough references, and it was not deleted, so it seemed correct. However, Sunshine Biscuits is a Fortune 500 company, and as we know from the article, kept it afloat. Thus, Vienna Fingers are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing in any reference that says "Vienna fingers is the reason why Sunshine Biscuits stayed afloat." Here is the extent of the mention of Vienna fingers in the Sunshine Biscuit article: "Sunshine also originated Vienna Fingers cookies, which are now sold under the Keebler brand." That's it. And Sunshine Biscuits is not a Fortune 500 company; it's not even a Fortune 1000 company (see this listing. Metros (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the discussion page for Vienna fingers, where I came in as a third-opinion. The best argument I thought fudgecicle had was that you can get 4730 Google hits for "Vienna fingers" as a phrase (1.4m as separate words, but mostly hits such as "picking up Vienna sausages with your fingers"). Most of them are just utilitarian commercial links, a few of them were "reviews," and none of the ones I saw showed cultural significance. By contrast "ladyfingers" gets almost 300,000 hits, most of which showed cultural significance IMO - books, history, recipes, being used as a name, etc. Existing, being sold, and apparently being enjoyed by some aren't criteria for notability.
Support deletion. arimareiji (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While we're talking Google hits I would point out that there are 1450 Google News hits and 74 at Google Books. I don't have enough interest in the subject to go through all of those to find references to add to the article, but the sheer numbers make notability practically certain. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of the news search results look like they're ads/circulars in the papers giving you the price of the cookies. There are also a percentage of them that are articles on the company that used to make them where it's listed as one of the products they made. The book results mostly appear to be diet books where it gives the caloric value/other nutritional counts for the cookie (and, also, it appears that Neil Simon mentioned Vienna fingers in his script for The Odd Couple). I'm not sure that any of these mentions provides notability. Metros (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Metros's argument, but I admit they are quite tasty. Sam Blab 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I truly meant above is that Kelloggs, the mother company of S.B., is a fortune 500. Now, if Neil Simon mentioned Vienna Fingers in his Odd Couple script, that makes Vienna fingers culturally important. The Odd Couple was a very famous movie (or TV show, or whatever), though I don't know what it's about. One of the discussors mentioned that many of the links were ads; well, that also makes it important. If a product has large scale advertising like that, that means it is important. Furthermore, the fact that vienna fingers are mentioned in several diet books means that they are important to fat people because they are tasty and healthier than other things. This should make everyone sure that these references provide notability. I will have to put up some more info about the Odd Couple thing on the Wikipedia Article.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

  • Just because it's mentioned in a notable TV show doesn't mean it's notable. Sam Blab 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV shows are part of pop culture. If vienna fingers are in a TV show, especially a famous one, that means that they are a part of the culture. Therefore, vienna fingers are definitevly part of American culture. Q.E.D.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

So, you're saying that if someone mentioned me in a famous TV show, I would be notable enough for an article? Sam Blab 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first episode (I think?) of the Brit version of Coupling, Jeff mentions "unflushables" (aka floaters) as a metaphor for relationships you can't get rid of. Does that mean they need their own article?... Good grief, wait a minute - there is a subsection of his page devoted to that term! ;-) Fortunately, there's no mention of the objects that prompted the metaphor - nor is there an article devoted to them. But they did merit a disambiguation.
(Sorry, just thought the discussion could use a little reductio ad absurdum humor.) arimareiji (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Sam; that would make you much more culturally important.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle See? It does mean cultural notability! Arimaj-whatever agrees! Now, the only thing is that no one has come up with a definition for "cultural notability". Every example I have given is evidently not "cultural notability". If someone could actually give a definition for once, I'm sure finding a good reason would be easy. Until then, no one should really have any right to say what is or isn't "cultural notability".Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

  • Strong and speedy keep A very simple Google search turns up considerable media coverage: [28]. Write-ups include the New York Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Deseret News, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Contra Costa Times...even Noo Joisey's beloved The Record has written this up. Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be instructive if you include examples of the actual usage in context to show why there's notability. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_fallacies wrt Google hits.
  • For example, "Vienna fingers have long been considered a cultural icon" by (www.doesntexist.com) would show it.
  • But it's highly open to argument whether "Keebler, the maker of Chips Deluxe, Hydrox and Vienna Fingers" would. arimareiji (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_fallacies is an opinion essay, not Wikipedia policy -- people are entitled to their opinions, of course, but let's not mistake opinions for policy. Opinions notwithstanding, the fact remains that this particular product has been around for decades (a lot longer than all of us, I imagine) and is cited by major media as one of the flagship products of the Keebler organization -- which, logically, would be a confirmation of its notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did reliable sources write about this cookie? Yes, so it passes the general notability guideline. And if reliable sources have written about other baked goods, then those other baked goods are notable too. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:22, 30 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, Ecoleetage (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Google News links show, the cookies are the subject multiple non-trivial articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anything made by elves in a tree must be notable. Oh, and the secondary sources, too. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pharmboy. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candie Evans[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/G11 by Thingg , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babbka[edit]

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

Rationale:

  • By the author's own description of Astriga Film Industry, the "industry" is "popular in only ... three buildings and surrounding apartments". I've requested its deletion as a non-notable company (later note: it has been deleted).
  • This article provides only one reference, an external link to the home page of the Hindustan Times. There is no mention of the film Babbka at this location, nor does it turn up in a search of the site.
  • There is a list of award categories with no indication what the awarding organization is.
  • There are no Google hits for astriga babbka.
  • "The film was a huge commercial success and grossed $15 or Rs.300" is nonsense.

This smells like a hoax; at the very least, it appears to be a non-notable film. It's probably also advertising, since the "Official Website" link on the Astriga page is to www.ashufilms.com, and the author is Ashurockstarboy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. In addition, it's a future film. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 1:10, November 3, 2008

Big 106.2[edit]

Big 106.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Withdraw, although I still believe it would have been better to ha ve waited until the station was on air to start the article.Station may become notable in future, but currently this fails WP:CRYSTAL and is on the verge of being spam. Any currently available sources will most likely be press releases and hence not independent. dramatic (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't find these for some reason - I guess this shows the limitations of relying on Google. If a second source of coverage is found, then that would be enough for a keep.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage by a major NZ media outlet satisfies notability. There's no rule that says we need to have a second source if the first source is reputable on its own. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but to quote WP:N, "Multiple sources are generally preferred".--Michig (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also true, but it says nothing about only a single source being grounds for considering deletion. What you cite is a "best case scenario" circumstance. 23skidoo (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article itself seems to contain unsourced speculation. Is it Original Research? Seems to meet notability for NZ but needs better referencing or some of the unsourced parts removed for now. NZ forever (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If they have been licensed by the government of New Zealand to broadcast on a dedicated FM radio frequency to the biggest population centre in the country, they inherently meet WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the stations website at http://www.bigfm.co.nz now contains sufficient information about the station which has now launched in Auckland, have just updated article to reflect this. As more information becomes available we can expand on it. Bhowden (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some work done to it such as expanding with the 2 news items listed above the AfD used as sources. Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. may well not be a hoax, but no evidence he's notable StarM 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Gray[edit]

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

Assuming good faith, player fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-professional league. Previously deleted article recreated with the addition of one 2006 appearance for Dolcan Ząbki, prod removed by creator/only editor as this club played in fully-pro Polish First League. However, in 2006 they were playing in not fully-pro lower divisions 2005/6, 2006/7.

However, probable hoax. No mention of player in Polish club's squad for either season. No ghits for player with Worksop or Gainsborough other than social networking sites and wikimirrors. This page gives Worksop's fixtures for relevant period; no Gray appears in match squads (click on scorelines). Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't find any evidence to confirm the alleged single appearance for Dolcan, none of the other clubs he may or may not have played for play in a fully pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May have played 1 game in a professional league in Poland, but I don't see enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Player is not a hoax, listed in matchday magazines for both Gainsborough and Worksop. As of the moment, can't find any online sources, Im kind of tired trying to find online sources for this player as they always get challenged, due to the lack of it basically. I know this player on good authority to have played for Dolcan aswell, but like people say if it cannot be proved, its going to be challenged. --Footballgy (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you scan an image of the match-day stuff? matt91486 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what value there would be in that, unless it can prove that he played in a fully pro league, which it is unlikely it could do given that the article claims his pro experience came after his time at Worksop and Gainsborough. Providing proof that he played for Worksop and Gainsborough is futile as those teams don't play in fully pro leagues so it wouldn't help him pass WP:ATHLETE..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would refute the hoax argument. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I will scan magazines and news articles if it will be of a use. One article also says he is now a professional in Poland aswell, which obviously counted for something unless it was an editorial mistake. I think this player was mentioned before by another contributor as still playing in Poland, but as of yet I don't know. I am going to save the profile personally, and if i can find anymore information I will add the profile back on given time. --Footballgy (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. StarM 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jori Chisholm[edit]

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

The person in question is clearly not that important in terms of professional piping not having won any of the major awards at the Argyllshire Gathering, The Northern Meeting or the Highland Society of London Competitions. The awards listed here which the subject has won are second tier awards and do not fit into the category of world class. To be considered one of the world’s best pipers a piper would have to have won a Former Winners event or either of the Highland Society of London Gold Medals. There are many competitors who have won these awards over the past few hundred years. Why is it may I ask that that someone who has never won any these major awards is being portrayed as being so important?

There are many websites you can go and research the subject. To name a few [29] [30] [31] [32]

I have purposely not provided a full test of the article as I am quite sure that upon researching the subject using the websites provided that the subject in this article is not at all very important in terms of world class competitive pipers. He may run his own piping business; in teaching which may I suggest is the main reason for the existence of this article. It is nothing more than an advertisement for his teaching business. Next we will have an average car mechanic on Wikipedia trying to increase his sales!

I will provide a more substantive test with more references and reasoned argument if necessary however at this stage I will not waste my time on an article as insignificant as this one as I think it quite obvious what this article is about and who it was written by! It is quite obvious by the level of personal detail in the article it was contributed to by the subject in the form of another username.

In short I think this article is a joke and should be deleted, and I will provide a more reasoned argument if required.

Fing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingyon 83 (talk • contribs) — Fingyon 83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • This nomination was broken. Now fixed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I would say that his awards cover WP:MUSIC pretty well, in conjunction with him being a solo performer with a notable pipe band. In relation to the above websites he does appear, firstly here and most notably here. Also, see here and here for further support of his award. There does seem to be a worrying history of the subject himself editing this article and whilst that's not encouraged I don't believe that it's impacted this too much. Perhaps it needs clean up to prevent POV creeping in, but it's not serious enough to warrant deletion; the information is largley verifiable. Finally, I'm not too impressed by the array of SPAs at work on this article, particularly the nominator of this AFD. onebravemonkey 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; He is definitely a notable player. If you look at the major awards he's won there's no doubt that qualifies under the WP:MUSIC criteria #9. Especially the A Marches at Oban, which is a major event, qualifying for the Former Winners status -- of which there are less than 50 pipers worldwide. There are many other notable pipers in the world that do not have Wikipedia pages and that is something we need to work on. The basis of the article created by user JPerry was a detailed profile article in Celtic Heritage Magazine -- more evidence that the subject of the article is indeed notable. page 1 and page 2 There are dozens of Wikipedia articles on much less notable pipers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gy57f37gjh59gj (talk • contribs) — Gy57f37gjh59gj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep; Notability shouldn't be defined merely by awards won. In addition, notability should be defined by substantial contributions to the art. Chisholm is the founder and proprietor of BagpipeLessons.com, which is the first and only service where pipers can download electronic lesson packages (sheet music, MP3, and a written and MP3 lesson.) For those of us around the world who live in places where there are no piping teachers, this is a godsend. Also, Chisholm has become known as an innovative piper who is breaking new ground by mixing pipes in nontraditional ways with banjos, ukuleles, pianos, etc. His new album, Bagpipe Revolution, is a good example. Those who argue that this article should be deleted should have to show evidence of non-notability with respect to these two contributions to the art. 76.105.205.85 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, you can't prove non-notability (you can't prove a negative at all). What is it with this particular article that has brought all the SPAs and socks out? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. The nomination and delete comments seem to have been working under a misconception that makes this nomination hard to sustain. Whether the list is redundant to a category doesn't need to be debated at AfD yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of blue-eyed soul artists[edit]

List of blue-eyed soul artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic and seriously minor, minor trivia. [ roux ] [x] 08:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not asserted why this category is important. What's next, brown-haired Heavy Metal drummers? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green-eyed female unmarried folk singers who went electric! [ roux ] [x] 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh ;) [ roux ] [x] 09:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get the impression that the editors above think this is a list of soul artists with blue eyes, rather than a list of artists in the genre known as "blue-eyed soul". We have a Blue-eyed soul article about the genre, so the list seems valid. Perhaps some serious reason for deletion could be provided?--Michig (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A serious reason for deletion was provided; I was unaware of the genre. In that case, this list should be a +cat, no? [ roux ] [x] 09:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given were misinformed as has already been stated. blue-eyed soul is a genre of music and blue-eyed soul artists are therefore not merely soul artists who happen to have blue eyes. --neon white talk 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a reasoned argument for deletion which showed that you had read the article and the Blue-eyed soul article (which is linked to in the first line of this article) before nominating it. No, lists are valid in addition to categories as they can highlight topics for which there is not yet an article.--Michig (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you go re-read WP:AGF? I made a mistake. I said right up there "I was unaware of the genre" and suggested that the list would better serve as a category. [ roux ] [x] 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read articles before trying to delete them? I didn't assume bad faith, just a lack of thoroughness before trying to get an article deleted. See also the second point in WP:AFD#Before_nominating_an_AfD - "Read the article to properly understand its topic." Don't start accusing others of not assuming good faith just because they point out a mistake you've made.--Michig (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of me acknowledging my mistake are you not getting? Try treating people just a wee bit nicer, okay? [ roux ] [x] 13:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledged your mistake after I pointed it out (though you don't seem particularly remosrseful), and produced another reason after I asked for a valid reason for deletion, then argued with me for pointing out your mistake and and asking if there is a valid reason for deletion (which I did before you came up with your current reason). It's a shame you haven't shown the good grace to withdraw the nomination.--Michig (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remorse? For making a mistake? You have got to be joking. I made a mistake about the deletion, and suggested that the list would still be better as a category than as an article. It's a shame you don't have the good grace to be polite to someone who has made and acknowledged a freaking mistake. [ roux ] [x] 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have fallen for this trap if it wasn't for the link. Had no idea such a genre existed. This list gives an additional subdivision by country which could be useful. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Trap'? [ roux ] [x] 10:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a trap, since the referenced article on blue-eyed soul has been around for four years. It wasn't created just to make this look like a legitimate list. Never mind, I missed the point. Keep anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid topic for a list. Seems like a snowball to me seen as the original reasons for nominated have proven to be mistaken. --neon white talk 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brandon Crisp[edit]

Disappearance of Brandon Crisp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Current story making the rounds b/c a boy ran away from home when his dad confiscated his xbox, and there's reward money offered for his return. I deleted Brandon Crisp per privacy concerns, but it was recreated in the form of the event. I figured I should put this before the community instead of deleting it myself, but I'd still say that Wikipedia is for people and events with established historical notability. ~Eliz81(C) 06:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not historically important. People who have information on it should report that to the police so he can be found, not to WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Antivenin 07:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic news story.--Michig (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews where it belongs. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. If the story develops into information worthy of an encyclopedic article, then bring it back... later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies all qualifications for a proper Wikipedia article. Of course, as I created the article, I'm a bit biased, but I have what I think are some legitimate objections. You argue that things of limited historical significance don't belong here, even though notability is entirely a subjective qualifier, and in my opinion, it fulfills those criteria (please see the number of articles mentioning the case on Google's News Aggregator: Currently there are over 1,000). As the 'Wikipedia is Not' page mentions, Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article., and this article is none of those things. The case has reached a higher level of social significance now as it has fueled some argument over the effect of video games on children, and this article should remain here, because it provides a robust source of information about this notable case to those seeking it. As for the privacy issues, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Please see the 1,000 articles mentioning his name above. DarrenBaker (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everything that is in the news violates WP:NEWS. Looking at the sources cited in the article, and those that can be found on Google now, it appears that this is a crime that is widely reported in Canada, and now is spreading beyond the borders there, with America's Most Wanted giving it publicity. Yes, I know, kids disappear every day. In some cases, such as the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, the press outside the community starts following the story and it becomes more widely known. I conclude that, nearly three weeks after the fact, this crosses into notability due to the coverage from secondary sources. I don't think it's likely that someone with information will post it here rather than reporting it to the police. Rather, the event will probably be something of lasting interest, even if not importance. A WP article is a good place for accurate information for those who are interested. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for similar AfD decisions of temporarily widely covered incidences/people in the media, please see this AfD and this one. Both get a ton of Google hits and have a lot of reliable sources. ~Eliz81(C) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the examples, but I don't think they apply fully in this case. The first one you cite is a biographic page about a person notable for only one event (and therefore should have been removed), and the second was removed for legitimate privacy concerns - specifically the naming of multiple juveniles only tangentially related to the facts in the article. Again, I must reiterate my objection to the privacy issue, since I am certain this article satisfies all guidelines laid out in WP:BLP. As for Steve Dufour's comment above, if a person were to use this article to release information about the case rather than reporting it to the police, that person would be guilty of a number of crimes - but it would still have no bearing whatsoever on this article's legitimacy. DarrenBaker (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford's reasoning. — NovaDog — (contribs) 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of rooms of the Hidden Temple[edit]

List of rooms of the Hidden Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of fancruft (rooms featured on Legends of the Hidden Temple), not very-well sourced. Wikipedia is not a Legends fansite. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Temple Rooms and layouts RJaguar3 | u | t 06:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJaguar3. Wikipedia isn't a directory. ApprenticeFan (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect a condensed version into the main article. The way it is referenced now makes the references section look very ugly. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's not indiscriminate, it's a limited list related to a notable television program. And it is a subarticle to boot. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm, the problem I have is that I cannot find any reliable sources to verify any of this. All that I can get are fansites. And also, being a limited list doesn't make it encyclopedic. For one, what if I were to create a list of the names of the 240 contestants that made it to the final round? That would certainly be limited, but it would appear very unencyclopedic and directory-like. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDITED TO ADD Mgm, I also have created a condensed version on the main page. Essentially, the only thing I believe worth keeping is that the Shrine of the Silver Monkey (the most identifiable room) appeared in every show and that there were many different layouts. There's no reason to merge any of the other content. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhill Fowler[edit]

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

Not notable, although the opening sentence says she is famous. Only known for passing on statements by Clinton and Obama, not even for her own writing. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No demonstrated notability as a journalist. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Qqqqqq and nom. Fails WP:N also as her comments on Obama provoked a short burst of news topics, nothing more. Antivenin 06:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were not even her comments. She just reported his remarks.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it was Senator Obama's remarks that were (I am confident) the topic of the web postings, not the name of the person who repeated them. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--one shouldn't be notable simply for doing one's job, unless it's an inherently notable job (and this isn't). Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sometimes an ordinary person becomes newsworthy because of a political controversy. This happened to Graeme Frost and Joe the Plumber, just this election cycle. Mayhill Fowler is in the same boat. Just read all these newspaper articles vilifying her. Mhym (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What newspaper articles? I saw one mention in the Washington Post archive, and that was positive. Granted, the blogosphere is full of criticism, but who's going to remember that tomorrow, or next year? BTW, why didn't the author even bother to explain what those controversial remarks were? WP is supposed to be encyclopedic--not something for insiders only. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real information on the person in article that shows she is notable. Borock (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real information on the person in article that shows she is notable. Borock (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shailagh Murray[edit]

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

Uncited and notability not asserted. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The journalist is simply not notable. Antivenin 07:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at WP:JNN.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess lists[edit]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a chess scoreboard.--Pbbb0 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just like we keep scores of the Olympics and other tournaments. Wikiolap (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It's unclear what the point of these lists is. You can't just randomly select two prominent chess players, list games they've played against each other and call it an article. It's an indiscriminate collation of information. Reyk YO! 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these aren't "random" players. Kasparov and Kramnik played a match for the World Chess Championship and Anand and Kramnik have played two such matches. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And all three of these people are (or were) World Champions. 01:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep List of chess games between Anand and Kramnik because this was part of the 2008 chess championships coverage. You obviously can't make collections of games between two random players, but at least one of these is not random (it's a list between players who recently fought out a World Championship Tournament), just as a list of games between Kasparov and Karpov wouldn't be. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm, and the same argument holds for the Kasparov-Kramnik match-up in light of their World Championship match in 2000. Prior to these World Championship matches, the commentators frequently make a point of how the two contenders have fared against each other in prior games. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a chess analog to articles like Federer-Nadal rivalry. GlassCobra 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can't help thinking that anyone interested in this article would have Chessbase or similar and would simply click the appropriate button, which coincidentally is all it took to write it. Maybe Anand-Kramnik has more merit, because it's topical and could remain a rivalry for some time to come, whereas the Kaspy-Kramnik match-up just reminds us that Kramnik was, in a sense, Kasparov's bogey player. Big deal, Geller used to beat Fischer and lose to Korchnoi - it's just the way it is, a clash of styles can throw up unpredictable outcomes. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You could use that argument, "anyone interested in the subject would have access to the sources used to create the article", to delete every article on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps because those are team sports, whereas chess and tennis are individual? In any case, we do have corresponding articles even for baseball, ie. Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. GlassCobra 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are neutral, easily verifiable lists that are useful supplements for the World Chess Championship articles. They are not random guys but the very top players in the last 20+ years who have played World Championship matches against each other. The amount of the games is limited, so the lists have an ideal length. --Jisis (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in a recent interview Anand was talking about his lifetime score against Kramnik so the players themselves find this information interesting: [33]. --Jisis (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for the old time players like Fischer/Geller/Korchnoi (mentioned by Brittle Heaven above), you just plug the names into a chess games database site like Chessgames.com and you get their head-to-head results. But in the last 15 years or so, different forms of chess like rapid chess and blitz chess have been played much more, cluttering the databases. So Wikipedia editors have put a bit of effort into these articles, sorting the "classical" time limit games from the rapid/blitz/blindfold etc games. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom in favor of merge.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maple story murder[edit]

Maple story murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Funny story, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maple Story. It will be interesting there. It doesn't merit its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 7th Studio Album (Pain Of Salvation)[edit]

Untitled 7th Studio Album (Pain Of Salvation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable planned album with no references. WP:HAMMER. bluemask (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted (CSD G12) by MacGyverMagic. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live Evil (film)[edit]

Live Evil (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

film fails encyclopediac guidelines. Mariocoli (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The plot has been copy-pasted from here and other than the plot there is no significant information on the film. Antivenin 07:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly copyvio, also appears to be an ad for a recently shot independent movie. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G12 copyvio of http://www.liveevilthemovie.com/ synopsis tab. So tagged. --Pmedema (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G12) — blatant copyright infringement as noted above. MuZemike (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal / Appeal for reinstatement — The plot wasn't copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com as Antivenin incorrectly stated above. The plot description is from the official movie's promotional materials and that is where twitchfilm.com copied their plot from as well which they clearly state on their webpage. Furthermore, a movie's promotional materials are provided by the copyright holder to be used by third parties to promote a movie and reprinting them is considered fair use. But regardless of anyone's perceived copyright issues with the plot description, a horror film that stars Tim Thomerson, Ken Foree, Tiffany Shepis, et al, defintely has enough merit to be listed in Wikipedia so the whole listing shouldn't have been deleted. JohnnieYoung (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Her awards give her notability outside of the Biden event. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara West (TV news anchor)[edit]

Barbara West (TV news anchor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a person only notable for one event. WP is not news. The controversial, political nature of the event makes neutral POV difficult. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Everybody talking about same 30 seconds of TV time when you asked a crazy question doth not notability confer, no matter how many people talk about it. gnfnrf (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joe Biden or US presidential campaign, 2008 per WP:BLP1E Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You need to be careful when invoking WP:1E. It's intended to avoid biographies on low-profile individuals who are part of a larger event, but that event doesn't center around them. So, for instance, a meteorite impact that destroys someone's house might be deserving of an encyclopedia article but the owner of the house wouldn't be. It is less aplicable when the single event is a personal achievement that propels that person to notability- Bob Beamon and Neil Armstrong are only notable for one event. So the 1E argument doesn't convince me, and I see no other problems with the article. Reyk YO! 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the the 2008 United States presidential election does not center around Ms West. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her interview with Biden does, though. And that interview has been covered in several independent secondary sources. I'd also point out that sixteen years of regular TV appearances possibly qualifies her as notable under the WP:ENTERTAINER section of WP:BIO even if the interview had never happened- the Biden thing is definitely enough to put it beyond doubt. Reyk YO! 05:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One interview is not a notable event. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number and variety of different sources provided in the article say otherwise. You may not like the fact that someone making a fool of themselves on TV can grant them notability; nor do I. But it sometimes happens, and has happened in this case. Reyk YO! 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case every episode of Jerry Springer, Judge Judy, etc. would generate at least one WP bio. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idiots on Judge Judy and Jerry Springer get written up in multiple newspapers? I doubt that. Reyk YO! 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does sometimes happen. But still a single TV incident has little lasting importance. As far as I know nobody has said it will affect the outcome of the election. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WFTV After the election fervor goes back down, she'll still be working for this station as an anchor and reporter, but one controversial interview with national play doesn't take her to equal notability with say a Chuck Scarborough (Also note that she doesn't anchor the 6pm or 11pm shows for the station, so she's not a main personality, only supplemental). IMO, if she would have been out sick that day, someone else would have still done the interview and we may or may not have seen it play out like it did exactly. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Barack Obama enemies' list. Just kidding, really. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Emmy win establishes independent notability. Needs to be expanded beyond the Biden situation. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This discussion is important due to the notoriety of so called journalist Barbara West and her right wing political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.205.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This notable person deserves a bio. Per Reyk WP:1E doesn't apply here. Per WP:NOT

    Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.

    Which is the usual proscription against "not being a newspaper" and isn't applicable here as this is based on secondary sources. Wikipedia has an excellent reputation for absorbing current events; see the Virginia Tech massacre and all subsequent news coverage praising the work here. There are countless examples of current events covered in Wikipedia and simply saying "not a newspaper" is not an adequate argument. Steve Dufour states that "The controversial, political nature of the event makes neutral POV difficult." Does he consider that a bar against Wikipedia content? If it is controversial and difficult, then it should be excluded? Not here. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia provides the mechanism for working through POV problems. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will cut the "controversy" down to one sentence if the article is kept. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did that, actually two sentences. If people are happy with that I will withdraw my AfD nomination as a compromise. (If not I will switch my vote from Obama to McCain.:-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the forum to discuss article improvements. Nor was your attempt to unilaterally to strip the article's content without discussion. First seek consensus for change on the article's talk page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "strip" the article. I reduced the coverage of one day in her entire life to two sentences. The sources are still there for people who are interested in the details. I also posted a note on the talk page of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole story: You reduced the coverage to two sentences, proceeded to edit war and was subsequently banned, unfortunately. We have begun a discussion on the talk page about reducing the text to lessen its weight and hope you will participate upon your return. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on awards. However better sources are needed. Her personal bio is not acceptable for the Emmy and I could not find confirmation. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the station's website should be reliable for the awards she has won. Do you think they would lie about that? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it is written in the first person it is suspect. It needs an independent source but this is a discussion for the talk page not at AFD. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think it is unethical for user Steve Dufour to delete/vandalize entire sections of an article and then propose the article for deletion. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages on news anchors. Her interview with Joe Biden interview has become a major story and is part of her biography now. (Independent4ever (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC));[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion then edited it to remove undue weight to the "controversy" as an attempted compromise, as I discussed here and on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should have discussed it on the Talk page first. You should have discussed your intent to nominate the article for deletion and your intent to take out most of the content of the article. You can't just strip the article down to a stub and then nominate it for deletion. (Independent4ever (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC));[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will not edit the article anymore while the AfD is open. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons mentioned above. Her husband's Republican ties are a major part of the controversy. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She seems to be notable only for the controversial Biden interview. Edit warring on the page has pushed it closer to being an attack article. Better to have an article on the interview, or mention it on the campaign article if it is that important, which I don't think it was. Borock (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has most certainly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, many of which include biographical details unrelated to recent events. Also agree with Reyk (talk · contribs), above, and the point made by 23skidoo (talk · contribs) about the award recognition is also a valid one. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be notable -- agreed with Cirt's points. SmallRepair (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this article shouldn't be longer than about 200 words though, i.e. "former ms. vt, won an emmy, works at a mid-market tv station." The current campaign stuff maybe belongs, but only a sentence like "was criticized after a biden interview that the dems complained was overly partisan."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is currently a discussion at the talk page to significantly decrease the size of this section. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article is not about the person but about an event, and perceptions of an event. And some of the versions seem to be far afield from proper use of WP. I see no way of cleaning this up short of deletion, and, after the elction, a genuine BLP. Collect (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep summarize related material to the 2008 US presidential campaign, and move the rest to appropriate related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- even conceivably moving Biden interview's coverage to a separate article, due its demonstratable notability. Sometimes an otherwise fairly ordinary event takes on a life of its own as an important societal faction's cause célèbre.....Cf.: New Haven school Skittles incident and innumerable others of the type.   Justmeherenow (  ) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —   Justmeherenow (  ) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep the controversy information, she's notable worldwide for this now. I feel its also important to keep the content of her queestions, as without it, the notablility of the article is not immediately apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.108.10 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she was of borderline notability even if she never interviewed Biden or McCain... take a somewhat notable person, add a few thousand sources about them over one incident (actually several related incidents now), that pushes them over into outright notability. She was not a plumber prior to the controversy, she was a highly visible news anchor. --Rividian (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a keep but the page needs to be watched carefully. Trebor (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a public figure, albeit on a mostly local level. She only recently became nationally known (for asking Joe Biden a question -- how dare she!) but regardless she would've been notable enough before that occurrence. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article is not about the person but about an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.191.38 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to List of characters in Bionicle or similar. for plain old list naming coventions (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and groups in Bionicle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Characters and groups in Bionicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well, three months have passed since this was first nominated and kept for want of consensus. In my opinion it suffers from the same faults as before. It fails our notability guidelines- where are any reliable secondary sources that explain why this subject is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Of the seven sources listed three are utterly useless (what is "Memory" and how do I look it up if I need to verify a specific claim?), two are primary sources and therefore can't satisfy WP:N. The remaining two sources cover paragraphs that are relevant to Bionicle generally and not the various factions and names specifically, and are there only to coatrack the rest of the article: a sprawling, unsourced, indiscriminate collection of excessive detail- fancruft, in other words.

All that needs to be said about the characters and groups in Bionicle, and all that can be justified by existing sources, is a little bit about the inspiration for the names in real-world languages, and the Maoris getting upset at having their language appropriated. That's already in the Bionicle article where it belongs, and anything more would be excessive and furthermore can't be backed up with sources. Reyk YO! 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but condense severely. Apart from the Memory bit, there are a few entries in this list that have been referenced properly. Since Bionicle is notable, having a spin-off article detailing characters within said notable universe is acceptable. It implies notability within the universe rather than real-life notability. Another good reason to keep it, is that it discourages people from creating separate articles on each single character. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest this be renamed to List of Bionicle characters. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yup... Mgm said it all. Agree with the move to List of Bionicle characters. --Pmedema (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete to the main article. A merge of content is fine, too. Keeping this article on the condition that it is condensed and cleaned up glosses over the likely result if this article is kept: it will remain in its current state indefinitely. Reyk's summation of the article sources is correct, and could have correctly described the article at the last AfD. The material in there that is sourced reliably (and independently from Lego) belongs in a different article and is in this one just to claim that the list is "sourced", allowing the rest of the list to be built from editor interpretation and observation of primary sources. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without a shadow of a doubt. Try moving it to a subpage.--O'delanca (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are you arguing to keep? Reyk YO! 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Blake Geoffrion[edit]

The result was snowball delete Maxim(talk) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable college hockey player. Notability is not inherited. Smashvilletalk 03:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:N. Antivenin 07:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had originally {{prod2}} the article for the exact reasons the nom now states. Maybe Blake will be notable some day, but that day isn't today. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, for the reasons I mentioned in Talk in contesting the prod: "he's an edge case to be certain, but I think the combination of his being a potential fourth-generation NHL player, a US junior national teamer, and the first Tennessee-trained player to be drafted into the league pushes him slightly above the notability waterline." VT hawkeyetalk to me 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definately see where you are coming from, but I think its largly a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Just wait the year or so till he plays some level of pro hockey then he can have the article. -Djsasso (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would actually be somewhat surprised if he makes any roster outside of preseason...he's not exactly tearing it up in college. --Smashvilletalk 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he plays professionally or wins the Hobey Baker Award, the page can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first paragraph does not argue notability per WP:ATHLETE, or even the general notability requirements, while the rest of the article is one giant if x then y statement that violates WP:CRYSTAL. He might be a borderline case, but he's on the wrong edge of the border at this moment. Resolute 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but 0 + 0 + 0 = 0. In the first instance, notability is not transferrable or inherited; in the second, junior league players are not inherently notable; and in the third, there is nothing inherently notable about being from Tennessee.  Ravenswing  03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing notable about this fellow, is he's a grandson of Bernie Geoffrion & a great-grandson of Howie Morenz. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated by Goodday there is really nothing notable about him except who his Great-father and Grandfather was. This is like making an article for every Career AHLer. Jobes23 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of women[edit]

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

This article should be deleted and redirected to Arranged marriage, Marriage or a similar article. Poorly written. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be a worthwhile topic, but the article does not cover it well. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never come across a guideline that prescribes deletion of a topic simply because its article doesn't cover it well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't delete poorly written articles, we improve them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. We don't need to delete an article before placing a redirect at the same location. Also, being poorly written is not a good reason for deletion per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_debates. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming I understand these two concepts properly, I don't agree with a redirect either. Arranged marriages are not necessarily done to maintain a relationship between men (but exchange of women is) and Exchange of women does not imply marriage (but arranged marriages do). Anyway, a discussion about a redirect shouldn't be at WP:AFD. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Rewrites or redirects are not a matter for AFD. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep [PA snipped] User:Orangemarlin is [PA snipped] my contributions and putting them up for AFD. This is the fifth! one in the past week. His or her comment "poorly written" is a value judgement [PA snipped]. OM should be experienced enough to know about WP:IMPERFECT andWP:STUB, which if understood and followed would help to avoid this sort of nonsense in the future --Firefly322 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic/article seems notable of it's own accord and passes reliable source policies. Should this have been nominated even? It's a matter of opinion, which is what AfD is about. Lets assume good faith from User:Orangemarlin and hope that it's a coincidence regarding AfD's of articles you have worked on.--Pmedema (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He's called me a troll across several places on the project, so I'm not so worried. Besides, he's been blocked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete--I find this troubling because really, the article is NOT well written, and what it needs is more than a rewrite: IMO, the only thing worth keeping is the title and the name Levi-Strauss. Reliable sources? If there is a reliable source, it should be the work of L-S himself, first of all, not a book that cites L-S somewhere (the first reference, and not even a page reference is given), or an article by someone else reportedly giving Henry Miller's opinion on The Great Gatsby (the second reference, which I find puzzling), or a book on biblical narrative that's not published by an academic press and seems to have received no academic reviews whatsoever (the third reference). So, an article on an important topic that is so below what I consider to be the desire Wikipedia standard, no, delete is the best option. And BTW, that 'exchange of women' is an influential topic in academia is really without meaning and adds nothing to our understanding. Moreover, the opening sentence suggests (through poor grammar) that L-S investigates not the topic but the way it is discussed as a topic in academia--and that is really very far from the truth. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this article is an attempt to POV fork. YVNP (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have done some work upon the article, adding sources, content and, I hope, clarity. There are many more sources as the concept seems commonplace in sociological and anthropological scholarship. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think that Drmies's comments should be seriously considered (especially about how we wouldn't be having this discussion if the Levi Strauss name weren't attached to this), but it is a semi-important concept in structuralism and sourcing does exist. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a POVFORK pushing a particular minority worldview - and also it's gobbledygook. Recommend making it readable and merging it as a section with Arranged marriage or Marriage of convenience, in much the same way Secret sharing (anthropology) is only a section in Secrecy. Shot info (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not an arranged marriage and it's not a marriage of convenience. It's an exchange of women and is a distinct concept. At most, it should feature in those articles in the See also section. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep for now. Seems like a distinct topic and is well-sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redirect dealt with elsewhere, in context. Fails WP:N on its own. Verbal chat 22:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it dealt with? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to its own section in Alliance theory, where it is already referenced. In the context of alliance theory this material seems valid to me, although the pop culture references tend to confuse the point. --Lockley (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not exist to make a point but to provide information about a topic. The appearance and treatment of this theme within art and literature seems a proper part of the topic. I subsequently added a section about the treatment of the matter in criminal law. Again this is not to make a point, but to provide information about a notable aspect of the topic. Since such cultural and legal aspects go beyond anthropological theorising, it seems right that we should address the topic under this heading. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International_Charismatic_Mission_Church[edit]

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

No sources, linking to nowhere, just created. (I apologize if I'm doing this wrong, still new to Wikipedia.) Sunshooter (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - poorly written article, but that's not a reason to delete it. There are very few Google references, but there is one decent ref here,[34] from the major Christian magazine Christianity Today, where it is praised by Álvaro Uribe, the President of Columbia. I suggest that a church this size is clearly notable, and its notability would not be in question were it in an English speaking country. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Weak Keep - on further reflection, the few sources might be a problem, so much so that it might be hard to say anything useful about the church other than what's in the CT article I cited above. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the president of Columbia knows of its existence and praises the Church, it's unlikely to be a fringe group. Attempts should be made to find sources in another language. AFD is indeed not cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep good faith nomination. I say cleanup, edit, add sources, etc... organization seems rather large and therefore to me would imply notability--there's gotta be some press out there for a 120,000 member organization.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Echoing the earlier comments -- AfD is not a clean-up forum. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good faith nomination of a terrible article, however the church is clearly notable - sources hard to find as church operates under different names: "Misión Carismática Internacional" is I think the easiest one to find information under; try also government of 12, International Charismatic Mission, ladder of success, Encounters, Encuentros, Soulfire Revolution. Springnuts (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large enough to keep. Put as a clean up. JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly large enough to be notable. some clean up just done. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Leavitt[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. No sources. This article appears to be part of personal series of articles about related family members; See Judith Walzer Leavitt and David I. Leavitt. Bryan Hopping T 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion regarding his notability yet, but certainly his publications listed in the article are enough to prove his existence. They are publications in peer-reviewed medical journals, certainly perfectly fine sources in terms of WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a quick idea how good an index of 20 is? How long did it take to acquire those 900 citations? - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those citations are probably to his wife, Judith Walzer Leavitt, who seems to be a very prolific scholar.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not likely - WoS allows for the search involving first and middle initials, and already their first initials are different. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I searched for "Leavitt LA" and as far as I can see, none of the citations are for Judith. I have looked also at some of the publications that I earlier excluded, and they seem to be for this particular LA Leavitt, too. That leads to over 1100 citations and an h of 21, the three most cited articles have 128, 91, and 86 hits. The earliest publications are from 1975, there may be older ones, but my WoS access does not go farther back than 1975. I agree with Mgm that length of career is an issue here, even though notability is something cumulative, not a question of the mean. An h of less than 1 point per year is indeed less impressive, so I have changed my "keep" vote to "weak keep". --Crusio (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteComment. He is close to meeting the academic/professor notability criterion #1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline), but not quite. I did a search on a few databases for refereed articles written by him. There were quite a few in the area of mother-child communication, and some were well-cited; this helps with criterion #1. However, in none of them he is the first author; he is usually the last, which in his field usually indicates that he obtained funding for the project. He seems to be a successful manager of researchers - in essence, and administrator who gets co-authorship by being an administrator.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must be kidding.... Being last author is what every researcher in this field strives for. It emphatically does NOT mean that he "just obtained the funding" (in itself already a scientific accomplishment in the current funding climate). The last author generally is the one who conceived of the project, designed the experiment(s), and wrote the article. Not for nothing is the last author generally called the "senior author". --Crusio (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, without comment on the AfD itself, the last author is the "senior" author. While they may have provided funding, they have also generally played a major role in the conception and execution of the study. Next to the first author, the last author is the most meaningful spot in the list. MastCell Talk 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot published on the topic of authorship order in his field out there. The following quote, which I got from here, is a bit old but clear and representative: "...those who had been head chairperson for less than 10 years increased their number of articles, last author articles, and coauthors per article over time. This finding suggests that a change in hierarchical status influences authorship patterns. Senior scientists are under great pressure to publish: a number of British departments insist that supervisors are included as author on their students' papers. This practice might lead to gift authorship: granting of authorship to those who did not make any intellectual effort for the study." I do not know how someone can avoid this though, so I am changing my delete vote to a comment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anyone with top papers that get near 100 ISI citations, even in biomedicine where citation rates are typically very high, is being widely cited, which is equivalent to notability. Much much more than the average scientist, for the most common number of citations a paper gets is 1. That sort of citation is how scientists become notable--their work is used as an authority in the field by hundreds of other people. In biomedicine, some principal authors insist on keeping their name at the 1st position, but most put it at the end. And the way to more specifically tell who the principal author is is to see whom the money was granted to--grants go to notable scientists who have proven their notability to their peers on a national basis. The junior not yet really notable people may have fellowships, the senior notable ones are the ones with the grants. This researcher is a full professor of Pediatrics at UW medical school. The department there can be safely assumed to know what its doing when it makes such appointments--appointments invariably made after multiple peer reviews, from inside and outside the school. They can certainly be considered to be a better judge of notability than we at Wikipedia. It's funny in a way for people here to think they can better tell--the profession establishes the notability, we just record it. Considering they are in different subjects, we see, as we would expect, that he and his wife have no joint publications: he works in child psychiatrist, she in history of obstetrics. Why should anyone thing the notability of either depends on the other? As for h: h values is notoriously unaffected by having good papers: if one has published 100 papers with 20 citations each, the h is 20; if one has published 90 with 20 citations each, and 10 with 200 citations each, the h value is again 20. If a paper had 2000, the h value would still be 20. Mediocre scientists may be characterised by a lot of mediocre publications; notable ones have some important papers.-- just like him. DGG (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced BLP. RMHED (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG and Crusio (who can be a tough grader), and who are better equipped to evaluate. I added three external links that back up most of the article, Lewis Leavitt, Waisman Center,

BBTAD Postdoctoral Training Program Faculty and Lewis Leavitt, Biographical Sketch from BBTAD, to allay verifiability concerns. John Z (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep DGG's argument is compelling. Dlohcierekim 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG and his selection as one of the two editors of this review, which indicates prominence in the field of Pediatrics. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Almost a tie between the numbers of Keep and Delete votes. It was hard to make out any strong policy grounds for either the keep or delete position; it seemed to boil down to each person's judgment as to whether the event would have any long-term significance. Since the sources are adequate, there is no reason for the closing admin to override the popular vote, which is No Consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics[edit]

2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
AfDs for this article:

</noinclude>

Now that the dust has settled, I bring this article back for consensus to delete or merge to somewhere. This is the third nomination. Concerns have been expressed by more than one editor that this event fails WP:NOT#NEWS. In short, the article seems to fall within the category of newsworthy but unencyclopaedic events.

The poor victims are our everyday tourists (and guide) to a Beijing beauty spot, and our assailant is an everyday madman. The attack happened in Beijing during the olympic games, and enjoyed a certain amount of publicity for that reason, and that 2 of the victims were related to members of the US Olympics squad. Todd Bachman namespace redirects here due to the sentiment that he fails WP:BLP1E. The consensus over at Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics appears to be that the event was not causally related to the games, and should not appear.

What is more, there is the long-running disagreement as to an appropriate title for the article, and the article's name has been changed 18 times, I believe. Consensus on the name has stalled, probably for the lack of interest, now that the games are over. I move to delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The event will probably be something of lasting interest, even if not importance. A WP article is a good place for accurate information for those who are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are judged on notability, not interest, and interest is not synonymous (nor a substitute for) notability. I may find a local artist interesting, but that doesn't make them notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable event.--Pbbb0 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeto Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics in a crime section 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews (if they have it alread, delete). While the event took place during the Olympics, it doesn't seem to have had any major effect on the events. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a move to delete this was withdrawn two months ago, and there was no consensus to delete this two months ago. This was certainly a notable event in relation to the US Olympics volleyball team. I don't think this turns Wikipedia into an "indiscriminate collection of information." And I think WP:NOT#NEWS needs to be rewritten. One could extrapolate "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." to the Olympic games themselves — or even the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, which was not "causally" related to the 1996 games. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies since it itself says "Cover the event, not the person." I don't think this belongs at Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics either, because this event was not a "concern" or "controversy" over the games, but that's actually another reason to not delete. If this belonged there, we would need to merge and redirect, not delete. If policies and guidelines give contradicting information — WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." but then says news coverage does not count "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." and WP:NOT#NEWS says "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." — we should consider how Wikipedia would be improved or damaged by deleting this article. The event was certainly embarassing for China, but Wikipedia is not censored, unlike the internet in China. --Pixelface (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some way or another, via separate article or within the "Concerns" article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some policy that says a large number of name changes indicates some subsequent course of action? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor have I heard that a slowdown in editing is cause for action. -JWGreen (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in fact it is not: WP:NOEFFORT specifically states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited."
  • Keep. Significant coverage from reliable sources, well-written, likely to be cited in the future, etc. A better name might be nice but otherwise it's fine. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To quote WP:NOT#NEWS "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This is not coverage of an announcement, sports or tabloid journalism. The event is notable, passes the acid test in WP:NOT#NEWS and has reliable sources. It passes WP:BLP1E since it is about the event, not the individual. Whether its true or not that this is attempted censorship I do not know, and will not comment on, but if so, I'd like to point out WP:NOT#CENSOR. Theres no good reasoning I can see to delete this article based on the points brought up in the nom. I'd also like to point out that two policy shortcuts cited in the nom (WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNENC) point to the same policy (Wikipedia is not news). -JWGreen (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT#NEWS "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." As for claims of censorship, see Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics. Again this article does not bear additional weight beyond that main article. davumaya 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forget to mention that the policy specificly states what does not pass WP:NOT#NEWS: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This article is not an announcement, sports, or tabloid journalism. Even the last part of your bolded statement says "not all" which means some do. Why do you think this instance of this event does not pass? Citing policies as your sole reason without explaining your reasoning is also against WP:VAGUEWAVE. -JWGreen (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hm, lets go back to 1st nomination "Todd Bachman is the CEO of a moderately large corporation in Minnesota, it has caught the attention of President Bush, wide news coverate, father of a former Olympic athlete, and father-in-law of an Olympic coach. -JWGreen (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" 1) Sorry we already put you down on that "large corporation" notability, 2) The attention of Bush? Right... 3) Wide news coverage NOT NEWS 4) Father of a former Olympian, thats a long stretch there, 5) Father-in-law? There should be a rule of degrees of separation. Trying to censor my vote because you don't like it? Lame. davumaya 09:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are assuming good faith. I pointed out that the policy states what kinds of news are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and that this article does not fit that description, and therefore passes WP:NOT#NEWS. I did not censor you. To censor you, I would have had to remove your comment (they are not votes remember). Am I missing something here, how is my previous comment censorship? -JWGreen (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is definitely notable, and the context of the event has to be taken into account. WP:NOT#NEWS discourages "announcements, sports and tabloid journalism". I fail to see how an incident so strongly connected to the biggest athletic competition in the world would be non-notable because of this standard. The connection gives it a level of historic notability, at least in my mind. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the existing Wikinews article actually does a better job of neutrally covering this event than our attempt at making an encyclopedia article out of it. For this event to be encyclopedic it would have to have some sort of continued coverage or an impact on something that could be analyzed — instead what happened is that the story completely disappeared once the press got busy reporting on the games themselves. This was a one-off, meaningless event that has no impact on anything beyond the associates of the victims; therefore while the event may be notable it is unencyclopedic. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having seen it for the first time, I actually agree that it's a better article, and a better title to boot. Shall we replace both if the article's not deleted? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be problematic. What works nicely in a news source may not work in an encyclopedia article, and vice versa. The fact is that events like this are exactly why Wikinews was forked from Wikipedia in the first place; i.e. events that are certainly notable by the fact of extensive coverage, but for which there is nothing to actually base an encyclopedia article on. If all you can write is that at a particular time and place a certain event happened; then it's a news article. If there are some sort of ramifications or consequences due to an event, then you may have an encyclopedia article. The current article makes an attempt at some sort of analysis in terms of safety in Beijing (unfortunately in a way that teeters on WP:NPOV), but the Wikinews article doesn't even try (as it shouldn't). —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead paragraph: "The incident has been described as rare since foreigners are considered safe while visiting China. Beijing is noted to be safer than most cities of its size." Is that the POV statement you are referring to? You should tag statements that you find to be POV so we can work on improving the article, rather than calling it a failure and calling for its deletion. -JWGreen (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was never notable, and getting less and less article-worthy by the day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To echo PalaceGuard008, this was never notable to begin with. I don't see how the time and place of an unfortunately common event makes that event notable. It obviously makes it newsworthy, but that's what Wikinews is for. --Elliskev 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please... Insulting? --Elliskev 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single random act of violence, with no long-term repercussions evident, nor any significant coverage I can see outside of the immediate time of the event or outside the victim's home country. This is news, not an encyclopaedia article.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The attack received international coverage from sources such as TheAge (AU), Caijing (China), BBC (UK), Reuters (UK), AFP (France); and has received coverage in the past 30 days. Similar attacks are also unlikely to have future repercussions, unless they affect legislation or security.   — C M B J   09:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the last article CMBJ linked to, security was changed at the Drum Tower due to the attack. -JWGreen (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that this attack has any lasting notability. Yes, it was prominent in the media at the time, but that was mainly due to Olympic fever, and nothing to do with the event itself. (As an aside, I'd like to apologise for taking an extended wiki-break mid-way through a renaming discussion for the article.) Bluap (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Whether or not it warrants an entire article is clearly a subject of debate. For an optimist, the article allows readers to have an improved understanding of a relevant and highly publicized (even AFP coverage as recent as October 14) attack during the 2008 Summer Games. For a cynic, the article is either news or just another instance of unessential content sprawl that will unlikely see much improvement during the next two or three years. I would like to add to this discussion the view that the attack did cause international Olympic-related concern and controversy, including to Olympians, but said controversy was over the attack and not controversy over the entire Olympics. Because of this, merging the attack as a whole into Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics could casuistically compromise the integrity of that article's name.   — C M B J   09:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics as suggested by 70.55.86.100 (talk · contribs). At the time of the attack, it did seem notable, but in hindsight, it's a pretty unremarkable, non-notable event. The "consensus" to exclude it from the "Concerns and controversies" article was only weakly established—four wanting it removed; one wanting it kept. More input is needed. My opinion is that while the attack may not be causally related to the Olympics, it was an event that did have an impact on American (and perhaps other Western nations) views of the games, even if not on the games themselves. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly merge and reduce and link to the wikinews article. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been historically hard to find infromation about post-fact. Rich Farmbrough, 10:47 4 November 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Walzer Leavitt[edit]

Judith Walzer Leavitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic. No sources. This article appears to be part of personal series of articles about related family members; See Lewis Leavitt and David I. Leavitt. Bryan Hopping T 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Living Lohan. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the Way Around[edit]

All the Way Around (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. Only sources are very minor chart positions and YouTube, no sources seem to exist. Will most likely be undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm keep, source number 2 lists it as charting at #11. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's 11 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, or 111 on the Hot 100. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a merge suggested as below is a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Living Lohan. The series highlighted the making of this single, and there isn't a good reason to have two separate articles.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above, Merge to Living Lohan. A single placing #111 (and a non-debut single at that) isn't noteworthy in and of itself. One sentence in the Living Lohan article ought to do it.--Wee Charlie (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support delete, but merge with Living Lohan as described above is a compromise I can live with.--64.201.38.62 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Esradekan Gibb's comment. Europe22 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Oh My[edit]

The Real Oh My (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band of dubious notability, unsourced, article not edited since 2005.  Sandstein  12:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to pass WP:MUSIC#C6. A redirect would probably be more appropriate, but with three notable members, who to redirect to? As for sources, could be deleted for failing WP:V. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 24 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, MBisanz talk 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Redirect not strictly possible due to the three parties involved. Nothing verifiable to merge due to lack of reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nouse4aname assessment of MUSIC#C6. I believe this is a common sense exception to the rule (to merge). With three possible merge targets, I believe it is best to leave the entry where it is and point at it from all the member's pages.- Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Garret[edit]

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

Not world-renowned (due to Google test and personal experience as an amateur VB programmer). Speedy declined as spurious claim of significance was enough to pass A7. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--yes, the claim of notability is there, but no evidence whatsoever. And I have to go and delete a line or two, given the enormous peacock-quality of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After deleting unverifiable and unencyclopedic stuff, there's nothing left--certainly nothing of notability. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd argue that an obviously spurious claim of notability is the same as no claim at all, and that the speedy should have stood. Reyk YO! 04:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Too often claims are considered spurious by people who are too lazy to do some work and look up sources. (Not saying you are one of them) Also, newpage patrollers who speedy tag pages often are prone to make mistakes here, especially if the subject is not in their field of expertise. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the crux is "obviously" spurious. I'd rather keep at speedy stage an article with a claim that may prove to be correct. Especially because I then always prompt the speedy tagger to proceed to AfD where claims can be investigated. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not show why he's a note-worthy programmer. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No current evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. relisting a third time isn't going to get more consensus. Treating it as a unanimous 15 day PROD StarM 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lassi with Lizzie[edit]

Lassi with Lizzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability. Is the Southall TV festival of sufficient merit to make this notable enough? No Google hits, other than the WP article. Chris (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Seeing how the last award is called "Best Looking" I suspect this was originally in some Indian language. It is no surprise there are no Google hits in English. We need to look in some Indian language to get answers here. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:04, 26 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, MBisanz talk 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bad one that cites no sources. I looked for sources, using several of the names given in the article, and trying some alternative spellnigs, and couldn't find a thing. The purported television festival isn't documented anywhere, either. Southall is in the U.K., so I don't think that FUTON bias is relevant here. (I observe, in reference to the above, that my experience of Indian subjects is that Indian English sources are often to be found. Alternative spellings are usually the problem. However, again, note that this is purportedly something that happened in the U.K..) This article, and the various subjects within it, are entirely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. --GPPande talk! 18:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tali Demon[edit]

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

Little content, unsourced, only claim to notability is that she briefly signed to a notable record label, and I've been unable to find a good source to back up this claim. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. Jeremiah (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Add reliable third party sources of your notability. MySpace is not a reliable source. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless (Ali Lohan album)[edit]

Fearless (Ali Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another imaginary Ali Lohan album, just like got deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album). No sources, no reason to believe it's real. When the author changed the name from "Interpersonal" to "Fearless", he didn't even get all the edits right, and it became "aliPersonal" in spots. —Kww(talk) 01:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding AliPersonal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's even worse than I thought ... he couldn't decide what unsourced name to provide, so he created two identical articles under two different names.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Is that a flake or two? (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poco Discography[edit]

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

Article is just a list of songs which already appear in the template--is the duplication necessary? I don't think so. [ roux ] [x] 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to Poco discography Discography pages are generally allowed. This can easily be expanded with chart positions and singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable discography. Could maybe be merged into the Poco article, but certainly shouldn't be deleted.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a spin-off from the main article, which is perfectly acceptable. Someone could argue for a merge, but deletion certainly isn't an option. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No obvious reason for deletion is apparent. The article can stand alone or be merged (either option is fine). Pity that WP:ILovePoco isn't policy. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing's wrong with the discography and per TPH, this could easily be expanded to include chart positions. Nom does not give a good reason to delete, as he's using the fact that this is merely a "list of songs" (as a matter of fact, no songs appear on the article right now, and it's merely a discography of the group's albums) and it "duplicates" a template. Whereas it does right now, that can easily be cleaned up to look more like other discography pages. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kapisa[edit]

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

This article appears, like others created by the same editor, to be a work of original research by synthesis. I have been unable to find any sources describing a "Siege of Kapisa". Although the article includes a number of citations, they consist of a number of fragments and snippets from Google Books that Ariobarza (talk · contribs) has stitched together to create a description of an event that reliable sources don't seem to cover. This is very much a parallel to what has happened with Battle of the Tigris, by the same editor (see the ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris). As WP:OR says, "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research." That rule has clearly not been followed in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. WP:OR WP:SYN. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--plenty of reason why given by the nominator; more is found on the talk page. But really, calling this 'original research' is not being very friendly to actual researchers. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Heh. How about "research, after a fashion"? X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No source appears to refer to this event. --Nickhh (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in some way... or perhaps might have... it suggests... most likely... and In this vague siege it is unknown how long it lasted are just some of the troubling phrases found in this article. Looking at the article and its history, it appears that it was written first and sourced second. Furthermore, the sources provided appear to support that Cyrus conquered Kapisa but don't appear to support any of the other assertions in the article. This is clearly original research and synthesized information. AniMate 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I will take ChrisO to administrator abuse, this is just ridiculus, he is trying to delete every article that I am currently working on and adding sources, while he is trying to delete it. I also found this on Wikipedia

Alexander populated the city with 7,000 Macedonians, 3,000 mercenaries and thousands of natives (according to Curtius VII.3.23), or some 7,000 natives and 3,000 non-military camp followers and a quantity of Greek mercenaries (Diodorus, XVIII.83.2), in March 329 BC. He had also built forts in what is nowadays Bagram or Begram (Kapisa) in Afghanistan, at the foot of the Hindu Kush, replacing forts erected in much the same place by Persia's king Cyrus the Great c. 500 BC. It is from the Alexander in the Caucasuas article, and it appears that after Cyrus stormed Kapisa, he replaced it with a new city, and one of the sources cited for this article say Cyrus stormed/ captured/ destroyed Kapisa. See definition of siege, and your trying to delete an article full of sources, what the hell is going on here? [35]. If the title bothers you, your welcomed to change it into Storm of Kapisa, and I know it would be silly, second, Siege of the Sogdian Rock was not really a siege either the only source on it ,Arrian of Nicomidia never said it was, then why is it still called a siege? Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Also it is not a few words of Pliny, Arrian takes of Alexander besieging a small town, a few words too, but why do articles exist for it? AND the first two paragraphs do not have to be sourced, but I sourced them for the sake of arguement, (and guess what it is getting now deleted) a claim ChrisO has made up.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computational capabilities of the human brain[edit]

Computational capabilities of the human brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay. NPOV —G716 <T·C> 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this article by spinning off material that was in human brain, but seemed too specialized to be there. I didn't want to take the responsibility of deleting the material completely, but I don't have a strong opinion about whether this should be kept. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay. JJL (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article succinctly presenting scientific estimates of the computational capabilities of the human brain would be very helpful, but this text contains a lot of very vague and sometimes plainly wrong stuff. Chrisahn (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay. JFW | T@lk 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could use an article like this, but this is an essay. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Tepes (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vlad Tepes (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
March to the Black Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Underground band, no real sources to speak of, just two small interviews and an entry on Encyclopedia Metallum. The album also should go if the band does. Band tagged for notability and sources since March. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete / Neutral The sources basically aren't there, and never can be. They just don't have multiple releases on notable labels. The interviews are a step in the right direction, and I could easily pull out print reviews from the (very notable) likes of Terrorizer and the like, but if that's not enough, fair enough. Shame (I'm a fan of the band). Comes down to what you regard as "significant coverage" in this case; barring Mutiilation, they're the most notable of the LLN crowd. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Blackmetalbaz, if you do have print reviews in Terrorizer or other mags, it would greatly help this discussion if you pull them out and give references. Irina666 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. BTW, Blackmetalbaz, where do I get my hands on that music? I'm intrigued. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I believe I acquired mine from Supernal Music in the UK; presumably bootlegs, obviously, but I'm not a fan of downloads. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--I found a CD on Ebay, sort of a compilation. Can't wait! Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The above conversation is probably the most bizarre thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. Two regular editors agreed that the article should be deleted for a group that one called notable and the other discovered on Wikipedia. It speaks to the vast divide between what regular editors do and what Wikipedia's users do with the site; it illustrates how Wikipedia's regular editors often do its users a disservice. I'll never win an argument to keep this article, because I don't own paper magazines that cover black metal, and no one is ever willing to extend enough good faith to presume the notability of a band (and in such an unpalatable (to most) genre at that). But I've no doubt they could be brought to bear to save the article. Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You appear to misunderstand the purpose of WP:AGF; it does not mean assume notability in the absence of sources. Burden of notability is, as it should be, on the claimant. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage, but if reviews from Terrorizer, etc. exist, adding them to the article may help get it to a point where it can be kept.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge Vlad Tepes is one of more important bands of the LLN. A merger with the Les Légions Noires article might be appropriate. The LLN page needs content anyway. Maybe even Mutiilation can be merged with the LLN page. Weltanschaunng 17:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This might actually be a good plan. I reckon there's enough material for a separate Mutiilation album though. Getting the LLN page in order would be fantastic but I've really struggled to find sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yeah, as long as the information is preserved. This page (and Belketre) seem to have fallen in this loophole, where it is notable amongst the BM community, but not amongst regular editors of wikipedia. You can always mention Mutiilation on the LLN page, while retaining its original article. It doesn't hurt to duplicate, does it? Weltanschaunng 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me that, considering their musical field, this band would actually meet the "multiple releases on notable labels" requirement. The band started their career with a demo tape on Full Moon Productions, which is the label that introduced Burzum to the American market, and therefore played a seminal role in the establishment of an international black metal scene (this is referenced in Lords of Chaos). Another (split-)album has been released (and re-released 8 years later) by Drakkar Productions, which is admittedly as underground as it gets, but could be considered notable due to being probably the most prolific black metal label in France. Irina666 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for March to the Black Holocaust as per Wikipedia:NALBUMS, if we consider the LLN notable, officially released albums should be considered notable too. Irina666 (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belketre[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; no full-length album release on any notable label, no third party coverage in reliable sources... another non-notable LLN demo band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanicum Tenebrae[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; never progressed beyond demo stage, no coverage in third party sources owing to refusal to be interviewed etc. Standard LLN problem. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative Art[edit]

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

Claims to be an art "movement" but provides no evidence to that effect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--this is really a bit ridiculous. What was this, a class assignment? This term is not a concept, and even if it were, no evidence whatsoever is provided. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe the writer meant "transgressive art", which means art that shows your own willy or whatever, thereby cheaply gaining a certain notoriety among the easily impressed. Oh no, wait, there's a link to "Provocative Therapy" which redirects to somebody in the "Neurolinguistic Programming" mumbo-jumbo. Uck. So IDONTLIKEIT and ITHINKITSBOLLOCKS aren't valid reasons for deletion? Then delete it for lack of evidence. Tama1988 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is original research, and the claim of a "Provocative Art Movement" is highly suspect. I believe it's simply false. I would want to see a source on who coined the term, and then at least 2 or 3 known artists belonging to this movement. --Lockley (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content delivery cloud[edit]

Content delivery cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this a genuine, notable term or, as I suspect, a fork of content delivery network being used for veiled spam? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire Record Office[edit]

Worcestershire Record Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No non-trivial secondary sources (currently has the record office's own website, a document not even containing the term "Worcester", and a directory entry), probably non-notable. Prod declined. I'm aware there are several similar articles, such as Cornwall Record Office and Greater Manchester County Record Office, but they don't have secondary sources either and don't demonstrate a general notability of all record offices. Huon (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Added a few references which back up the information, but i think it fails WP:GROUP. S0673253 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability. The JPStalk to me 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (declaring an interest as a regular user). There is a record office in every English and Welsh county. The precise arrangements vary from one authority to another (partly for historic reasons). When I first worked on WP, the use of archival sources was discouraged. Today, they are sometimes cited, though a secondary source is preferable (if available). As time goes on, we will probably get more citations of original documents, in which case it will be useful to have an article on the repository. The present article provides a lot of unnecessary detail, which would be better left to appear on the website (which the record office will keep up to date). I agree that the provision of independent sources is an issue, but I do not see why the Record Office's own website should not be regarded as WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful article, no good reason to delete it. Agree that the WRO website should be regarded as ar WP:RS as they have no reason to publish incorrect info. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enduring public institution. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as I voted above) -- this is like the Record Office of each other county or unitary authority, the respository of archives, mainly for its area. These are not merely the records of the Council that owns it, but also those of a wide variety of proviate individuals who have deposited theri archives there. This record office is no more or less notable that other ones. It is the equivalent of a research library, which we would (I am sure) have an article on. I appreciate that independent sources are scarce, but that is because of the nature of the material. Some of the documetns held are calendared on access to archives. There are a directories of archive offices, but they will tend to be compiled from inforation supplied by the office. These are not commercial enterprises, and thus have little incentive to exaggerate their acheivements. This there is no reason why the office's own website should not be WP:RS. Whatever inadequacies there may be are likely to be due to the fact that every record office has a backlog of uncatalogues accessions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please do not "vote" twice. The problem is not one of reliability, but of notability. A Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources. If those sources don't exist or offer only trivial information (such as the directory you mention), the topic is deemed non-notable and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If you didn't want people to "vote twice" why did you relist the AfD? And incidentally, the thresdhold for inclusion in WP is WP:V, not WP:NOTE. The former is a policy. The latter is merely a guideline. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the AfD was relisted so more people might contribute to the discussion. Of course those who have contributed before may continue to discuss the article's merits, but it is usual to describe that as comment, not as another !vote. Concerning WP:NOTE vs. WP:V: The latter says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [...]", which this one does not and apparently cannot. And our deletion policy states: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" This article, despite your previous claims, fails both WP:N and WP:ORG, so deletion is reasonable. Huon (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Prune - The record office may be notable but while the article is written like a vistors guide with just a small history section. If it is kept then most of the content needs to be removed apart from the history section, wikipedia is not a guide. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I've kept an eye on this discussion for the last few days and thought I would try and save you all some trouble by editing out the parts which people seem to have a problem with (i.e. the parts on visiting the office). I thought it would be useful to have a page for Worcs' record office, given that other counties do and Worcester holds a whole range of vital records. How can one county's record office be deemed notable and another not? I made a real effort to cite sources, even though other record offices don't seem to have bothered putting in any. I can't understand why they haven't had such problems and yet Worcester has. It is very difficult to cite sources for a local government organisation. If the page is still deemed to not be notable enough then by all means delete it, but if that is the case then consider deleting the other record office pages too, please. --Pomegranate23 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Miner[edit]

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

Not notable. Tired of removing blogs as sole sources and claims with no verification. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any notability claims. Clubmarx (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary references either. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--yes, delete please, for all those reasons. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:N. No secondary references, or even mention of notability. I wouldn't have any objection if someone A7'd this article. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

would like to meet criteria but unsure how to do so. a lot of singer-songwriters from the area and with similar stature in the region have similar articles, and not sure why they meet the standard where this dosen't.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even with the COI issue, it does meet notability. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangea3[edit]

Pangea3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A legal outsourcing firm written up by user:Pangea3. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is a recognized outsourcing firm. Although the creator probably presents WP:COI in creating the article (he has been blocked for his username), the article itself is well sourced and does not present any strong bias and advertising traits in writing. LeaveSleaves talk 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "it was recognized as one of the leading legal outsourcing services companies in India" If someone can verify that from the paid source, it's clearly worth keeping. - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the COI issues with the creator, this meets notability. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Serpa[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:N. No gBooks hits, gNews hits, and all gWeb hits are self promotional, copies of Wikipedia, or videos of him performing. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise why only "google" is referenced as a place to locate information about Alex Serpa, in regard to news and books; gweb hits? I discovered that there is much more information available via yahoo to weed through. I believe an "award winning" performance of Barbra Streisand is mentioned, and all resources should be researched before this article is deleted. I did see a reference to an appearance on the Oprah show. Making more than a cursory search of 'google' should be done on this individual and possibly locating the "award" mentioned. Further research should be done and notated before deletion occurs. Brattysoul (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable independent source regarding a notable award, then by all means use whatever search engine floats your boat :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search of Las Vegas newspapers, and really didn't find much on Alex. That isn't to say he isn't a celeb in Vegas-a place I have been to many times over, and I have only seen Frank Marino's show being listed as the longest running drag show in Vegas, and never heard of Freezone's show myself. Which doesn't mean Alex's show isn't the longest running cabaret drag show. Now the cabret club Freezone considers Alex a celeb and actually made a big deal of his return to their club from his "tour". He may be considered something of a name in the LGBT community, however I did not find him listed on nndb.com, a large database of the famous and infamous notables within the LGBT community. Althoughe Frank Marino isn't listed there either. ;)

As to the "award" it seems to be nothing more than an online drag queen themed award, and not as notable as say, a Tony? ;)

I will search again, but it would seem deletion may be inevitable for Alex. Brattysoul (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I've done a google search, and a brief yahoo search, and only came up with this article: [36], from what looks like a local newspaper, and the article doesn't doesn't focus much on Alex, but is about a revue he was part of. I've removed part of the article that seemed to be copied (either verbatim, or with minor adjustments) from his biography on his website: [37]. Silverfish (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trend Records (UK)[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for notability since May. I attempted to find sources to establish notability, but I can only find one news article, and no verification of any artists that are signed with the label. For this reason, I am nominating it for deletion. Raven1977 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: surprised it doesn't have {{db-notability}} on it...Imperat§ r(Talk) 03:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A7 (matching the last deletion), G12 or G11, either way, gone. StarM 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Veil of Agony[edit]

Eternal Veil of Agony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unclear from article if album was released or not; no clear claim of meeting WP:MUSIC. 4 non-wiki ghits, zero gnews hits. However, there may be language issues (I'm only searching in English) so I prodded instead of speedying, but prod was contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location: Yerevan, Armenia | Label: Not Signed | Genre: Alternative Rock | Formed in: 2006 | Status: Active | Line Up: Eva - Piano, Vocals Suren - Bass Marek - Drums Arthur - Guitar | Links: E.V.A. Official Website Monday, 04 August 2008
The posters here confirm their appearance at a couple of rock "festivals" held in the Yerevan Puppet Theatre, and er... that's it. Here's (sort of) an Armenian google search: [40]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (A7/G11) — obvious conflict of interest (so G12 doesn't readily apply), which implies that the band is trying to promote itself here, which construes as spamming. There is also no assertion of why this band is remarkable, based on the above attempts to locate such coverage. MuZemike (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: CSD G12. The entire article is a cut and paste, I see no GFDL attached to the original or any PD notice either. (EDIT: The E.V.A website does say this: All the content on the website is the property of E.V.A. Armenian Rock Band. Any copies are alowed only after the respective owners approval. However there is no indication that permission was given. (Admission of such by the articles creator might bring the COI and SPA comments above into a clearer light) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge by relisting again. StarM 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Opera Ball[edit]

Dubai Opera Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As near as I can tell by Googling, this event has been held only in 2005 and 2006. The Vienna Opera Ball, as the original, is clearly notable, and because of its longevity the Viennese Opera Ball in New York is probably also notable; but this one has apparently not turned out even to be an annual event. There are news sources announcing the two years' balls, but I doubt that these establish notability. Deor (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no independent evidence of notability (both links come from a government-owned source). Merely being held by a member of the government is insufficient for demonstrating sufficient importance or notability of the activity. Ironically, the mention of the host in the article was an assertion of notability that keeps it out of speedy delete territory. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are independent reliable sources available via a Google search: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article Vienna Opera Ball, as it has been reported as being associated with or part of that event, and is already mentioned in that article. Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Society pages may not be reliable sources for quantum physics or medieval history, but for society events they are perfectly acceptable, in the same way that sports pages are used as sources for sport, business pages for business and review pages for the arts. Also I just tried the link to Die Zeit again and it worked fine for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link works for me too, but what one finds at the end of it hardly constitutes "significant coverage" as described in WP:N. Whether any of the other cited sources do is debatable, I guess, but I wouldn't have nominated the article here if I thought they did. Deor (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that society articles, as far as I'm aware, don't even attempt to investigate, evaluate, etc. (Would it be unkind to suggest that they're to actual society what horoscopes are to the actual future?) The writer simply says what the hostess says, or effuses. And another point: PDF linked to above, which I carelessly suggested was reporting (of a feeble kind), doesn't even purport to report on this momentous occasion. Instead, it announces it for the future: ''"these 10 debutantes will also take part in the Dubai Opera Ball at the Madinat Jumeriah on March 16. For this great event, Emirates will fly 40 Austrian debutantes to Dubai who will open the ball together with the 60 local debutante couples. Stars of the Vienna State Opera Ballet will perform together with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra at the event which promises to be a truly spectacular evening which will bring old world European charm to Dubai. [etc. etc.]" So it's a mere press release. Tama1988 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G3 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United states demographic[edit]

United states demographic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, provides no real citations. Original author goes as far to say "And now I will simply input random references that may seem relevant to make my article seem more credible", without providing any. Spidern (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as pure WP:HOAX or WP:BOLLOCKS. America went from 78% to 98% Christian, and "The test was performed over several minutes using literally no input from Americans at all". Yea right. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I speedy tagged as vandalism, as the article also said there was a telephone survey of 100 billion Americans.... PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_30&oldid=1116879622"