Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina girls[edit]

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

The song has not been released as a single. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:SONG. Sam ^Blab 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then please call all the radio stations here and throughout the Carolinas and tell them to stop playing it. I've moved here 16 years ago, and I hear that song on the radio more than Stairway to Heaven. It has even been rewritten more than once to use in commercials, including for Carolina Dodge. Googling it comes up with about 19k hits. A lot of old songs weren't released as singles, yet became very popular and notable. For that matter, a few B Sides ended up more popular than the A side (see B side for a couple of examples.) At the very least, the song is regionally VERY notable, still very popular (unfortunately), and sources can be found. Lyrics, too. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few small examples of what I mean, including interviews and newspaper articles. Some are weaker than others, but it shows how popular this song really is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the article with a few of the references. Even if it wasn't a song, there are enough references, including interviews, to pass now. Most of these weren't on the first page (or 5th) of a google search, due to how common the phrase is outside of the song. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not my field really, but I was impressed by the revised article. DGG (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I actually hate the song and Beach Music in general, but know that it is notable. I have added some more refs as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvememnts made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has seen significant improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made, and notability achieved.

Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akeldama (album)[edit]

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

Debut album of The Faceless, NN band per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Faceless and 4 speedy deletions as A7. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE [1]. Amalthea^Talk 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is an album covered under a7? If not, maybe it should be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the band's article is gone why keep the album? Oops for making it all that time ago. Jakisbak (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back the band page, delete the album page. Seems more like a hate to this band noting that you didn't delete any other tech band pages AND you removed them from the technical death metal page, when they are in fact tech death. 24.18.205.58 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless page related to a 'never-was-nor-will-be' The Real Libs-speak politely 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Boddington[edit]

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

Doesn't seem particularly notable. Sam ^Blab 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been on two minutes.. it is actually a cut and paste job from here so could be speedied but the editor is working on it as we speak. I sent him a welcome notice explaining about copyright. The subject has written a lot on his field. Waterden (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have rewritten as much as I can in the time I have. Hopefully someone can add to it. I have tagged the obvious. Waterden (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~Delete~~ Just removed the speedy per modifications ~~Just tagged as a G12 copyvio~~. But still needs major sourcing to support notability assertions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at this[2] I'd say the man is a notable published writer. Google throws up loads more, too. ~~SIS~~ 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Awards=Notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor for leading hunting magazines such as these is notability. The material for notability was in the article even when it was nominated for deletion; the copyvio would ofc course have been a reason for speedy deletion if it hadnt been quickly fixed. DGG (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks plenty notable based on the awards + rewrite. JBsupreme (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to re-list: give the editor community time to work it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. leaning keep. Almost evenly split, keeps are slightly stronger in backing up. Relisting with this amount of participatin already is not likely to create consensus. TravellingCari 04:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaPets[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this series of books. Schuym1(talk) 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [3], [4], and [5], [6]. Author should have done a bit of sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must not be seeing what you're seeing. All I see is library sites and sale sites. Schuym1 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If library sites made books notable, then all books would be notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep through some reviews need to be found. Given the years the work was published, that a title selected at random , is still in almost 300 libraries is very highly notable for this sort of very elementary book.[7] It is not necessary to search libraries one by one through Google. DGG (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in WP:BK that says that makes books notable. Schuym1 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Don't try to convince me that that makes books notable, because I go by policies and guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per DGG and Schmidt. (And don't be so bitey, please, Schuym1). ~~SIS~~ 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They didn't give good reasons for keeping the article, because there is nothing that says that stuff like that makes books notable. Schuym1 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's take my remark to your Talkpage[8] ~~SIS~~ 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So are they sources are out there keeps? Schuym1 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the article pass WP:BK? Schuym1 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article contains no claim to notability and independent investigation provided none. The term "alphapets" brings up a paltry 9000+ ghits (by comparison, "green eggs and ham bring up a half million) Few of the hits concerned this book. There appears to be another slightly more popular book out by completely different authors, a board game, resort and miscellaneous other companies. No notability from what I can see.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its existence in libraries does not confirm notability. No reliable sources are found. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't believe the series is notable. PS: Schuym1, no one likes a user who makes harsh and uncivil replies whenever another user makes a comment they don't like. Tcrow777^Talk 01:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of the House of York[edit]

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

No such formal title ever existed, and hence any attempt to define the rightful inheritance to such a title must represent POV, and the resulting account represent OR. The page appears to have been created solely as a POV fork to rebut the descent hypothesized in the Britain's Real Monarch documentary (itself FRINGE). The only authentic portions of this page were copied from the House of York page, and no benefit would come from merging the added nonsense back there. Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per rationale in nom. --Jza84 | Talk 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well reasoned nominating statement. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely seems like original research. Stephen Turner (Talk) 01:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominating statement.--Harkey (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream IV[edit]

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

Prod removed; kicking it to you guys. Though it was review by a secondary editor.

Anyway, rationale: WP:NFF NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced hearsay. Even if absolutely true, convincingly fails WP:NFF per nom. Delete now (WP:SNOW) without prejudice to recreation when/if filming begins. Ros0709 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will change when Harry Potter performs a sourcing spell. Sam ^Blab 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Crystal that fails WP:NFF. If Craven told me to my face that he will be making this film, I'd still have to wait for it to be verified in some reliable sources... and then have to wait for principle filming. Its inclusion on Wiki is premature. Perhaps merge/redirect to Wes Craven? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced speculation. Alexius08 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. WP:NFF applies too, of course. Cliff smith ^talk 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NFF. WP:V. JBsupreme (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see snow in the forecast...Sam ^Blab 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Topkapi Affair[edit]

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

This 2009 or 2010 remake fails WP:NFF with no indication when filming will start. Cast is rumored, production details are unknown. Half of the movie links have been pulled down. WP:CRYSTAL violation. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the links wern't pulled down... they were simply improperly formatted. I repaired them and they may now be accessed. That being said and done, this is maybe just a touch too soon for this article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, as this article is premature. The film is currently "in development" and may never be made. searches under the aka are promising, but still conjecture. Its WP:Crystal and fails WP:NFF. Bring it back if it moves into filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's too early to create that article. Alexius08 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Premature creation. rootology (C)(T) 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow recreation when more concrete information is known. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Withdraw per this: http://gliving.tv/music/?p=37. The Eeenie Meanie (or whatever it was) link does not show notability because that the label's website. I am fine with one reliable source that shows notability. The delete vote doesn't count because that was the creator's vote.NAC Schuym1(talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-Eyed Son[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - I created this article, and given the apparent failure of the "official site" and the lack of any new material since the debut album, I cannot argue with the proposed deletion. I would argue that the inclusion of two album tracks in two well-known TV shows would confer some notability, but probably not enough to justify the article's existence. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says that stuff like that makes bands notable. Schuym1(talk) 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is some press coverage for this artist available online, but the examples I have found require a paid registration. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter if you have to pay, as long as they are reliable sources. If you show me the sources, I will most likely withdraw. Schuym1(talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are sources. I will wait to see what the author does with them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Still seem to be a hoax, but it is the Laws not the article that's the hoax.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Laws[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax [9] Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks possible on first inspection - on the first page of gnews hits is this link Cornell University : Blue Laws of the old States which refers to original colonial laws as 'Blue Laws' and refers to a 'Governor Eaton' in 1655. Now the text (which seems to be a review of one of the references for the subject article - casts some doubt on the details, but does not debunk them either. MadScot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essentially a content dispute that needs further work to get information and show the status. probably a notable hoax. Some secondary literature is needed. DGG (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with rewrite to indicate they are not an accurate statement of actual laws WP:V is a basic hurdle for such an article to pass. We have a modern ref, cited by the nominator, which says these are a hoax, created by a Rev. Peters in 1781, and the article cites old print refs which are not readily available. This creates the need for someone with access to a good research library to determine if these old print references say what is claimed, and for the community to see if there are other reliable sources which evaluate whether the old print references are reliable and accurate. Wikipedia has seen seemingly well documented hoaxes before, such as the nonexistent "Upper Peninsula War," and numerous hoax towns, generals, battles and laws. The Eaton book of 1656 and its 1858 reprint are in a few libraries, per Google Book Search, but is not available online. Someone could check it. The Andrus book is available for limited search via Google Book search and does not contain several particular ones of the laws quoted that I searched. The Connecticut Code of 1650 is discussed in De Toqueville, Democracy in America(1835), page 41, [10], where he described peculiar laws based on holy writ, lending some credence. A key reliable source is "The American Catholic Quarterly Review" (1877)[11] which analyzes the Peters version of the blue laws in detail and says that many of them cannot be substantiated based on the historical record, but that many Connecticut records form the 1640's and 1650's are suspiciously missing, as if cleansed. Some of Peters' claims did appear to be in accord with the actual practice of the 1650's. All in all, there is SOMETHING notable here, even if it is a "controversy." Connecticut had some theocratic blue laws in the 1600's which were extreme in their requirements of adherence to the religious beliefs of the majority, and Peters may have exaggerated or fabricated some examples, and likely never even saw a printed list of the laws he reports. But the Catholic Quarterly Review says "it is hardly possible to call Peters's Blue Laws forgeries, for too many of them have a real basis" (p494) but "Peters cannot be cited at all as authority; that many of his clauses are palpable invention"(p 496). Editing needed by someone with a taste for this sort of thing. Edison (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to blue law ; if kept, this needs to be renamed to something else, like Blue laws (Conn.) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a content issue. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute keep Content issue, and the Connecticut laws are their own distinct little nasty creature (trust me--ex CT guy here). rootology (C)(T) 14:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah gleeson[edit]

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

Purported to be a character from a book, I can find no evidence the book or the author exist. Hoax or not, the article anyway appears to be complete nonsense and should be speedied as such. Ros0709 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable character within her fictional universe, problem is, said universe is not notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no notability outside her universe.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a character from a book with no real world notability to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tim Yeo. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Stent[edit]

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

I think this comes under BLP1E. The subject had a minor political office but is only really notable for being caught up in a political scandal. I doubt anyone remembers her name and the article is linked only from the name of someone else in the same scandal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect (as creator) to Tim Yeo or Back to Basics (campaign). A massive event at the time, but it was only one event and there is a privacy implication for a woman who has never been in the public eye since. JASpencer (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do think that the article is a plausible link, search and category member so I don't think a deletion would be good. JASpencer (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tim Yeo. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person's name does not appear in Back to Basics (campaign) articles, so a redirect to that would make no sense. A perfect example of WP:BLP1E. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it does appear in Tim Yeo's article. This affair totally derailed his career. JASpencer (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes this is a perfect BLP1E example. JBsupreme (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since the Yeo article does not even have citations verifying the affair while Stent's article does. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Tcrow777^Talk 08:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was speedy delete. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blütreich[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable demo NS black metal band; fails WP:MUSIC by virtue of having no releases, no tours (it's a one man bedroom band effectively) and no coverage by independent reliable sources. So obscure even Metal Archives hasn't heard of them, and their Myspace has been deleted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say, they appear to be in the Metal Archives queue, but that in itself is not promising for notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bitte. Fails WP:MUSIC complütely. ~~SIS~~ 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails every part of WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams[edit]

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

?Notable

When I started to compile this list I thought it was appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I had found the many lists here to be incredibly useful and thought that this one would be worth adding. Now I'm not sure it meets WP criteria, can't bring myself to dump it and in any case lack the experience and objectivity to judge it properly. So I'm bringing it in to be tried.

I am unsure if the list's potential as a word-games resource is of relevance to Wikipedia's aims or not. Either way I think it also provides useful information. If a reader Searches for Sum River (which has no Wikipedia article) the Search results page will show its entry in the list. There s/he will find that such streams do exist in Russia and Thailand and by following the cited web-links can find out more.

I must also declare a personal interest. If the list is thought worth keeping, information in it will provide a vital strand in a competition I am hoping will be run by a top UK daily newspaper. To tackle the competition, readers will have to use Wikipedia (for the list, obviously, and for other things as well). The page's notability will get a boost while the competition is on and I think there will be permanent positive effects on both its notability and the attitude to Wikipedia of the paper's readers (the paper in question tends to be a bit anti-Wikipedia.). I will be donating to Wikipedia one-third of whatever I may get for setting the competition.

I don't think this plan conflicts with the interests of Wikipedia. If the list's worth keeping, it's worth keeping (and improving). But is it worth keeping?

I'd say Keep but then I would, wouldn't I? Dinoceras (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The collection is totally arbitrary; there is no connection between them other than the length of names. The intro also suggests this is a copyviolation. Ros0709 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say first how much I appreciate the honesty and good faith of the nominator. We need more of that. As to the above remark about a copyvio, I'm pretty sure anything published by the federal government is the common property of all U.S. citizens and cannot be copyrighted. All that aside, helping people in word games is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and the list does not provide any good encyclopedic content or any real assistance in navigating. Perhaps it would work as a category and still serve the author's purpose, but I'm going to say Delete the list. Alternatively, you could have it userfied so it would still be accessible. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous comments. You say the list might work as a category. I'm not sure how categories work and have failed to find any information on the subject (don't know which keywords to search with, I suspect) Could you direct me to a page which would explain? Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and honesty about this article, but it's rather arbitrary to have only 1- 2- and 3-letter names, nor is it notable. I'll have to vote Delete but I would not oppose you keeping this list in userspace. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plain trivia. Alexius08 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim tothe 1 and 2 letter words -- three letter names are pretty common. A list is better than a category because it can indicate the location. A category can not. But i think we might like to hear more about this competition--perhaps on your user talk page? DGG (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to other potential competitors, I don't feel I can give out much information about the competition. It won't work if the three-letter streams aren't accessible to the general public but that's my problem not yours Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but remove the three-letter names. Place names of one and two letters are somewhat unusual and I think this is a viable list, however I'm concerned about the fact there are few if any links here to articles. If the rivers themselves aren't notable enough for articles, are they notable enough for a list of this nature? That's why I put "weak" keep. In principle I think the idea works; in practice it needs some work. Another reason for the "weak" modifier is the fact the list creator has nominated it. 23skidoo (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't deciding for ourselves that one and two letter names are automatically notable original research? I admit it's unusual, but is there any real encyclopedic reason that three letters are not noteworthy and two are? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR applies to the content of articles. We often do a little quick research here or in talk space to see if something is notable, or to decide other questions raised.But deciding on a general question about what we should count as notable is discussion not research in any event. DGG (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you do have a good point there, perhaps that was a bad choice of words on my part. What I was getting at is that I don't see how cutting it down to two letter names makes it a more valid concept than if the three letter names were included. It seems a rather subjective line, as I for one couldn't think of a single three letter river name off the top of my head. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LISTCRUFT is a relevent essay here. Ros0709 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if reduced to one and two letter names it will still be trivia. To support a competition is a very strong argument for speedy deletion. Dinoceras may publish it on his own website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My old faculty office had just such a crossword cheat book in, for coffee break quizzes. Unfortunately, that book was not an encylopedia. Useful, but unencylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable Transwiki to Wiktionary, where it might serve as an Appendix (complete with citations). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I find the article's author completely charming, I have to vote delete, per WP:NOT.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hour of execution approaches. Ah, well. Thank you all for your time and your kindness and courtesy. My special thanks to those who made suggestions to try to save at least part of the list. Dinoceras (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:LC.Tcrow777^Talk 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kennedy (scientist)[edit]

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

The original title of this was "Adam Kennedy (eco-scientist extraordinaire)" and it may be self-promotion (SPA author kennaster (talk · contribs)). The tone could be fixed, but the substance is thin. The references are (a) the web-site of his own "Kennedy Institute of Teaching and Research", (b) a paper published at a Student Research Symposium in April 2005, (c) a presentation at a conference in 2006. The "Kennedy Institute" seems to be just a database and calculator for the Trans-Niño Index, but it is part of a larger site which includes Kennedy's CV, showing seven published papers and a current position as Faculty Research Assistant at Oregon State University. This is some way short of notability to the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained in the comprehensive nomination Kennedy's academic output is not sufficient for him to pass WP:PROF and there are a paucity of other reliable sources with which to establish a wider notability. Nancy ^talk 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not about Kennedy... only about what he's done. Making it a WP:BLP1E Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A faculty research assistant (that is, grad student) whose work has not yet demonstrated any significant impact (the papers listed that are by this Kennedy have no citations in Google scholar). Fails WP:PROF, which (despite him not yet being a professor) is the appropriate test for this sort of academic work. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - by prodding Scholar a bit I did find two articles (the first and third are the same); but it's not enough. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence to suggest he passes WP:PROF, per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page appears to have been self-installed, in violation of Wikipedia policy.Raymondwinn (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an autobiography is not a reason for deletion (it's discouraged, but not an actual violation of policy), but the detailed nom clearly shows the lack of notability. Doesn't meet WP:PROF(or WP:BIO for that matter). --Crusio (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and the comments above. Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, and not there yet. rootology (C)(T) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1(talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stropping[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this. Schuym1(talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If someone can show why it is a notable method. As it is, it is a WP:DICDEF, and likely it would be hard to find reliable sources. You can find examples of it being USED as a term in programming (newsgroups, etc.) but not wp:rs sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After new sources were found (including one that made my eyes bleed) it appears that a KEEP is actually in order. A very difficult subject to source, and a technical one, but that shouldn't prevent it from being included. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a perfectly cromulent term: I have added a reference to its use in Algol68. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be very, very easy to change my !vote if I could actually see a wp:rs reference that was a weblink and established the notability of the term. Not that weblink references are better, but this *is* a term used in programming, and holy cow, you would *think* there would be a source available on the internet that could easily establish the notability of the term, if it is notable. It would truly embiggen the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google for "Algol68 stropping" gives two hits on Wikipedia (!): Algol 68 and ALGOL 68G, then you could try here, here, here, or, under "stropping convention" here, here, here or here. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did, and had before. The problem is that all those mention stropping incidentally, which is what I found when I searched. (hense my weak modifier) I didn't find any "the importance of proper stropping" type articles, or anything that talks about stropping as a primary subject matter. That (or two) is kinda what is needed to help establish it is notable by itself. I don't think the concerns is whether or not stropping exists, it is about whether or not there is enough potential for it to be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those references go into descriptions of the several different kinds of stropping conventions (for one particular language). The Hansen and Boom article is about stropping. The article describes different conventions for other languages, presumably they can be sourced too. That all seems to me to add up to much more than a mere dictionary definition. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that made me want to stab an eye out with a shrimp fork, PFD of an image, and is not searchable. Somehow I missed that one reference, but yes, you are totally correct, and that would change my opinion. I added to the article, and will tag a bit more. The article needs work, but seems perfectly legit, in my eyes. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Computer languages Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Wood[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this, so it seems to be something made up in one day. Schuym1(talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search shows exactly zero hits relating to this term (that apply). My guess is WP:MADEUP applies, likely just called this at a single bar or area. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 as WP:MADEUP Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged it as such. Schuym1(talk) 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it me or does this sound like an Erectile dysfunction product? PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm surprised that this article lasted so long. Since 2005. Schuym1(talk) 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvester42[edit]

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

Every research project at every university is not notable, and the article doesn't indicate why this particular project would be notable. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...harvester42 is an article about a meta search engin like many other articel in the wikipedia ...i really can´t understand why ...this "deletion-war" is going on right now..this is definitle AGAINST the spread of knowledge...i write for the wikpedia for several years now....somethign like this i have never experienced...i am confused.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo (talk • contribs) 19:00, October 4, 2008
- Wikipedia is not meant to be a compendium of all knowledge about everything in the world. Notability is considered an important attribute of the subjects of Wikipedia articles. I saw your article and have doubts about its notability; your article didn't give me any reason to view it as any more notable than thousands of other research projects or meta-search engines in the world. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change below Delete The problem is simple, thousands of people are working on "the ultimate search engine". Please refer to Google's stock price over the last 10 years for a reason. That this is called Harvester (get it, it takes answers from other search engines, how original) or 42 (the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything) is meaningless. Has anyone (that passes wp:rs) written anything interesting about them? If not, then this particular project, one of thousands, isn't particularly notable enough to be listed whilst the others (sadly) are not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i can´t believe what i am reading. a single person. i am sure Mio of projects are not worthy for you..that does not mean that you have the right to delete it...some people might be interested and are....although this is not up to discussion...the word harvester comes from "bioinformatic harvester" http://harvester.fzk a bioinfomatic search engine...used (by the way by 1000s of scientist every day...we have been asked for a tool to to the same iframe trick for normal search engines..harvester42 runs on machine 42 ...as i said i...
- What "single person" are you talking about? This is a forum for discussion in which as many people as are interested will work toward a consensus over the next five days. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you please give me a contact person..a higher admin maybe? to settle this? if contributed a lot to wikipedia in the last years....and NEVEr exerienced such an aggressive behaviour...AGAIN...it is NOT what YOU think about a project...there are really other people on this planet...really :-D Ivo (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a forum for settling this. This is normal Wikipedia procedure in cases like this. Please stop the drama and indignation. They won't help you in the slightest and will turn people off, which won't be in your favor. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Please show us a link to these other people who think the project is so important, preferably if they pass the policy of reliable sources here at Wikipedia, and we will be glad to change our opinions. You aren't special, you have to offer citations like the rest of us do when creating articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - :-) can i just say..please go ahead and do whatever you think is right....yeas you are right..i am not special...sorry for trying to convince..damn i made a mistake .-) ...have fun..and don´t be evil :-) Ivo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you paying the guilt card? Even after I explained to you (on your talk page) that making your case in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be effective but drama won't be? Well, you still have nearly five days to come forth with suitable evidence of notability, if it exists and should you choose to make a constructive case for keeping the article. If you can, why won't you? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think what he is saying is being said in good faith. I think he just stepped back a little bit and realized that he was trying to wp:OWN the article previous, and now realizes our efforts were not personal. We all have been guilty at least once of trying to own an article we created. He is saying "[sic]yeas you are right" so let's not bite his head off. Someone may yet provide sources anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well—you and I have different filters for that kind of thing. :-) I was picking up on the "sorry for trying to convince". But you may be right. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the same editor has contributed a couple of articles on other search engine type things with similar names. Now, if one of those is NOTABLE, maybe this one is too, by some kind of association? Or maybe none of them are? At least one looks like it has external refs, at least. MadScot (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability can not yet be determined. Merge/redirect to Search engine per improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing, I can't find ANY sources that are remotely independed on this engine, not even blogs. None. Not sure that a redirect or merge would be appropriate if we can't offer any proof it exists. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just tried several different search approaches myself and came up with zilch... maybe I would have had more luck if I used Harvester42. If existance could be assertained and notability shown a redirect would have sufficed. My bad. And I have modified my position accordingly. And a note to User:Ivo... Wikipedia is about verification... making certain that what is within these pages can be proven per WP:V, whether we like the information or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tried what you just suggested, with no better results, except pages in their lab site. [12]. When there are some sources, no reason not to try again. But, meanwhile, you say you've got an important bioinformatics search engine that's in wide use--and i suppose that therefore might have references for it--so why not try an article on that one? It could even include a sentence to this more experimental version. DGG (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP :-) Ivo (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Harvester42 use the "bioinformatic harvester" methods (see "bioinformatic harvester" project (try this one on google). comment: so i just realized ..if something exists on Google..IT exist. if something is NOT on Google it doesn´t ...AUTSCH ...:-) ok added the original "harvester reference paper" and some updates.. ah by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDaily) one of the fines news sources for scientific informtion on the web with lots of awards and stars...not much of an article , but more than worthy to add....[reply]

Changed to KEEP now I tell you one damn thing, you are persistant! This is actually a good thing. It is easy to just complain but you went and found some very hard to find references on a topic that is very difficult to source out, and at the end of the day, I think that you have changed the article enough to clearly make it notable enough for inclusion. My original assumptions were really off base, and I stand corrected. I would hope others who voted to delete would please look at the sources. Still not the heaviest sourced article, but not every topic can have easy to quote text from the New York Times. Great job. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. For all the edits that have occurred, the only changes I see are (1) the addition of more specific information about software, which doesn't affect the question about notability; (2) a literature section that lists two papers by the project team, again not pertinent to the question of notability; and (3) a reflist that you added and that is empty because the article has no inline references. I see no more indication of notability than there was when I posted the AfD notice. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The literature is enough as it lists the entire Harvester concept, published on a u.s. government website, pubmed.gov (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) which tells me it isn't a home spun "better" search engine. The empty ref section was added only because I also said in the article talk that he needed to work in some inline citations, just a format issue, not notability. I am not saying it doesn't have ISSUES, I am just saying it has enough notability to dodge a bullet in AFD and be tagged for more work. This kind of stuff is very hard to source to begin with, and one solid source from a US government site (on a german search engine technology) is enough to establish notability, to me and is 100x better than what existed before. If you don't agree, that is ok, too. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's "published" on that government website in the same sense that every website indexed by Google is "published" by Google. They're passing through the results of a search for academic papers that leads to this. The real citation should be what's shown at either NCBI or Science Direct: the article was published in the journal Methods in Enzymology, volume 404, pages 19-26. I haven't check the WP guidelines for academic papers accepted for publication by academic journals—publishing a paper you've submitted isn't the same thing as reporting independently on your work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to have misunderstood the Pubmed.gov site. It contains databases of millions of papers from certain subject areas, it does not indicate that the US government have taken any notice of anything, or published anything. From the site: "Through PubMed, you can search 16,000,000 biomedical journal abstracts. PubMed Central is a database that contains whole research articles from over 300 research journals. "Yobmod (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am i being blind, or are there still no third party independant sources in the article? The papers are inherently NOT independant, as they are written by the inventors. Pubmed.gov is just a database site, listing all the papers from the journals it covers - it lends no notability to those papers, any more than being found on google means a website is notable.Yobmod (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I myself think a merge would work now as its existance has been verified. If moved over to Search engine it has context and can always be pulled out for an independent article if notability is sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this point, there is nothing notable about this project, nor is there anything of significance about it that warrants a merge to search engine. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy. Tcrow777^Talk 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge networking[edit]

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

This is a very poor article that contains nothing of value which is not already present on other articles such as Knowledge Management. It has been marked for improvement for some time and while some citations have been inserted no improvements have been made to the content. Further the one editor who seems interested has inserted long and meaningless use cases. In general this seems to be a article about one aspect of one author's (Skyrme) work with a few other quotes that mention knowledge or networking thrown in for good measure. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete --Snowded TALK 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't get the impression that this is a subject in its own right and it does not need an article in its own right. It has had enough time and opportunity to prove otherwise and it hasn't. The author was going to do some work on it when it was tagged for deletion some time ago but since then it hasn't addressed the key problems and I can't see it going anywhere in the future. I wouldn't object to a redirect to Knowledge Management. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set redirect to Conversation. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In contrast to DanielRigal, I think that this is an important topic and worthy of note. Social networks are expanding to more commercially-focussed networks like LinkedIn &c. and these are often heavily focussed on "the personal networking of knowledge". That's a notable topic, distinct from Knowledge Management. However this article just doesn't cut it. There's nothing in there worth saving. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right but it certainly isn't clear from the current state of the article. Could you could hack the article back and try to make it into a coherent stub article explaining what the core subject is, how it is notable and what distinguishes it from the other related subjects? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

improve We should distinguish between two discussion topics:
- Is Knowledge networking a own topic or part of Knowledge management? Knowledge networking is a separate topic: check the 211.000 Google-search results of "Knowledge networking" just for the English term. Check the related 137 Wikipedia articles like Trade Knowledge Network or the more than 9700 search results within Wikipedia for knowledge networking or all the books cited in the article Knowledge networking. Knowledge management is defined as: "Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what it knows, and how it knows it. Knowledge networking supports many of these KM tasks". Nevertheless, knowledge networking includes topics, which are not directly related to knowledge management: e.g. the social aspect of Social computing, the Innovation management aspect, the Technology Management aspect like technology breeding to mention a few.
- Is the current article about Knowledge networking good enough? No, it is not good enough and needs to be improved. It was written by a student as I do not have the time to write one but I need a wikipedia article on this topic in order to refer to it. My understanding is that wikipedia is a community project, where everybody is invited to improve an article which is not good enough. I understand that it is important from the very beginning, that no wrong information or no unverifyable information is covered in the initial version of an article. The proposal by Snowded to start with a sandpit and write a perfect article is not applicable for me as I do not have the time to manage a community project on this topic. Everybody is welcome to to do it and we got already valuable contributions from people we do not know. If you delete the article completely, you will have no information about this important topic in Wikipedia. I wonder if this is better than the current first draft. I have also difficulties to understand the reason to delete all the use cases without any notice. Is this the way how the wikipedians should communicate. Use cases are a best practice in defining requirements and the style of use cases should be as direct as possible. I know that it is unusual for a Wiki-page to use the direct "I was..." style, but it is appropriate for use cases. Is it desired to have nothing unusual within Wikipedia? For my understanding, deletion is no solution. Heisss (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. You have had months to improve it with virtually zero activity. Social Computing is already in the Knowledge Management article (and could be extended) and would certainly not be defined by Knowledge networking. You mention it here for the first time! The fact that you define it by Skyrme and Probst, places it firmly in the KM space of the mid 1990s and all the language (and jargon) comes from that period. The use cases were dire, they read like bullet points from a consultancy sales pitch. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as a briefer article. This afd is essentially an attempt to force improvements of a very low quality article that could not be effected through normal editing. Attempts to do so have repeatedly failed. Most recent there was the revert of Anthere's removal of a list of see alsos to several dozen equally over-expansive Wikipedia articles on very closely related concepts (which at the moment remains in the article). There was also the revert of her removal of a long section of "Use cases"-- a method of presentation in a didactic style appropriate if anywhere to in-service management education, not the least suitable to an encyclopedia. (It has just been removed again, and not yet replaced, but it is still being defended. The attempt to justify it above shows the difficulties that have been encountered.) Based on the comments above, an editor with significant COI seems to be admitting having asked a student to write the article for him. We need a better way of breaking OWNership than deletion, but in extreme cases like this I do not see any present way of getting the appropriate community attention. A RfC on an apparently esoteric topic like this often will not work very well, though it should have been tried. So why do I say keep at all--- (1) because it is a real topic of study. True, there is an unfortunate tendency perhaps spearheaded by some publishing companies and academic departments to proliferate the terminology of almost identical subjects in management related fields, using the currently fashionable jargon of information science. It's not nonsense exactly, but rather unproductive fragmentation and duplication. One new field per journal, one new speciality per professor. But still this one is a genuine subject. (2) because this isn't actually the way we are supposed to do things, & it shouldn't be encouraged. I have for long had my eye on this group of articles, and only hesitated for fear I would not have sufficient support. Most of the walled garden should be merged, some eliminated--a guide to the necessary work is that list of see alsos. DGG (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: there are just too many KM related articles as you have probably seen. Best to focus efforts onto creating a couple of good ones which can then spawn additional ones when the material is mature enough. If there is to be an article on social computing, linked in et al, then this is the wrong title. A session of merging and elimination (possible a task force on the field) would have my complete support - great idea. Keeping this article would be a retrograde step which would enhance "fragmentation and duplication" to use your words! --Snowded TALK 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't claim to know very much about this stuff but it all seems a bit nebulous and maybe different people have different names for more or less the same ideas. This could lead to a lot of unnecessary similar articles. If it is clear that there really is a separate subject here then I would advise the people who think so to boldly hack the article down to a stub which clearly and concisely set out what this separate subject actually is. Failing that, a redirect to a a better article on the same subject would seem reasonable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Reply. Its my field (I hold a three visiting Chairs in KM) although that doesn't give me any special rights here but it informs my comments. I'd happily accept a redirect to Knowledge Management where the valid content of this article is already largely covered. If a stub makes sense then it should be under another name, knowledge networking is a tired concept from the 1990s. (which means deleting it). Actually I really like DGG's idea to get all of the "KM" related material into some form of task force, list the current articles and set some action plans. There are no good ones at the moment. Also its a constant war to prevent people setting up new promotional pages or pet theory pages and linking to the more popular articles. If that is on I can probably recruit others into the WIkipedia to get engaged. --Snowded TALK 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just want to mention that if it was notable in the past, it remains notable for our purposes, and should get a short article. DGG (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable in the past. Yes the word "networking" is used in the literature, but it was never and has never been a distinct field. It's a generic word used in articles. --Snowded TALK 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed on that; just wanted to remind people about that factor.DGG (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British university Pro Vice-Chancellors and Treasurers[edit]

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

This article doesn't say anything. It promises to say something and then is completely devoid of useful information. Either put the information in there right now or get rid of it. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not sure why this information is even useful. A list of chancellors and vice-chancellors and of heads of Oxbridge colleges is manifestly worthwhile, by pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers, while meriting their own articles, don't seem to me to need a list. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content (in fact this article may meet the WP:CSD A3 "no content" criterion). brianlucas (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article has remained this way since January 2008. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we do not delete articles for not being improved. If your only complaant is that nobody has worked on it, that's easy enough for your to fix. We delete them because they cannot be improved. DGG (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't delete articles that are in need of improvement, but in this case, the article, despite it's paragraph of text, is completely free of content. Its deletion does not preclude the recreation of an article that actually contains content. If it were even a partial list, I could support keeping. This article arguably could have been deleted with {{db-nocontent}}, so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does somebody want to create the article? (Since creating it from the start is effectively what needs to be done, despite the introductory paragraph.) Is it an article that is worth creating? Does anybody want to know who are the pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers of British universities?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmritNath[edit]

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

An obvious piece of OR not too mention nearly incomprehensible. Woland (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this search finds a number of different sources toward that name usage. Perhaps if the author decides to source his article and give it some context? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: incomprehensible. Alexius08 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexius08. It's full of gobbledygook such as "jisaka virya akhanda hai, ardha-mukta hai soya." and "ldy rhFkZ xq# pj.k esa] lsok ti ri ;ksx AA opu osn ds lw= gSa] ^’kadj* gV x;k jksx AA sakala tirth guru caran+a meiñ, seva japa tapa yogaAA vacana veda ke sutra haiñ, Sam+kara hat+a gaya roga AA" This has to be a hoax. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverter Drive Supermarket[edit]

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

non-notable company that fails to establish notability (company itself is but two years old) Eddie.willers (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability for this business. Fails WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable business. Schuym1(talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Only one reference that is not to the company's own web site, and that article says only that the company sells SSDs. brianlucas (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking away[edit]

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

dicdef covered by wiktionary:walk away from. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom brianlucas (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to say "per nom" but he pretty well sums it up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a dab page Walking Away, but deleting it will get that to come up if "Walking away" is searched anyway, so just nuke it. JuJube (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mission Fleg (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep since nominated by vandal. Hut 8.5 17:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Gazetteer (for Scotland)[edit]

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

Notability is unproven. PehC346 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - nominated by Grawp. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadyn place[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Can find no references to support the topic. No ghits on either Hadyn Place or Vladimir Provlov. If he single-handedly won the war for the Russians, seems like he'd be mentioned in a history somewhere. Fileponi Ravioli? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. No human has ever been named that, according to Google. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only ref is www.russiapwnsfinland.rs/provlov. Look at that closely. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definately fake reference. Everyone knows Finland pwns Russia ;). Now is a good time for an admin to speedy this along. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. No sources given, and no sources to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Staying at a hotel in Rome,Italy, under the pseudonym of Fileponi Ravioli . Says it all really. Nerdluck34 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as obvious hoax. Didja' see the web reference? "russia pwns finland" - puhleeze! Eddie.willers (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Vela[edit]

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

Fails wp:music and WP:ENTERTAINER, the only footnote is to a page that doesn't mention the subject, so no reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp. Prod removed without indicating notability or providing any wp:rs. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t16:09z 16:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Member of ELO, toured with them, I added several sources (some weaker than others) that seem to show she is notable enough for inclusion. Had to dig a bit to find them, but they now exist. She is a member of a band and tour that has articles here, and is mentioned in other articles here as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this search finds sources. Author should have been more diligent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Enough minor fame that someone might be interested in his bio. We66er (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article after finding several red-links in articles for her, from the Steely Dan side, and then discovering that she had been in ELO. Plus she co-starred in a film with Michael Madsen. She clearly meets the guildlines in wp:music - both 1 and 2. [Thanks to those who have helped improve the article - that is how we should be working rather than deleting articles that need improvement.] -- Beardo (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hit single, hit album. Plenty notable as a musician, and, I would have thought, as a model ([13]), and possibly an actress ([14]). There are also several Google Books hits ([15]). --Michig (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Ying Pai[edit]

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

Single school, no references, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bradford44 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article reads as WP:ADVERT and fails WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Border line for a speedy as Blatant advertising in my view. --Nate 14 81 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Chasers[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Nikelodeon. THERE it has notability. Keep this search seems to show enough sources. However, the article needs a major sandblasting and some decent sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must not be seeing what you're seeing. I see sources like IMDB, sale sites, a site with quotes, a DVD easter egg site, a Nick wiki, and video sites. Schuym1 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Movie of notable series, and has Alec Baldwin in it. It does fails most of the WP:MOVIE criteria. Worst case scenario, merge with Fairly Oddparents. --Banime (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it fails all of it. Schuym1 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As with the majority of television movies of this nature, this does not need extended coverage past the main article or episode list. In order to retain an article, it needs to have non-trivial reception comparable to an actual film. It doesn't seem like it will ever gain that kind of reception. TTN (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crookedhook[edit]

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

Delete Band is not notable, they have only been played on a few radio stations, one of which is a college station, are not on a notable label, have no notable members, etc. Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass wp:music. Not notable at this time, no real sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References added proving they received radio airplay and had some press coverage. Strummer25 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page you linked didn't have term "crookedhook" at all, you have to "figure out" the link better on sites like this that frame everything. I searched the site and it had a single page showing the band as "unsigned". (http://radio3.cbc.ca/bands/Crookedhook/) and has blanks for band member names, etc. so obviously it is a form for all bands that no one has bothered to fill out. And reads like an ad, not exactly wp:rs. I won't labor it, but I am not convinced. It doesn't prove "press coverage" in any way, and nom. already stated that they had received limited air play, so it doesn't really change anything. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage is from the Caledon Citizen, a community newspaper. Possibly an up and coming act. But the band hasn't arrived yet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Heartbreak[edit]

Fails WP:NM. I've made several attempts to simply redirect the song to the appropriate album, but many users always break that redirect and add text that doesn't assert the song's notability. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The Greatest" is the next main single, not this... this is less notable than that, and it doesn't even have an article CloversMallRat (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The Greatest" may be the next main single, but it hasn't even charted on any charts, unlike "Hello Heartbreak" which has and I don't think the record company would release the song as a single via iTunes if the song wasn't going to be released.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus001 (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this page is very important and shout be kept. It has been confirmed as her 2nd single as long as the greatest. The single is having more air play and has already charted on the billboard charts! The track has been released and Michelle has confirmed on her official myspace that she will be shooting the video early october and would like some idea's. This is major important and if it does be deleted it will only be have to be made again in the next few weeks. Please keep it, It took me a very long time and alot of people want to know this information! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.163.87 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charted only on Sales charts which are generally not enough. No sources, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It passes WP:NM per "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts"', in which it has charted highly on Hot Dance Singles Sales. So I vote Keep. -24.92.46.22 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re that Single Sales chart "Often, songs that become number one on this chart, do not even chart on the Hot 100." per the Wp article. So I'm having difficulty thinking that's good enough for notability. The music charts are so fragmented by genre and distribution that it's hard to give credence to the smaller charts. MadScot (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal[16] and WP:SNOW keep (non-administrative closure). – RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Copy That Floppy[edit]

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

Non-notable,suggest merger Fireaxe888 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more notable anti-piracy campaigns. The first AfD contains some sources; doubtless there are more than enough to establish notability out there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost as funny as some of the early Microsoft commercials, and as "hip" as the Brady Bunch, but notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, well written and notable. No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has zero reliable sources that are talking about the campaign. WillOakland (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important to the history of copyright, plenty of hits on google. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone basically. JuJube (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this would only seem non-notable to someone who wasn't paying attention to computing in the 1980s. Warren -talk- 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the SIIA article unless someone can come up with reliable sources that give the campaign more than a passing mention. Whether you've heard of it is not the point. WillOakland (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And since the nominator is not asking for deletion anyway, why is this here? WillOakland (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No one here is looking for deletion as noted, this is not a Articles for Merging forum, use the talk page people!! JBsupreme (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G11). Alexf⁴² 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bike-pure[edit]

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

No matter how I spell it (BikePure, Bike-pure, Bike-Pure, etc) I can't find anything that makes this organisation appear notable. ~~SIS~~ 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ~~SIS~~ 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bike-Pure I, as a new user to Wikipedia and surprised and delighted that someone read the article, regardless of its nature. Could you please assist; Advice on how I could improve the entry would be gratefully received. Bike-Pure is a just, independant organisation which will hopefully assist in eliminating Drugs from Professional cycling.

Currently they have 142 of the 701 top level riders signed up. A long way to go, but everyone (690 members in 12 countries) is doing it free and out of love for their sport. Thanks.--Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylesrants (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment above and content of article shows WP:OWN, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:ADVERT vios. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable organization. Schuym1 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam. Did I also mention conflict of interest, as well? MuZemike (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is trying to end drug taking in sport, and identifying the cheats not a noble cause? What size do we need to grow to before becoming notable? --Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care if it's a noble cause or how big it is, it matters about notability. See WP:CORP. You need to add reliable sources that show notability. Your article is also an advertisement because you are involved with the organization. Schuym1 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original author, Mylesrants deleted this section from the AFD page. I have reverted and warned him on his usertalk page that he will be blocked if he vandalises like this again. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for (obviously) annoying anyone. I didn't know the deletion was incorrect as it does "edit from this point" We have 13,210 members. All very much care to the significance of the body.--Mylesrants (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is judging the organization, it is just Wikipedia has thousands of new articles each day. 10% are pure vandalism, about 1/2 of the rest are improper. There are rules and policies that we all follow. Not every company (no matter how worthwhile their goals) has an article here. All the talk of "notability" and such are being compared to the rules here, not in the real world. Oh, and be careful when deleting and editing. Deleting an article off of AFD (or a speedy tag) when you are the author tends to make those of us that work hard to clean the place up get very snippy. And heavy handed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that this article should be deleted per WP:SNOW. It's obiously going to be deleted because it's an advertisement for a non-notable organization. Schuym1 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone any advice for the retention of the organisations entry? assistance would be much appreciated--Mylesrants (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mylesrants, the mere fact that you are employed by this company and have made an article promoting it is a violation of WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mylesrants, you need to demonstrate the notability of this subject using independent third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: you need newspaper articles that talk about the organization, reputable websites (not blogs) that do the same. You have to cite this in the article. Wikipedia is pretty cut and dry, it doesn't matter how big the organization is, or how nice the goals, or how true the statements are. I mean it, those are meaningless here. All that matters to keep an article here is that the subject matter is 1. Notable (read wp:n to see what that means) and 2. Verfiable (wp:v) using 3. Reliable sources.(wp:rs). Most of the other issues can be dealt with or fixed. Here, notability means that the media is talking about you, or you have done something so worthwhile, it affected a lot of people. Citations just prove it. Find an article about a similar organization, one that is written well (ie: no major tags, 1 year old or more) and see what they did RIGHT. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, study Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per MuZemike --Fireaxe888 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion relating to merging, moving, or redirecting can continue on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognoscenti (comics)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur All I can find is a Marvel Universe guide reference, which doesn't meet third-party requirements. MadScot (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Marvel Comic characters or Marvel Comics as there is no notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; can't even find it at the articles for the otehr characters/groups it mentions. JJL (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, or merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations#C. BOZ (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or move as suggested below by Emperor. :) BOZ (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Joshua Pryce and refocus on him. He has appeared outside of the teams other adventures. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thr33 Ringz. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze (T-Pain song)[edit]

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

Confirmed single of a future album, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:NOTE. Previous redirects were declined. Amalthea^Talk 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song shouldn't get delted it is the 3rd single from Thr33 Ringz. DinoAvdic (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. WP:MUSIC#Songs is quite clear: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Ros0709 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This song is worthy of an article because it will be the third single of T-Pain's album, Thr33 Ringz. It has not been released yet, but it has been leaked and is going to be released on the 13th of October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.62.131 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Until release. Sam ^Blab 11:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As per WP:MUSIC#Songs, songs are not notable except "that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, [or] that have won significant awards or honors". Songs that possibly "will be" ranked someday do not qualify, let alone ones that aren't even officially released yet and are from an album (Thr33 Ringz) that itself isn't even released yet. --Closeapple (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect until the song is released. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song shoulden't get deleted it is going to be realesed in two days.

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

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

The result was delete. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Kyuchukova[edit]

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

Non-notable. The only external (non university related) reference is Times on line which just lists her as the student coordinator in a fact sheet. Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VG ☎ 14:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Oxford Brookes University. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoaneta Kyuchukova (Antoinette) was deleted in April 2007 and I can't find anything to suggest she's since become notable. ---Qwfp (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly NN. Nothing to suggest she is notable yet, but she may be one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunston Jolly Rodgers[edit]

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

Despite getting lost and appearing in the papers, this dog is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This story is not. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not for news. Schuym1 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long, rambling, one-sourced, original research article. Fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That was a little painful to read due to formatting/style. Not news, doesn't seem to pass GNG either. Pick one, but even if it was written properly, would not be notworthy enough for inclusion as no lasting impact. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a newspaper article featuring a non-notable subject. Alexius08 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope, we're still not a newspaper last I checked. JBsupreme (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius Metro[edit]

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

There are no third-party sources that mention this supposedly planned metro as being a real project. The external link in the article goes to vilniausmetro.lt, which states that “Vilnius Metro is a non-governmental organization that is popularizing the idea of a metro in the capital of Lithuania. The city of Vilnius does not yet have a metro; our goal is to educate the populace about the benefits of metro systems.” As long as no reliable, third-party source supports the claim that this is a real project (and not some NGO's vision), Wikipedia should not have an article about it per Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Kjetil r (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a speedy deletion was proposed here, as well as in es.wikipedia and no.wikipedia (the Spanish and Norwegian articles seem to be translations of the English article). --Kjetil r (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some third-party sources: delfi.lt [17], Gediminas Technical University [18] It is proposed, not planned, so changed that. Novickas (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the proposal been seriously discussed by Lithuanian politicians and/or in Lithuanian media? What is the probability for the proposal to be realized? The article should discuss such issues, so that our readers can see that this is not a proposal from a fringe group. --Kjetil r (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delfi.lt is a major Lithuanian media outlet. Novickas (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Other info per is-it-a-serious-proposal rather than a single NGO's vision, it was specifically mentioned by Vilnius city municipality: "A new and modern means of transportation to be introduced into Vilnius City in the near future is considered now. That is the fast tramway, the routes of which shall connect the main city districts with the centre and workplaces." [19]. These are reliable sources, now in the article. Novickas (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit articles about major proposals; rather stating that "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This proposal is documented in reliable sources. Novickas (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Crystal and even the keep notes it is "proposed". Fails WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is a real proposal, seriously advocated by former Mayor. There were many studies, proposals, presentations, etc. The mayor advocated for a tramway and even created the company that would be in charge of the structure. However, that proposal did not pass and the company was liquidated. So now activists chase after a metro. It seems unlikely that any of it will pass -- it would cost too much and the benefits are not so clear. But it is a very notable debate in Lithuania, going back to 2001 or 2002. You can find heaps of newspaper articles about it (in Lithuanian, of course). Even if it does not pass, I see no reason to delete it. We are keeping a failed US bill Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Renata (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. And the current mayor? Does the idea stand any chance to reach, say, budget hearings? Does anyone now (parties, politicans etc.) take it seriously? Are the Vilnius residents happy to shovel $5,000 each for something that will take 10 years to build... etc. The article makes an impression that it's as dead as a dead fish. NVO (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's further away than Kansas doesn't mean it's NN. Vilnius has been arguing the pros and cons of paying for a half-decent metro longer than Bristol has. Whether they do or don't, the argument itself is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's change the article title to Vilnius Metro (proposal)... because right now that's all it is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the topic, not the title, so I couldn't object to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So who do we see to have the title changed to better reflect the content of the article? Once the Vilinius Metro is actually built this article can become a major portion of the new version which will be created under this current name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be called "Vilnius Tram Project", since that is what the city's presentation to UNESCO called it [20], along with the Scott Wilson Group [21]; they did the financing feasibility study. Vilnius Metro seems to be name of the supporting NGO only. Who can do it - Renata, above, is an admin, or maybe it doesn't need an admin, just someone versed in the procedures, once there is a consensus to keep and rename. Novickas (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thoroughly referenced article for a megaproject. These sorts of project become notable even if they are never built, because the decision process becomes notable due to the span of political debate and public interest in the matter. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of its current status as real proposal. Proposals are fine for future infrastructure articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is acceptable to have an article on a proposed prject of this size, but PLEASE no subarticles on stations until it is under construction. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vilnius#Transport#Public transport, as the topic is being covered and taken seriously, but there is no actual metro or project yet to put it in. If it ever becoems a reality, it can then be split off to its own page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism and per the consensus here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin's hometown(film)[edit]

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

Speedy got declined, PROD was added, but this "upcoming film" doesn't even appear to be announced anywhere. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly WP:CRYSTAL ~~SIS~~ 13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find no source for it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:HOAX ——Possum (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax, no sources found by me. --Banime (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: if this were real, 1) IMDb would almost certainly have something on it, and 2) even if this were real, shooting would have to begin for the film to warrant its own article. Cliff smith ^talk 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with haste, per WP:Crystal and WP:NFF. A search combinging the name with its rumoured major star finds nothhing except this blurb on wiki. Period. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. No information on this film on any of the alleged stars' websites, nor the website for Cameron Crowe. 5 Google hits, only three relevant, and they're all for Wikipedia and mirror sites, The "newcomer" in the film "Erica Hanner" generates some ghits, but many are to Facebook, and the only relevant ones are - again - to Wikipedia. Arcticle's creator has vandalised several articles to fit the movie, vandalised a page about radio personality Erica Hayden to fit a probable self-bio and just oodles more. This article is just screaming "delete me". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax, possible speedy. JuJube (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Google shows nothing about the subject (a film), and only Wikipedia's article shows something about this film. -- RyRy (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke WP:HOAX. Sam ^Blab 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Crystal ball sees snow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for immediate deletion as unsourced, blatant misinformation. With four deletion-related tags at the article, I doubt its survival. Alexius08 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This looks like a good candidate for a merge but that's matter for editorical discretion. There is no clear consensus to delete this as it stands and the sourcing there is is not addressed in the discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Drazen[edit]

No assert of notability. Tagged for Notability since September 2007! It consists mainly of plot. A fictional character who appeared in only in 1 of the 7 seasons (so far) of a TV show. No reason to convert to a redirect a minor character like that. Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article such as Recurring and minor characters in 24. Along with all the other characters. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Can you find any references proving that this character is notable, not only in the series'context? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to characters list; non-notable, contains only plot re-hashing. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas a major character in he series, assumin gthe series is important enough. If the series is of borderline importance, then merge--a question for the talk page, not here. DGG (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. No reason to delete. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Mr. Absurd... some very minor info is verified but really not enough to support its own article... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this as "keep" but another editor felt that my close was incorrect and reopened it so I feel the best thing to do is relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that this fictional character has received significant coverage in WP:RS. All I see is a regurgitation of in-universe plot details. VG ☎ 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Berman[edit]

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

A most likely non-notable person. A Google News search and a Google search brings up nothing about this Jeff Berman. Schuym1 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The cliam to fame seems to be a one time appearance is some show. Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. VG ☎ 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one appearance on Queer Eye does not make him notable. Fails WP:Notability (persons). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source is very good, but otherwise I just see blogs and the like. I thought I would be able to find more, but just couldn't. His 15 minutes of fame are up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I tried too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. He may have had 15 minutes of airtime on TV, but not even 15 minutes of fame. Bongomatic (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desadarium[edit]

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

Bands are a bit outside my area of expertise, but this one certainly appears to fail the requirements of WP:BAND. Not signed to a label, no commercial releases, 46 discrete Google hits without a reliable source in the lot, and zero Google News hits. Their "official page" is at Myspace. (And for anyone who might wonder, desadarium is not Latin for "regret".) Deor (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable band. Schuym1 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. No claims to notability actually, so probably could've been speedied under A7. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been around for more than a year, so I figured it was worth an AfD rather than a speedy. Deor (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Philippe as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stripe-backed Grayling[edit]

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

I am a little concerned that I could not find any sources for this species, perhaps it is a hoax? If a reliable source is found then this AfD can be closed as keep immediately. --Commander Keane (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I had exactly the same concern when I tagged it as {{unreferenced}}: I get zero (non-WP) hits in Google Web and Google Scholar, but the creator has also contributed a couple of legitimate articles, so I didn't just slap a {{hoax}} on it. I agree that if no verifiable references are found, it needs to go, even if true. Hqb (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided. The article claims that this is a critically endangered species, but it's not one of the three Hipparchia species listed in the IUCN Red List. In a cursory search, I was unable to establish that any graylings are native to Micronesia. Deor (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've informed the article's author of this discussion. Deor (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Translation issue seems about a likely as hoax, although grayling is a fish. Horrorshowj (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ STRONG Delete If this existed and was endangered, you'd think this search might have found something. However, there are Grayling species that ARE endangered... but a "striped-back" is not among the mentions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Obvious hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While grayling (not stripe-backed grayling) is an endagered speies of trout, one might have thought there might have been something out there. As A "butterfly" the grayling species occupies Brittain and Europe. Interesting combination of two unrelated facts to make something sound almost plausable. Will tag this as G3 speedy hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been speedied off. This AfD will await its closure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Han[edit]

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

When I searched for reliable sources, I saw that the attempted murder is notable, but not one of the twins by themselves. Schuym1 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy. Nom is correct in that it is a duo not a single. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No seperate notability. Nothing here that isn't in the other article. PC78 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Definite BLP1E and the event article covers everything. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of defecation postures[edit]

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

I already redirected one of the articles that was a couple of sentences from Diet and cancer (no merge was needed). Original author's justification for creating the articles was since we have articles such as list of sex positions etc then we should also have this kind of articles which violates WP:OTHERSTUFF. As a stand alone article, doesn't seem to be a notable enough topic with content that isn't already better covered in other articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure that we need a list when there are really only two articles that will ever be on it- squatting defecation posture and sitting defecation posture. That doesn't seem, to me, to be enough for a list. If those two articles are developed and kept, they'd be just as useful as links from the defecation article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Added 2 more I added the two articles. The one is simply a cut and paste from the cancer article, again with rationale that other "similar" articles about sex exist. Please note that "under construction" tags were added AFTER the afd process began. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still develop the articles. Can you please let me make them non-stub first before considering deletion? NerdyNSK (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I see no reason not to have defecation-related articles and lists since we already have articles like list of sex positions. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read wp:OTHERSTUFF to see why that is a non-valid argument and will be ignored by the closing admin in an AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect all into Defecation#Defecation posture. If they become developed enough in the future, they can be split from the parent article- but that time is not yet. —Ashanda (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Original author has redirected as Ashanda has suggested, which after seeing, I agree is worthwhile. Removing the two other articles, only the List now exists in this AFD. If original author agrees and wants to blank the "list" page and put a speedy tag on it, I can withdraw this afd. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep . NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beating up[edit]

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

It's an irretrievable mess, and WP is not a dictionary anyway. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has 30 incoming links. Beating-up is unfortunately but significantly a fact-of-life nowadays, and so it should have an article. I have deleted a how-to section that someone inserted recently. If you think that it needs tidying, tidy it. There is more to this article than a dictdef. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Delete - nominator. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has stood since 09:37, 19 October 2006. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Schuym1 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WW2 pilots would, I believe, refer to 'beating up' a ground target either an enemy one or (as a mock attack) a friendly one. I don't see this usage mentioned at all. But I don't see that it justifies an article either. MadScot (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much meandering dictionary material and OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No salvageable content beyond the WP:DICTDEF. The topic is covered in the article on violence. VG ☎ 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one should noy try to write coherent articles when beaten up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. brianlucas (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I have turned it into a disambiguation page. Please renew your comments

Keep now that it's a disambig page BMW(drive) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly respectable disambiguation page with a bunch of incoming links. JASpencer (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 20:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close Good job with the disambig. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who would have thought one could actually make a silk purse from out of a sow's ear. Added "verbal assault" and addition "See Also" directing to disambiguation page for Beating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A good disambiguation page. Schuym1 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Mountain Meats[edit]

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

The article lacks reliable sources that verify this company's notability. A google search did not reveal sources to me. Prod removed by creator, whose username is the same as the name of this company's marketing company, indicating a probable conflict of interest. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. andy (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM that fails WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, no references other than to the company's own web site. brianlucas (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears they had some extra spam and shared it with us. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's funny. Nice. Perhaps with a dash of mustard. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A can of beef, pork, chicken, tuna and spam?! No. I don't like spam! Get rid of it quick! Alexius08 (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Amazing Studio[edit]

The result was Change to redirect via wp:bold and wp:snow (3 in row) - Non-admin closure. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable company that went bust after 1 unsuccessful release. Their domain no longer exists either. ~~SIS~~ 11:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company has only released one game and went bankrupt. Schuym1 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heart of Darkness (video game): The only game they are noted for already has an article of its own and that would seem to cover everything anybody would need to know about it. If there is any additional information in this article then it can be merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heart of Darkness (video game): ala DanielRigal - PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heart of Darkness (video game) Abhishek ^Talk 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a wide variety of opinions and some consensus that this article shouldn't be here, but none as to what specifically to do with it. Discussion on moving, redirecting, merging, etc. can continue at Talk:Pickering Defense. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering Defense[edit]

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

The subject is a very rare chess opening, 1.e4 h5. The ChessBase database of four million + games has only 42 game examples. Although there are other dubious (e.g. Latvian Gambit) and poor (e.g. Marshall Defense) openings, these have at least been played often, sometimes as a fair attempt to surprise an opponent, and have been analyzed in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and other chess publications. That is not true of this line, there are virtually no Black players would play 1.e4 h5? except as a silly joke, since the move 1...h5 has no redeeming features. (We have some other silly joke openings as well, but at least they are covered in the Oxford Companion to Chess.) Apart from these silly joke game examples, the only non-wiki analysis I have seen of this is here, where it is adorned with a skull (meaning "don't play it") along with the words "never seen". Looking at the table of contents at Amazon, even Eric Schiller's large collection of opening horrors called Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't seem to cover this line. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N, among other things. SyG (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the wikibooks article cites three references, but BCO2, although listed, actually has no mention of this opening, so I must consider the other two references perhaps suspect also. If it's not in ECO, per nom, then I doubt the other two cover it. MadScot (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wikibooks article lists BCO2 and MCO14. I don't have those editions, but it is not in BCO1, MCO13 or MCO15, under any of those names. And it is not listed in ECO1. Bubba73 (talk), 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I could take a look at MCO14, and I found that 1...h5 is mentioned... in a way... in the introduction to the chapter "Unusual King's Pawn Defenses" where he covers 1...a6, 1...b6, and 1...g5. De Firmian writes :"Other moves, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they are simply too bad and need no discussion.". I'm not sure if De Firmian going out of his way to tell us that something is non-notable ironically increases that subject's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCO-15 says the same thing. But neither MCO or any of the references I checked give a name to 1. e4 h5. Non-notable. Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to King's Pawn Opening where it already has context. No need to have it by itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to King's Pawn Opening. Rarely played but worthy of inclusion. Alexius08 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Users Sjakkalle and SyG accurately summarise this article's notability, i.e. it doesn't have any. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep That it's a bad idea doesn't mean it isn't worth an article. This is not a chess instruction book, covering only the good ones. If it's notoriously lousy, it's notable for that reason. Something widely used as a bad example can be notable.(if it is in fact so used)DGG (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I agree with almost every word you say here. The disagreement is on whether this opening is indeed "notoriously lousy", or just plain "lousy". There does indeed exist an opening which is notoriously lousy, called the Damiano Defense, which is used in several publications as an example of bad opening play. For that opening, I would agree with you, the Damiano is indeed notable. The AFD reason here is that this opening lacks coverage in any chess literature, and since the volume of chess literature consists of thousands of books, many, if not most, of them devoted to various opening lines, that is saying something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the Damiano is the "poster child" of bad openings, and there are sources of information about it. I can't find anything on this opening in the standard references, not even a name. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a suitable reference is found. The article says it is called "Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense". I can't find a reference for any of those except The Oxford Companion to Chess has "Desprès Opening", but that is 1. h4, not 1.e4 h5. Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to King's Pawn Game, adding the details of its nonusefulness to the list of possible responses by black. I could find no sources in Google News / Archive for the three alternate games given (Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense), but the term is sourced. If there are meaningful sources to be added, the article can be recreated as a standalone in the future. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to King's Pawn Game. While I initially thought the subject had enough notability as an opening chess move, it appears that it's so rarely/poorly used as to merit little discussion. The one dubious source for 'pickering defense' mentioned on google scholar [22] is clearly not enough to establish notability for its own article.Themfromspace (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as vandalism. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grexy[edit]

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

Urbandictionary-based article with invalid references for a slang term which appears to be in extremely limited use, if in use at all. SMC (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and is not for neologisms made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT WP:NEO brianlucas (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are blatantly fake, and the word appears to be something someone made up in school one day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - but removed AfD, replaced with CSD as pure nonsense--see the bit at the bottom of the page. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: an apparent neologism that was made up one day. Cliff smith ^talk 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP]. I can sure Grok that. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (edit conflict) Complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tagged the article for a G3 Speedy Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tonya Harding. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Eckardt[edit]

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

Although I am reluctant to put this on AfD, as I suggested merging this to Tonya Harding, another user suggesting either PRODding or AfDing this if this article fails to meet WP:BIO, which I feel it fail to do anyway as he states in the talk section that the person concerned is deceased therefore, any BLP concern does not apply Jay Pegg (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the subject's involvement in a well-publicized news story. If Wikipedia had existed in 1994, this article wouldn't even have been called into question. Unless someone actually endorses deletion here (such as the "another user" mentioned in the nomination), I would recommend a speedy keep due to lack of expressed support for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tonya_Harding. This guy is notable for WP:BIO1E. VG ☎ 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tonya Harding where his criminal act has its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This could be the poster child for WP:BIO1E. Bongomatic (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also do a redirect for Brian Sean Griffith The attack, the trial, and his death are separate events covered by reliable sources and the death articles do verify what he did after leaving prison (like changing his name, starting a computer business, and assaulting someone else). Yeah, he's famous for one event but so is Rodney King. I would consider merging it to a Kerrigan attack page if one existed but a merge to Harding with all of his bio is inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, whoops, I see the redirect has already been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Exactly where to merge can be hashed out on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasp[edit]

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pleasure center which covers the topic more generally. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't some notability established by existing in largely the same form in two separate fictional universes by two different sets of authors (Niven et al. vs. Spider Robinson) 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere in the discussion of Niven's work. Unless I am mistaken, the notability in Niven's series is by far the greater? I do not see that this really needs a separate article, though of course it should have a redirect. It should also be mentioned in "pleasure center" as part of a section on fictional uses of the concept. DGG (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Niven's Known_Space. Do not merge to pleasure center. You could mention it as "pleasure center in scifi" there, but merging this whole article to a scientific one is inappropriate. VG ☎ 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I agree with you that it should only be a mention for pleasure center.. The proper merge and redirect is to Niven's work. DGG (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as obvious and blatant attack page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rein croll[edit]

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

Seems obviously vandalism, only related google hit I found is http://nl.netlog.com/go/directory/people/c/8/33.html Cyfal (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G10. – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of backup software[edit]

Hopeless. Ghost is imaging software, and none of the ex-Veritas or Legato products are mentioned. Virtually all commercial backup software has most of the arbitrarily chosen features listed (e.g. compression, automation), and the list of platforms is hopelessly incomplete and does not indicate the things which are actually important in selecting backup software, such as vss integration, host agent availablility for AIX, Solaris and the like, VMware support / integration (and I guess VCB), data deduplication, distributed operation, delegated user privileges and self-service restore, management of multiple recovery point and recovery time objectives, management reporting and analysis, media ageing and rotation - in fact it's close to impossible to come up with a table comparing backup products which is not classified by price band and market, or hopelessly sparse and unreadable. The list is also unsourced. I think this is more like a school project scratchpad than an article. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is practically no way to complete this list. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate selection with respect to both products and features. A comprehensive table could only be constructed by original research using primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Why was this nominated 15 minutes after initial creation? There are certainly other software comparison articles that have been accepted on WP & I don't see why we couldn't have on on backup software. I'm very surprised to see this WP:BITE by JzG! --Karnesky (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the problems raised by JzG and followers require the article to be deleted. The topic is not anymore WP:INDISCRIMINATE than any other software comparison table in Wikipedia. The fact that the table is incomplete is not a valid reason to delete it. You can easily verify most of the features from the software articles linked. Adding citations to a table like that is impractical. Listing self-evident features of software is not OR. VG ☎ 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason given is an improvement argument, not a deletion reason. These complaints, as well as sourcing issues, can be addressed - why not give the article a chance, or do it yourselves? SMC (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consumer guide material, not encyclopedia material. Drawing up these comparisons seems to be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, this will be a magnet for original research and personal points of view. Impossible to properly source for "comparisons", only features. Regardless of how old the article is, the premise is fatally flawed and can never pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE - PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate how this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The features used in the table head are usually mentioned in the articles for each product. VG ☎ 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We literally have hundreds of such comparison on Wikipedia. Many software comparisons in Wikipedia have survived deletion. I think the only reason why this may not is because it is essentially a very new stub. There is no reason that these need to be based on original research--there are WP:RS that describe the features of products & even WP:RS comparisons that may be used as a basis for the article. Can those calling for deletion please say whether they would support recreation of this article, assuming that it was more comprehensive in the products and features that it included and assuming that it was properly sourced? --Karnesky (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In general, I am against "comparison" articles of current products. Comparing the tactics of two war generals, ok. Comparing historical events, ok. Comparing products is not the same, and leads to what I complained of. If you want to nominate other comparison type articles that use current products, I will be happy to vote delete on those as well. I don't have the time to dig them all up myself. But just because other stuff exists, that doesn't justify this article staying. There are many problems, such as "what features do you list as being compared", which is indescriminate or original research, before you even start writing. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here, I found for you, go ahead an nominate it: Comparison_of_handheld_game_consoles. VG ☎ 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article isn't the same (by ANY stretch of the imagination), and being a smart ass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smart ass. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, what makes it different? This is a good faith question. Perhaps we can draft some guidelines for acceptable comparisons, like we have for lists. VG ☎ 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, i will bite. The console article covers existing AND historical hardware, which adds a great deal of context and information that can't be found in the individual articles. The console article compares things like RAM, media, screen size, etc. which are physical traits shared by all the items and not subject to personal opinion. The software article (like any software article) contains software features, which are not universal across all brands. (ie: if brand $x has a feature, do you list it and show that brand $x is the only one that has it? What about $y feature? WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT FEATURE $Z!!111 I can see it now, NPOV issues out the wazoo.). There are a lot more consoles to list and compare, further justifying the article. The software article ALSO will always be out of date as new versions come out or are discontinued, while the console article is simply added to, meaning once the hardware is obsolete, the information isn't. This isn't true with the software. In the backup software instance, the information has zero historical importance, even if it is WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL to some. In short, they are really really different because one is hardware, one is software, so you really can't compare the two article types. That doesn't take in the consideration WP:OTHERSTUFF. I would be against an article comparing Linux and Windows for the same reason. I haven't taken the time (and won't) to hunt them all down, but will !vote delete when I see them. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One last quick note: it is my opinion that existing policies already cover this, and no new policy or guideline is needed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V; possible spam magnet, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, update and expand. The difficulties raised above are only editing questions. We d include such comparisons for notable classes of software. What a consumer guide does in addition, and we do not, is make recommendations and include ephemeral matter such as prices and where to buy the products. . DGG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software; contested PROD. No substantial third party coverage on this subject is in evidence. Sandstein 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a view to recreate *if* something notable (software awards, remarkable milestones, mainstream popularity etc.) actually occurs. SMC (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All I can find is software sites and blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search on '+Sophie multimedia "future of the book"' gives 2700 results, including at least one scholarly paper ("Sophie and the Future of Reading and Writing", Forum Futures 2007, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass.) and one call for proposals by a major university. It is not clear how deletion of the article would improve the encyclopedia for our readers. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. This peer-reviewed paper was written by authors of the software, but it's too recent to have citations. Papers written by the authors of non-notable academic software are numerous (wrote some myself), and we cannot guess their future. The other "paper" linked above is not peer reviewed, and also written by authors of the software, so I consider it a manual or guide. VG ☎ 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the material that's usually discussed most and best in informal references, and only very slowly and incompletely ends up in peer reviewed articles. The originating organization is a major one, and worth an article -- it has done much else as well. Already notable. DGG (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coomera Houseboats[edit]

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

Created by COI user, Coomerahouseboat (talk · contribs) and was tagged with speedy but speedy removed. Article's subject has not received coverage and significant discussion in multiple sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP & verging on spam, IMHO. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to any outside coverage to establish notability. brianlucas (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. This is an ad. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I disagree that it's spam (there are no external links or instructions on how to contact the business), but it would seem to fail WP:CORP pretty comprehensively. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under CSD A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gesmites[edit]

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

Non notable (speedy deleted by creator), no reliable sources as requierd by wp:v, possible conflict of interest, not written in an encyclopedic tone - possibly a joke. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:08z 09:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing: Loose Grip[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, parent artist also fails WP:MUSIC Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put a speedy tag on it for not having sources and referring to a future release date. NJGW (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speediable. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable album of an artist who fails WP:MUSIC. Matty (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band's article was recently deleted through csd BanRay 10:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Boy Gone Bad[edit]

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

Article is on an album by a non-notable redlinked artist. Matty (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put a speedy tag on it for not having sources and referring to a future release date. NJGW (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the editors changed the album article to the artist article, so this probably qualifies for db-band. However, on the odd chance that it doesn't i'd still vote the article be deleted as it is now on a non-notable 16 year old artist with no g-hits that even hint at notability. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V. Matty (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race and crime[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was redirected to Anthropological criminology (the same exact topic, but adds modern theory and evaluation to Race and crime's anachronistic racist history) on August 31[23] per discussion whose last two comments were on July 14[24] and August 30[25]. An editor who did not take part in this discussion has restored the page[26]. There is no need for both of these articles; Race and crime is a POV fork at which several editors (or socks?) have tried to reinstate a series of statistics[27] in violation of wp:PSTS ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."), and which even those who want the stats in the article claim have proven unanalyzable by professionals [28]. Furthermore, Race and crime is an absolute wp:coatrack, at which racist history and unintelligible stats are covered rather than the huge and multifaceted sociological treatise one might expect with the title "Race and crime". NJGW (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note about previous AFD While the previous AfD was keep, it was emphatically keep and clean-up (emphasis in the original). Here is the version of the article before that AfD, which is basically the statistics mentioned several times here and too many clean-up tags. In the 1.5 years since the AfD, all that has happened is that the history from Anthropological criminology has been inserted and the statistics deleted and reinserted several times (to be fair, some POV and OR junk has been removed as well). Clean-up does not mean take info from another article to replace the unsalvageable, and thus the terms of the previous AfD have not been met. NJGW (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with redirect to Anthropological criminology, if that's possible. Delete and salt if not. The article has long been a coatrack for racist pseudoscience, and the proper article deals with the topic properly. Verbal chat 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article a wp:coatrack? Looking through the history when statistics, such as imprisonment rate by race were included they were scrubbed out. Where is the wealth of statistical evidence that it ignores to meet the requirements of being a coatrackZzmang (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coatrack because a set of admittedly unintelligible statistics keep getting paraded instead of any meaningful content. NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad page, not a wp:coatrack, if you spent as much time improving the article as you do censoring it the situation might be different. Zzmang (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep of course. Yes it is a topic of racism, but a perfectly valid one. AfD isn't for article cleanup. Anthropological criminology is a related topic. A possible merge can be discussed off AfD, without all the excitement (zomg, the article discusses racism!). The result of the 1st AfD was "keep and cleanup". Well, what are you waiting for? Slap cleanup tags on it and start cleaning it up. Dragging it to AfD every few months isn't a substitute for that. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need for merge - a simple redirect would suffice, and this a suitable place to discuss it. Verbal chat 10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Anthropological criminology" isn't about race in particular, and the article you're trying so hard to get deleted has some valid discussion of historical notions on race and crime in particular. Anyway, this is not a discussion for AfD but one for article talk. If I was calling the shots on this, I would speedily close it as an invalid re-submission of an AfD already concluded with "keep". --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is appropriate specifically to Anthropological Criminology#Modern times. The only information which might be moved (though it's two sentences could use some expansion and caveats) is Race and crime#Recent literature. As you say, if there is to be an article which remains, it should be a sociological treatment of racism... which it is not at the moment, so what ever there is now can be moved/removed to avoid NPOV. NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to dab: the last AfD was 18 months ago. Issuing another AfD after 18 months isn't unreasonable, considering that consensus can very well change over such a long period of time.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (whatever can be salvaged) and redirect to Criminal anthropology. Otherwise, Race and crime becomes a racist POV fork of the other article.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this may come as a shock, but Wikipedia actually has warning templates such as {{NPOV}}, {{synthesis}} maintenance templates such as {{mergeto}}, and offending material can be removed with a single edit, all of which has nothing to do with the AfD process. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Criminal anthropology currently redirects to Anthropological criminology. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per talkpage discussion and performed several months ago. The merge was properly proposed (on both potential target pages, if I recall correctly). If there is valid material that did not get merged the first time, it is still in the article history. There is no reason why Anthropological criminology#History could not be expanded to cover more historical perspectives, and eventually be spun out using proper summary style. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Anthropological Criminology" is basically about criminal phrenology. Race and Crime should include statistics, sociology, theories, etc. These aren't here atm, but that's grounds for improvement rather than deletion. Also I'd agree with dab that this article has already had a submission for AfD rejected, and I would dispute there was ever a consensus to merge the page and Anthropological criminology was not even proposed on the Race and Crime discussion Zzmang (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply there is no "sociology, theories, etc." present in the current article. All there is is your same criminal phrenology and statistics which (according to a person who wants them included, and claims to have researched thoroughly) have never been analyzed by pros in an NPOV manner (seems kind of troublesome to expect lay persons to do what pros can't). BTW, this is a new and different nomination, and will be judged on it's own merits. Here's the July 14 merge proposal that you're having a hard time finding. NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:NOTCENSORED Deleting a page because you think it is racist is censorship. Unfortunately we have to have pages on all topics and the freedom to discuss awful things. The Muss (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment how can you reconcile racist and NPOV? NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you consider statistics racist, so under that definition it's easy to reconcile statistics and NPOVZzmang (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon??? Where have I called statistics racist? The article appears written and in some cases supported with racist intent, and I'd like to know how racist intent can be reconciled with NPOV, the point being that removing POV statements and articles is not censorship. I'm not sure what this is a difficult point for you to understand. NJGW (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be saved into Anthropological Criminology: Muss, please note that the rule you're invoking only is meant for encyclopedic discussion and inclusion of something which parents of minors or social groups would object to (such as Clitoris or Muhammad), not coatrack articles or biased forks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you think that "biased" pages should be censored, even if that bias is merely presenting stats and theories in a NPOV? Zzmang (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased" pages should have POV statements and sources removed, and only contain NPOV material. Perhaps, if "biased" opinions are notable, then they can be discussed as being "biased". This is covered at wp:NPOV if you'd like to know more. Please don't confuse censorship with neutrality, reliability and verifiability. NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I was meaning. I was saying WP:CENSORED isn't meant for stuff like this; it's meant for articles where there would be severe social objections. I did not mean coatrack articles and biased forks were subject to censorship (rather, they should be fixed to remove the bias or, failing that, removed outright). I apologize if my wording made it seem otherwise. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one confusing NPOV NJGW, people are saying this page is biased because they feel it has the potential to enhance bias about race. The reason this page is so terrible is because some of the very POV pushing editors calling for it's deletion are the same who have consistently sabotouged this page by deleting any statistics with false accusations (or simple misunderstandings) of synth and original research. This page is one of the most important pages dealing with criminology on wikipedia. Want to talk about systematic bias - wikipedia doesn't even have a page on Black on Black Crime. Zzmang (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about White on White Crime, Asian on Asian Crime, Men on Men Crime, Women on Women Crime, 50-year old on 50-year old Crime, American on American Crime, Dutch on Dutch Crime, etc? Those important subjects don't have articles either, I see. --Crusio (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a new series on Channel 5. Verbal chat 09:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike arguments about synth, OR, coatrack and Bias at least the premises are true for your argument. Your reasoning however is wrong, and so is the conclusion. Black on Black crime is notable by being the leading cause of death of a demographic (young black males) and has attracted significant media attention. Zzmang (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gingerly suggest that Poor inner-city youth on poor inner-city youth Crime might be more on the mark. --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree for several reasons. 1. Inner-city might be a codeword for black, but black on black crime occurs in other areas (aside from "inner-cities") at high rates as well. 2. Blacks of other ages are also disproportionately victimized. 3. Black on Black crime is the notable and verifiable name for the phenomena.Zzmang (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This topic is cogent to sociology.Gooogen (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Virtual Academy[edit]

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

non notable school and badly written article Anshuk (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:schools, not notable at this time, if it exists. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This virtual Georgia school currently provides a K-8 curriculum by K12 Inc.; I don't think it's notable enough to stand on its own. [29]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) And the article looks like it's Start Class. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Insulting to Nature[edit]

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

Non notable. Anshuk (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be notable a novel has to not only be written, but published, read, and reviewed. Good luck to the author. Redddogg (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a 2004 USA Today review. NJGW (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple non-trivial mentions. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I commend those who found additional reviews; it looks as though this will now be kept, per the prevailing "it meets policy so let's keep, no further questions" doctrine. I respect that. However, I would hope our articles have slightly higher standards - say, some sort of lasting impact - so my vote remains the same. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you vote delete on mostly every AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend to vote delete - if an article is nominated, there's a fair chance it deserves deletion. Of course I do review everything on a case-by-case basis; here are two recent keep votes of mine: 1, 2. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK A single book review confirms the book's existence but is insufficient for notability. brianlucas (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the article includes multiple reviews from major media sources, it satisfies the first criterion of WP:BK. brianlucas (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are more than one review[30]. Article need expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per this: http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/colors_insulting_to_nature/. Schuym1 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search on Ebscohost and found several reviews-Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's also a Curled Up review: http://www.curledup.com/colorsin.htm. Schuym1 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that enough for ya? Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added a reception section! WP:SNOW keep anyone? Schuym1 (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that was fun. Schuym1 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice save. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews from multiple reliable sources provide enough real world critical coverage and information to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article which is more than just a plot summary (In fact as it stands the plot summary in the article might stand to be expanded). Guest9999 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a more detailed synopsis of the plot, along with the image of the book cover and publisher information.D. Kassem (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is up for deletion. Schuym1 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really impressive to see how this article was rescued from deletion. I am inspired folks!! How do I withdraw this deletion nomination? --Anshuk (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't withdraw it because there is two delete votes, but you can close it per WP:SNOW. I'll do it right now because the result os this AFD is obvious. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard King High School[edit]

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

Non notable. Can't CSD a school.. Anshuk (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a legitimate article and is properly listed under the category: High schools in Corpus Christi, Texas. --Comish80 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so notable about the school? Or should we have a similar one liner article about all the schools in this world? --Anshuk (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools are de facto notable. JuJube (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources available to meet WP:N. We don't delete because of length; we tag and expand. TerriersFan (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RU NUTS? This is the 718th largest high school in the United States, and is ranked in the top 3.4%. I will be expanding this article shortly; a task that will not be very difficult at all, considering the enormous amount of information available from the simplest quick search. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts on the article will be greatly appreciated. But with some respect to the nominator, it is currently only a single line. We can't completely blame User:Anshuk for material he/she isn't aware of outside Wikipedia. --Jh12 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not say delete on basis of being just a one-liner, (perhaps citing Notadirectory), but rather said it was non-notable. Such a statement requires prior research. AfD is not a research service. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator mentions that it's a "one liner article" right after the first response... Anyway, I can understand both views, but calling the editor "Nuts" just seemed a bit harsh. Regards, --Jh12 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school with available sources. --Jh12 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as high schools are presumed notable and this one has plenty of available sources to prove notability in any case. Why no tags before the AfD? - Dravecky (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we pretty much always keep articles on high schools, even one-liners. A one-line entry can be a valid WP:STUB. However, please be nice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pinoy Dream Academy 2. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liezel Garcia[edit]

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

Why it should be DELETEDor REDIRECTED: Notable for one event only, that is Pinoy Dream Academy. Although take note that we can make articles to winners in the competition according to WP:MUSIC A9 which says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". She has been eliminated on the finale night but is not a runner up according to the show's policy. The article even failed to say why is it notable. The article also has many unverified claims like she can do whistle register, not to mention a lot of reference problems. Clearly it is very lacking-no biography, no guestings etc. To familiarize your self please read WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Happy Editing! (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinoy Dream Academy 2 Plausible redirect to main show article, and whatever the show's schemantics, she got to the final night and was a runner-up in the basic sense of perception. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 06:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nate. Sure, she did end up as one of the final, final, finalists of the said TV show, but she didn't get enough votes to win the contest. For now, only time will tell if she'll be able to pull off a Chris Daughtry on this one :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. The subject is neither a winner nor a runner-up of the competition. Let us wait for her to have a notable album (which is likely) before creating an article about her. Starczamora (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanSolution[edit]

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

Delete. Nominator: This article is nothing more than a PR piece for an insurance industry organization and has absolutely no business being included in an encyclopedia. --Goodrule (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11) clear promotional material. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only relevant independent source is an advance announcement, and it generally reeks of self-puffing propaganda. WillOakland (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not your own personal soapbox for trolling. MuZemike (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, or delete here as a soapbox. It managed to violate both policies equally. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a poorly written article that sidesteps any number of policies; however, the organization does seem to have some coverage. Perhaps this is a candidate for rescue? Frank | talk 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Honduran[edit]

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

I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. There are not 10,000 Koreans in Honduras, as this article claims; South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 491 [31], which makes it even less likely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information should be given in an article about the ethnic groups in Honduras. I also have to add that there are about 200 nationalities in the world so 40,000 articles could be written about "people of nation A living in nation B."
Delete not this nuttiness again. JuJube (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and due to lack of sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should be, if there isn't already, an article on "Korean people in Latin America." Then all this information could be found there, as well as in "Ethnic groups of country A." Redddogg (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced article seems like WP:OR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Venezuelan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Korean Venezuelan

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

I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 242 Koreans in Venezuela [32]; such a small number makes it unlikely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I said about the Korean Honduran article. There are also no sources so I suspect that the author was just guessing about the details given in both articles. Redddogg (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:29z
Delete not this nuttiness again. JuJube (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and due to lack of source provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh! Delete! Makes as much sense as an article on Aleutian-Huastecan or Lappish-Mixtecan. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced article seems like WP:OR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Strehl[edit]

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

autobiographical, notability not asserted or established, complete lack of reliable third-party sources Bob (QaBob) 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards keep -- I'm seeing quite high citation figures on google scholar, one of 300, another of 223. The article needs work, but the person seems notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not having reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp, fails wp:prof, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:33z
Weak keep. The citation counts seem to show a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we looking at the same #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."? The article has no reliable published third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t17:15z
  - I don't think anyone is terribly impressed by the article -- partly because (as you say) there is a lack of good sources. But the person seems notable, with widepread use (citation) of his work -- and so the alternative to deletion is to improve the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The high citation count is itself evidence, from independent reliable sources, that the person's research has made significant impact. Did you read the very first note in the "notes and examples" section of WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~very weak keep~~neutral GS citations for his articles start with 300, 233, 114, 73, but GS h-index is a modest 10. It would be so much more useful (not to mention easy to judge whether they met WP:N) if these pesky vanity autobiographies made some attempt to enrich the project by explaining just what exactly the subject did with reference to their research topic, rather than just adding another CV to the wikirolodex of self-promotion blurbs.Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) change to neutral, I like Nsk92's position better than my initial one. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There seems to be a weakly passable WP:PROF case based on several highly cited papers. However, since this is a WP:AUTO/WP:COI case (the article was created by User:Astrehl), and notability is fairly marginal, I would not object to deletion either. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My iitial reaction was like Pete Hurd's (and agree on the subject of pesky autobios, unbelievable, how many vain people there are) and like him, I like Nsk92's opinion. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first four highly cited articles are more or less the same topic which, while highly cited seems to merely be the application of cluster analysis to web pages, which isn't that novel. We they published in more notable journals and were they not cited mostly by similarly normal works, I'd give more credit. but alas, for this work i need outside verification of notability, perhaps a major award, or anything that would distinguish his work from everyday application of methods. --Buridan (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Normally I would go by the citations, and, considering the subject, I'm not the least concerned that the cites appeared elsewhere than peer reviewed journals--most good work of this sort is found in conferences. And the most cited article was in MIT's Journal of Machine Learning Research. I see the other work as reasonably well cited also. But the work was essentially a doctoral thesis, and a recent one, so I think it needs a longer track record; this may be the exceptional kind of situation where a paper but not the person makes an impact on the field. I'll admit to being affected also by the promotional nature of his website. I seem to stand with Pete and NSK, right in the middle. DGG (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Training (meteorology). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm train[edit]

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

This article covers the same material covered in a more aptly titled article (see Training (meteorology). Moreover, the references cited use only the terminology from the other article, and do not even use the phrase "storm train". While there are uses of the phrase to be found, the phrase is completely obvious from context (I don't see a need for the main article in the first place, but have given up that cause), and any doubt can be resolved from the page that has the NOAA / NWS definition Training (meteorology). The additional information in this page does not actually belong here. The flooding point is made in the main article and the formation point is made in any number of articles about thunderstorms, rain, and convective instability. Perhaps a redirect may be appropriate, but there should be no separate article under this heading. Bongomatic (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add section: I think that the article should be kept, but describe a brief paragraph about it in Training (meteorology), and place at the top: Main article: Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know this is what you think, but why? The two citations given in the article do not even use the term that is the subject of the article. What information would you want to include in Storm train that shouldn't be placed in Training (meteorology)? That is the criterion for a separate article. The fact that there are synonyms or multiple forms of a phrase doesn't make it helpful to have multiple articles--quite the contrary, it leads to the possibility of duplication, contradiction, or underinclusiveness of one or both articles, which can result in readers not getting the full story when consulting an article they reasonably could expect to be comprehensive. Bongomatic (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the other one about shouting match, and you should see what User:Colonel Warden said. Obviously that user knows more about the Wikipedia policies than you do. I've noticed that you tend to focus solely on the deletion policy, and not on the other policies, such as the editing policy. -- IRP ☎ 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to provide a reason. Instead of merging, having a brief paragraph about the main article is better, because in the future, when the article gets expanded, it would simply be too much information in one place, and it should be divided into subcategories. Imagine what it would be like if someone tried to merge the article supercell into thunderstorm. That's the purpose that the {{mainarticle}} template serves. -- IRP ☎ 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that splitting a long article into multiple articles focusing on particular aspects is a valid action, but in this case Training (meteorology) is only two sentences long. Perhaps if it were very long and described many different kinds of training, I would be more willing to accept the argument. As it is, the two terms appear to be basically synonyms. So I still think the best course is to merge. However, if the resulting article later expands, it can be split at that time. brianlucas (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Training (meteorology). brianlucas (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Training (meteorology). Which article redirects to which can continue to be discussed at Talk:Storm train, as most of the discussion so far has been there rather than at Talk:Training (meteorology). Qwfp (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and debate which name to keep at Talk:Storm train, as above. No reason for this deletion discussion, this is purely a merging issue.-Running On Brains 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No source given for this name (suggesting delete and redirect, rather than merge), so the other name seems more appropriate, but that's another issue. The proper venue for the merge discussion is at the correct target. It's a plausible redirect, even if it is clearly NOT used in the real world, so it's not worth fighting over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Tha Otha Side[edit]

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

While I might be wikilawyering when I see this, there is an assertion of notability to this article. A single for an untitled debut album that features a known rapper and was released doesn't seem to pass the standard at WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Billboard does show it on a chart.[33]. It's the "bubbling up" chart, though; I can't find it on the Billboard 200. It doesn't seem to have had any press. Trick Daddy is notable, but this single probably isn't; looks like it came out in early 2008 and sank without a trace. Amusingly, the song seems to be available either as a 12" vinyl single or as a free MP3 download, but not as a CD. Unless we get verification of a Billboard 200 position, I'd suggest just giving it a mention in the Trick Daddy article, as is usual for dud works by notable artists. --John Nagle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd be more inclined to keep it if the group itself had an article (according to hiphopdx.com, they were just signed in May 2008 so that may be a ways off) or if the song were a hit. I also agree with John Nagle's suggestion of mentioning it in the Trick Daddy article. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. good reasons on both sides, no consensus likely to emerge. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting match[edit]

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

This is one of a long list of "adjective noun" subjects where there is nothing beyond the obvious meaning. Here there is an attempt to enhance the one-sentence dictionary-like definition with sociological observations with a tenuous relationship with the subject. Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for User:Runningonbrains to respond, because he/she seems to know a lot of information about the deletion policy. The goal of this article was to try to expand it with information, but as I said, I would at least like to know what User:Runningonbrains has to say. -- IRP ☎ 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better to have an article on anger. There is so little to be said about shouting matches that the article wanders into another subject after 2 sentences. Redddogg (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE RIGHT NOW! Nothing more than a definition with some weird WP:OR and (as Redddogg pointed out) a completely different topic tacked on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is vague and fails to establish reasons why this stub cannot be improved in accordance with our editing policy. The topic is of considerable importance for Wikipedia and so contemplation of it will be especially rewarding. I shall add a little to the article now. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to understand shouting matches. However the place for that is the article on anger, of which shouting matches are a manisfestation. Redddogg (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, anger is a different topic. Shouting matches are more about a failure to communicate or find agreement. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Colonel Warden. -- IRP ☎ 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this belongs in a dictionary or similar thing. Not an encyclopedia --PrincessBrat (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY brianlucas (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral. ~~With all respect to the work done here, it just doesn't qualify as an appropriate entry, as I understand the "dictdef" rules~~. --Lockley (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For everybody saying "it should be deleted because it belongs in the dictionary" should give a more detailed reason. How could it be a definition if it has encyclopedic content? -- IRP ☎ 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry is here: [[34]]. IMO this case is a judgment call, because a shouting match is an observable human-communication event, like an Awkward silence or screaming, which both also have their own legit entries. So... you know what? After looking more closely, I'm changing my vote to 'neutral'. The article needs a good edit, but, as part of the category of articles on Oral communication, it might deserve to stay. --Lockley (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like an arguement to delete the even more crappy Awkward silence dictdef! :-).Yobmod (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article).Yobmod (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate topic, there's plenty of encyclopic material on it. As Colonel Warden and others have amply shown. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per above reasoning, which hasn't been sufficiently addressed. Seems obviously notable, only question is one of where to put it, how to structure it, etc.JJJ999 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To the extent it's a legitimate topic (which is much less than is present in the article), it's multiple topics which only have the name in common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look Who's Talking (BoA album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Look Who's Talking (BoA album)

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

Speedy delete:WP:Crystal and WP:Music. Also there isn't any information about the track list other than the one single. Dontyoudare (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: Soon there will be a tracklist released for this album, and information about it's promotion. Why delete it when it is going to be made again within a few days?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locallectual[edit]

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

Non-notable term/website. Cited sources are all published by blogs and show no real world notability. BJ^Talk 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author should have been bolder and made the article about locallectual.com, which is the real intended topic. (In that case I would probably vote to keep.) Redddogg (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Partially agree with Redddogg that this is a few minor edits away from being a deletable spam article promoting locallectual.com rather than an article describing a non-existent neologism (whose references demonstrate the existence of the term only in reference to the web site). Bongomatic (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an elaborate form of spam. Instead of promoting some web site directly and miserably failing WP:WEB, this is a WP:COATRACK attempt at promoting the same site using some WP:NEO, which "happens" to be exactly the same as the web site's name minus the TLD. VG ☎ 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tsai[edit]

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

Possible autobiography, seing as User:BrothersThree is a SPA who has redirected his user page to the biography. I was unable to find much for sources via google or lexisnexis, and I'm not sure the links in the article itself demonstrate notability. Looking at the criteria in WP:BIO:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - no assertion, unable to find independent reliable sources
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - no sources or suggestion to this effect
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -Theoretically Francis Tsai did play a conceptual role in Myst III: Exile, but is only mentioned in an interview with himself in a borderline reliable source; I have not found any other mention.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. - N/A of any of the above. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{subst:afd}} to the article. Giggy (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delay discussion. The article doesn't provide sufficient context. If the subject was essentially the art director or equivalent for Myst 3 and the other notable items on which he is said to have worked, then he probably merits an article. However the article is too vague for the reader to determine the level of contribution: creative or execution. The awards certainly help with the claim of notability, but they are not obviously significant or telling awards. I would like to see this article improved and tightened up before passing judgment. Bongomatic (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got out my copy of the Myst III instruction manual, and he is listed under "Designers" with Seth Fisher, Stephen Hoodgedynk, and Ron Lemen. Seeing as we don't have articles for general staff for any company, to my knowledge... -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim way down to what we can reference. I found a couple interviews and references from different places about him, and he does seem to have done some major Marvel Comics covers (incl one that was later re-used as a TPB cover), so I'm inclined towards keep, but the article as is is too fat and obviously autobiographical. Ford MF (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add these references to the article so we can evaluate them and/or so this won't be a concern in the future? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Major ref'ing and rewrite completed. Ford MF (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep following FMF - he has done some noteworthy comic work [35] perhaps not enough to standalone but it seems like this is one of those cumulative affairs where all the little bits (like those awards) all add up. I needs a good hack and a reworking but could be viable. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Week keep following rewrite with addition references. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I assume that means you're withdrawing your nomination and this AfD can be closed? Ford MF (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Subbaiah[edit]

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

"Upcoming actress" = WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's upcoming, therefore she's not notable. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upcoming actress means non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Removed hyperbole. Cleaned up article. Still needs more sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, unsupported claims ("received quite a lot of attention from nationwide audiences"). Vanity article. Bongomatic (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAutoPARTs[edit]

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

The subject may be notable, but if the source for the article is the director of USAutoPARTs, then we have a COI problem. Best to start over, if at all. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - sources now found; my apologies. Withdraw nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 18:11, October 4, 2008

Delete, self-promotion with no reliable sources in the sense used around here. WillOakland (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — What was that Broadway musical I saw several months ago featuring Clay Aiken? Oh yeah, Spamalot! MuZemike (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the spammy parts and provided references. VG ☎ 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough and I have little doubt reliable sources can be found. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bullock[edit]

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

Unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nom sums it up pretty well, trying to use grandfather to inherit notability as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax/wishful thinking. Can't find Chris Bullock + name of any wrestling promotion the article claims he's a champion of in gsearch or gnews.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Fabrictramp SuperSilver901 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adly Mirza[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the article it fails WP:PROF indeed. VG ☎ 15:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per VG; the info given in the article indicates not passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern panorama[edit]

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

Small newspaper of purely local interest. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. C-3PO (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Unable to decide on the notability. Meghalaya is one of the states in India that suffers a systemic bias, especially on the internet. Getting further reliable sources might be difficult. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some "mentions" in popular media:

I guess this is enough to prove its notability. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and a couple more sources: [36][37]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TravellingCari 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence (novel)[edit]

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

No third-party sources; entirely in-universe. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First page of Google News search: Booklist, Library Journal, School Library Journal, Kliatt, Publishers Weekly. Easily clean-up-able. (But not by me: I has teh flu, I r not teh sense-making.) Also won an Aurora Award -- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just added four reliable source reviews to the article that contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Which easily allows the article to pass WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources recently added. Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Nevra Seggie[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator: there is no evidence that she passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A junior academic, PhD 2007, currently an Assistant Professor. Academics at that stage of their careers are rarely notable and this case does not appear to be an exception. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. , whether or not it should be merged is an editorial discussion that does not require AfD. No !votes for deletion TravellingCari 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Alejar[edit]

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

Mentions of him do exist, but I haven't found anything non-trivial. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His show's article has one reference that mentions him in a non-trivial manner... –Howard the Duck 02:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect His show's article. It seems that he's more notable if taken within the context of his show. Most hits that I got from news sources usually focus more on the show than him.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about this. He was fairly famous way back in the 80s, and many people remember him as a dancer than a TV host. –Howard the Duck 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jojo A. was famous back in the 1980s as one of the members of The Tigers (a dance group that performed on Penthouse Live hosted by Martin Nievera and Pops Fernandez). We may not find any available article about it online, but this video may do. It's a mix tape featuring a segment in comedy show T.O.D.A.S (or Totally Outrageous Devastating All-Star Show, I think) wherein Richie D'Horsie, Val Sotto, and Joey de Leon were spoofing The Tigers. The real members of The Tigers, including Jojo A., appears at the second half of the video as they performed on Penthous Live. He's the guy in the middle by the way. Before The Good Nigh Show, Alejar regained recent acclaim through Jojo A. All the Way, a late night talk show on RJTV 29. He has also appeared in recent movies such as Binibining K starring Keanna Reeves, Moments of Love with Dingdong Dantes, Shake Rattle and Roll 9, and most recently the television series I Love Betty La Fea. He also appeared on a music video for O Ano? watch it here. Starczamora (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some non-trivial articles that featured Jojo Alejar...

Jojo Alejar makes the big move by Ricky T. Gallardo The Manila Times, September 26, 2007]
Jojo Alejar misses his talk show by Yugel Losorata Manila Bulletin, August 27, 2006. This one is more thorough. Starczamora (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)=[reply]
Keep. With the above sources, the article gains independence from the article The Good Night Show (Philippine TV series). There probably much more published materials about him.. but I am too lazy to search, Axxand (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth (magazine)[edit]

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

Apparent spam, like its counterpart Paper Sky. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added an English-language reference which is available through AccessMyLibrary.com. To read the full article, you will need to enter your library card number. Bear in mind that most reliable sources about a magazine published in Japan are likely to be in Japanese. Nonetheless, I think the article now passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eastmain, you are once again defending the article against a charge that has not been made. The problem is that it is spam and would require a fundamental re-write to not be spam, the nominator has not even brought up WP:N.If you think you can fix that problem, that's another story. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made some further edits to the article. If an article's subject is notable, it is better to edit it to remove style problems than to try to delete it. - -- Eastmain (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non- notable. According to this online magazine shop, the ranking of the magazine is #1196. Oda Mari (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable spam by COI editor. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Sky (magazine)[edit]

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

Apparent spam, like its counterpart Mammoth. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a reference: http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=73909&cat=1 -- Eastmain (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete That reference is way below the threshold of "significant non-trivial coverage", and the article is spammy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added another English-language reference which is available through AccessMyLibrary.com. To read the full article, you will need to enter your library card number. Bear in mind that most reliable sources about a magazine published in Japan are likely to be in Japanese. Nonetheless, I think the article now passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also going to completely re-write the article to address the other concerns? (the one's that are, you know, the whole reason the article was nominated) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made some further edits to the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable magazine. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Oda Mari (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable spam by COI editor. --DAJF (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Game[edit]

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

In-universe or at best forum sources; no third-party evidence of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Among everything else wrong with the article, blatant advertising/spam. Even if sources are found, it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: I don't see blatant spam and the "everything else" is a matter of opinion. In reference to the advertising I guess we can't have any article that covers facts on a game, website, company or entity. Looks like countless articles need to be removed. Besides the following is also in G11 criteria: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." As far as the rewrite goes, I feel it follows the intent so that is a matter of opinion as well. It is a useful tool for anyone learning more about this type of activity. And if learning about something is wrong ... then again, countless articles need to be removed. Not all of us are perfect encyclopedia writers. But by allowing folks to edit and evolve this page then the site improves (in your eyes) and more folks learn the intent of "encyclopedic." Whatever that is. dsch2oman, 15:07, 4 Oct 08. — Dsch2oman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Lacks the necessary coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is needed to assert notability. Nothing coming up in a search. Someone another 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A gameguide, because it has no reliable sources to make an encyclopedic article. gnfnrf (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: "Nothing coming up in a search" - seems to me that there is quite a lot on Google. If anything, I think it's more appropriate to rename to "KingdomGame" from "Kingdom Game" - looks like to me that the extra space is confusing the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.199.18 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing usable coming up in a search. Specifically a video game needs enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article with, ten or a million listings of the game with nothing more than a few lines of blurb, or more in depth coverage in Joe Schmoe's blog does not cut the mustard. Either the game has been reviewed etc. or it hasn't. Someone another 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The game has been reviewed and when i'm not on a work computer i'll bring those up. Also the correct spelling is Kingdom Game, and originally introduced as KingdomGame.net now as a stand alone game it *is* Kingdom Game. The first convention for Kingdom Game is the 10th of OCT. along with that is a international press release, maybe this page is a little early but it's not qualified for deletion. I do think some of the things that aren't encyclopedic, e.g. tables for the trainings, need to be removed. Also i do no believe that this was written as an advertisment, there are no loaded words showing a point of view towards the game in question. MikelZap (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing information to readers on how much it costs to sign up, for instance, is considered advertising and is not appropriate. MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources (WP:N) alone qualifies the article for deletion. I am interested to see what sources you have but bear in mind press releases and conventions are not independent of the game itself and do not qualify as secondary coverage. Someone another 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Noeth[edit]

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

Autobiography written by a man who lacks notability and is trying to use Wikipedia to establish it - needless to say, a no-no. Nice shades, though. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this dude. Schuym1 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bluewater and Papercutz straddle the limit of notability (with the former making it, just) and while I really like the idea of the ray Harryhausen comics as it stands Chris Noeth seems to have drawn two comics and around half of two others [38] none of which are major titles (I could go and check sales numbers but I don't think it is necessary). That said it is early days as his first comics work to get on the radar was only a bit over a year ago so I'd say leave the door open to recreating this at some point in the future if he starts getting momentum and "heat". The creator could keep a copy in his sandbox to work, I just feel that this doesn't yet make it on the notability front. (Emperor (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. may be deleted if event does not occur MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (2008)[edit]

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

Not taking place JakeDHS07 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TNA has never acknowledge the event not taking place. There is no reliable source that says it is discontinued. Only that Turning Point is now in November. Genesis might now be taking place in December.--WillC 05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepfor now (Per Wrestlinglover) SuperSilver901 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - only speculated websites have announced that and not reliable ones, but if it is later acknowledged, it would make sense to redirect it to the main TNA Genesis article.--S _R X 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand debaters[edit]

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

Delete-I noted my concerns in the talk page about 4 days ago, but on reflection I think this may as well go to AfD now. It is obvious from the empty talk page, and history of almost entirely anonymous edits, that nobody is going to come to the talk page to discuss this. Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" NZ debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-trivial references can be found for each entry. dramatic (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, people make anonymous edits because they can't be bothered logging in. It doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. Secondly, in the sense that it is New Zealand-specific, it has different criteria to the global "list of debaters", but what is wrong with that? Dodge is pejorative and unfair word. There is something "notable" about being a good debater _within New Zealand_, and that is the point of the article - as it is for the list of Canadian debaters - to identify the best debaters within New Zealand on one page. I don't see why there can't be lists of debaters for each major country that participates in debating. Obviously in the pantheon of IVs around the world most New Zealand ones don't rate, but that's not the point of the article. (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about being a debater in NZ? Where are the sources to show this? It is just a hobby like any other. People who participate in hobbies do not need to be listed, by country or otherwise.

Comment - when I think of "notable" New Zealand debaters, I think of Tim Shadbolt, Ginette McDonald, A. K. Grant, Jim Hopkins, Raybon Kan et al. - for as far as I can see it is primarily the celebrity debates which get widespread promotion or audiences. What is the audience for a typical University debate, and what proportion of it is drawn from on-campus? dramatic (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to feel for dramatic, who has actually made positive contributions to NZ debating articles, but can clearly recognise that this list is in no way notable.JJJ999 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Further to that, I would point out that New Zealand has two distinct styles of debating that do not occur in other parts of the world in a competitive University environment. In this sense, the achievements are notable because they are not relevant in regard to the List of Debaters from around the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.95.61 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make them notable? The hobby is distinctively NZish, but so what?

Delete. A list of non-notable people who've won non-notable awards in different competitions. Hence entries are not even comparable. Pointless.Yobmod (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At my house we have a unique game of hopscotch, played nowhere else in the world. That doesn't make me notable for wikipedia though, something you've not addressed in the slightest. I'm happy to have this argument with you, but first you need to provide some actual evidence of their notability. Are there even 2 in opposition to deleting this, or is it just the same guy (but unsigned this time)?JJJ999 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've thought very carefully before making this recommendation. But in the end, I'm not convinced that a list of University Debators from NZ is notable. Comparing this list with the Canada list is not valid - the Canada list includes public speakers, the NZ one does not; the Canada list is focused towards world championships, the NZ one is not. The information would be better listed in the articles on the competitions. See the article on the Golden Shears for an example. The equivalent list to this one would be List of New Zealand shearers, which would be a non-notable list of cruft. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both this list and List of debaters seem to have defined their own rules for their content, which are contrary to the relevant guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (specifically "Lists of people") the people in a list should be "selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)". In other words, these lists should only contain people sufficiently notable for their debating to warrant having a wikipedia article dedicated to them. I suspect that would strip the list of New Zealand debaters down to nothing, making its existence pointless. Can anyone point to a New Zealander notable enough for their debating to warrant their own article? The List of debaters article might have a handful of people who have had significant media coverage specifically as debaters, the rest should be removed after a suitable warning period to allow editors to search for evidence of notability of the debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fresh Mex restaurants[edit]

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

"Fresh Mex" is a registered trademark of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.. There is no cited caselaw here or anywhere else suggesting that this trademark has been diluted. The article cites no sources at all, much less any suggesting that there is any such general term in English as "Fresh Mex" (in any form of capitalization or lack thereof) to describe cuisine of any variety. The list is pure original research. There is also no Fresh Mex or Fresh mex article - both bluelinks simply redir to this list, which strongly suggests PoV-pushing – clearly someone wishes that this were a definable term in general English when it is not. Furthermore, I cannot find any source for any such thing as "Mex" or "mex" to begin with; the phrase "fresh mex" or "Fresh Mex" is meaningless gibberish (which is okay in trademarks, as many of them are, but is emphatically not okay in WP article names, even aside from the trademark violation, OR and sourcing problems). Finally, the list seems not to serve any encyclopedic purpose and has no inclusion criteria. PS: The fact that a few other restaurant chains on the list use the word "fresh" in their names is neither here nor there; so do many other restaurants that have nothing at all to do with Mexican cuisine. PPS: The list is of ~~national~~ restaurant chains ~~(national? what nation?),~~ but the list title says it is of "restaurants". – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given trademark issues and the lack of sources to establish "fresh mex" as a category of restaurants (or to show which restaurants fall within it). --Amble (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not at all convinced that Jerem43's understanding of trademark issues is correct. The USPTO does show the phrase "Fresh Mex" itself registered by Chevy's as a live trademark. It is not true, as Jerem43 appears to claim, that only "Chevy's Fresh Mex" as a whole is trademarked. Unfortunately, the USPTO's ungainly web interface makes it difficult or impossible to provide live links. --Amble (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

To dissect the nominator's reasons for deletion:

According to the USPTO the generic term fresh mex is not trademarked. The trademarks that are associated with Real Mex refer to the company's restaurant concept name Chevy's Fresh Mex, in fact there at least four companies that have the term fresh mex as part of their trademarked name.
The fresh mex article was merged into the tex-mex article and the old article was converted to a list by me because there was almost no other information other than chain names.
I picked a name that the nominator doesn't like, that does not mean it is worthy of deletion.
Here is an example of the use of the general term fresh mex by a group other than a restaurant chain:
"Fresh Mex: Not Always Healthy Mex". CSPI.
This is definition of the term using a restaurant industry publication (albeit a poor def):
"Fresh mex". Fast Casual magazine.
This New York Times article establishes the notability of the term Fresh Mex and is a very reliable source:
"At Mexican Restaurants, Hold the Fat, Not the Taste". The New York Times. 1994-09-25. It is a challenge that every Mexican restaurant chain is facing or soon will: Healthier Mexican food is coming to a restaurant near you. The trend, variously called "health Mex," "fresh Mex," "next Mex" and "lite Mex" (and by some grease-aholics who hate it, "fern Mex"), has been quietly developing for a decade in a few of the nation's 20,000 Mexican restaurants. It still accounts for but a small segment of the $8.9 billion in annual sales at Mexican restaurants.
I've generated a list of Fresh mex restaurants in the US using an associated industry publication, Nation's Restaurant News, thus no WP:OR violation:
Google search
I quickly fixed the National issue, an easy fix.

The nominators argument of PoV pushing shows an ignorance of restaurant industry terminology; in the examples I have provided I have shown that it is a real term used in both the general populace (The NYT link) and in industry parlance (the Fast Casual magazine link). Furthermore, the last link shows that the term is obviously a shortened form of the term fresh Mexican. The large number of these chains in the market place also indicates that it is a viable sub segment of the restaurant industry and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.

I have shown that the list meets the five standards for notability and SMcCandlish must now show why it does not. It appears to me that SMcCandlish's nomination for deletion appears to be more WP:Idontlikeit than policy based reasoning. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: Since you want to go the "dissection" route, I've done likewise, but posted it to the talk page here, because it's a bit lengthy to include in the middle of an AfD. I'll just copy-paste the "Conclusion" segment of it here:

Conclusion: The character string "fresh Mex" does "exist in the wild", divorced from Chevys, but means radically different things to different users of it, ranging from fresh-made fast food (a notoriously high-calorie food source), to self-consciously low-calorie food, and the only thing in common is (naturally) the Mexican influence. Ergo, this list article, even with sources, will be meaningless and confusing. It's not "a name that the nominator doesn't like", it's a meaningless name for encyclopedic purposes, with no rational inclusion criteria, and with two meanings that cannot reasonably be separated, nor reconciled, except through original research and the advancement of a personal opinion. I.e., it is not "a viable sub segment [sic] of the restaurant industry", but a pair of words that means at least two radically different sub-segments of the industry. The "poor definition" advanced by Fast Casual isn't a definition at all – read it – it is a string of food marketing terms that indicates nothing objectively factual. Your CSPInet source even confirms this conflict of meanings; they interpret it to mean "low-fat Mexican-style or -influenced food", to paraphrase (and they then say that often it actually is not), despite the fact that other sources clearly advance the meaning "quickly-prepared Mexican-style or -influenced fast food in a 'casual' [i.e. Wendy's-like rather than McDonald's-like] atmosphere". These two overall definitions have zero in common other than the "Mexican" connection.

Finally, your point #2 that an old "fresh Mex" article was successfully merged into something else and all that is left is a bare list of chain restaurant names is an enormous pair of points in favor of deletion.

PS: It is quite possible that the term will some day have a single, explicable definition. If and when that happens, then there's a good opportunity for articles on the topic – With sources, reliable ones. I stress this point, because you made it clear (here) that you believe that list articles are somehow exempt from WP verifiability policy. They aren't.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Jeremy, but I'm going to have to agree with SMcCandlish here, mainly because "Fresh Mex" is such an arbitrary term with no definition page. Many Mexican food places claim that their products are Fresh, but that's POV-pushing. If we created a list named "List of Yummy Restaurants", and backed it up with sources from the corporate websites and third parties that recommend that a person try the yummy food, it would be deleted right away. In addition, the articles in this list should all be in Category:Mexican restaurants, which does a better job anyway. Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm. The category is too ambiguous and needs to be taken to CfD for forking into "Restaurants of Mexico" and "Mexican-style restaurants" (maybe the latter with a "Mexican-influenced restaurants" subcat). There are other ways of approaching it, but the gist is to separate the style from the location. In the interim, I'd support putting them all in that category, including this list article if it survives. I note that the subcat Category:Fast-food Mexican restaurants exists, but which of these restaurants do and don't qualify is an open question (part of the raison d'etre of this AfD). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right after I said that I went through the list and made sure all of the articles are in the appropriate categories. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you've misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you, but also suggesting further category clarification. There's a very strong trend at CfD to ensure that categories speaking of things "of" (as in natively or indivisibly of somewhere) be at one "of"-styled category, while things evocative of but not integral to that topic be in another. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know I was agreeing with you. Haha. Categorizing really isn't my expertise, so I'll leave any other improvements up to you; I just made sure the articles in the list were in the Mexican food or Fast-Food mexican food categories. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:
(Try this search for better results.)

The search I listed earlier, not the one above this reply, provides a list of restaurants that are defined as "Fresh Mex," invalidating claims that Fresh Mex is owned and limited to Chevy's. It also provides dozens of examples of these types of restaurants. While it does give many hits for sites with the two search terms located on the same page that are unrelated, it does do a really good job of showing what I was pointing out that the term exists in the wild and that it is a valid market segment in the industry. The added Nation's Restaurant News variable (NRN is a major restaurant industry trade magazine) helps pare the list down to one that is more manageable and whose results conform to the standards of WP:RS and WP:V.
I believe that lists do not need to have sources if they contain links to articles that do contain citations. The information contained within the lead of the list does need proper citations per WP:lists. Again this is my interpretation of WP:Lists, so I have placed a request for a third opinion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists talk page in regards to this issue of contention.
If you are saying the New York Times is not reliable, than you need to provide a really good and valid reason as to why it isn't reliable. Yes it does make an occasional mistake, but that is to be expected with any newspaper; it is considered one of the most accurate and award-winning news sources in the world, and has obtained that reputation through thorough reporting time and time again. It is probably one of the most widely quoted secondary sources used on WP.
Please read what I said about the CSPI link. I was using it as an example of the term being used outside of WP, not as a defining source. Again, the New York Times uses the term in numerous articles to mean lighter, Mexican inspired foods made from freshly prepared ingredients as opposed to prepackaged foodstuffs found at places such as Taco Bell and others. That is the only source that I have used to define the term in the list.
Per the Fast Casual Magazine: again, I was using it as an example to show the term being used in the restaurant industry and not how it is defined in the list. You will not find it utilized anywhere in the list or any article for that matter. Also, you will find that most classification terms used in the restaurant industry, or any other retail industry for that matter, started out as marketing terms; this includes terms such as value menu, value meal, fast casual restaurant and others.
I have worked on the list and brought into compliance with the standards set fourth in WP:Lists; all of its sources meet the criteria of WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; and the list meets does not meet the criteria of WP:OR.

Again, please state a policy based reason as to why the list fails to meet the standards for AfD. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: No one (that I know of) is disputing the fact that the phrase "fresh Mex" exists. The dispute is that this term has no objective definition, much less a reliably sourceable one that does not conflict with competing reliably sourceable ones. But none of that matters. What does matter is that this is a totally unsourced article. You could make a WP:POINT out of this by going and sourcing it your particular way, but it can be sourced just as well in the opposite direction. The problem is that, to the extent the phrase can be sourced at all, it means two opposite things, that are at cross purposes, and the list as it stands is an amalgamation of both. Nothing of what you have said here changes that. Your above-expressed belief that list articles somehow are not subject to Wikpedia policy on sourcing stands on its own; I don't even need to say anything about it. All other issues I leave for the talk page, as my comments there have already addressed the points you raise. If you think they have not, then take it up there and we'll see. The ability to string together a numbered series of alleged arguments does not an actual argument make, especially given that most of these points have already been countered. Policy-based reasons have already been given, in spades. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to see my point: you have not given a valid reason why the article does not meet the standards for inclusion, that is what an AfD is all about. You have to demonstrate how the article in question fails to meet the the standards of WP:Note, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; that it violates the standards of WP:OR; or that it doesn't meet the standards of WP:Lists. I have shown that the subject in question does in fact meet the standards of the former and does not violate the standards of the center or the latter. Yes, the subject can mean different things to different people and organizations, but that is not grounds for deletion.

As per your claim that the list items found in lists need to be cited, here is some proof of what I am saying is correct using one randomly chosen Featured List: List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films. Take a look how the list is formatted and you will see that the list itself does not contain any citations (the notes do not count as citations). The only cites that are found in this list are in the lead and included paragraphs, just as they are in this list - exactly as I have been saying all along. The list items included in the list itself do not need to be cited, it is the individual articles that the list items link to that need to be properly cited.

So to be more specific, please show concrete evidence that this list violates one of the standards I listed in this posts first paragraph. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary list. The fact that "fresh mex" exists as a term doesn't mean it has been adequately defined to give this list any inclusion criteria. There is no way to decide whether, say, Taco Bell belongs on the list or not. Plus the POV issues with "Fresh Mex" being a trademarked term are real and won't go away. This is not an attack on Jeremy, and he shouldn't take it as one, but his vehement protestations here smack of WP:OWN. axschme (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Side note - I didn't create it and do not wish to own it, I just take AfD arguments seriously and want others to as well. If you post an AfD, make sure your "i"s are dotted and you "t" crossed, that's all. Hell, I am the one that proposed the merge originally. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do appreciate your seriousness, but in the end I just don't think it looks good to respond in such detail to each and every !vote. It gives you the appearance of non-neutrality and it fills up this AFD with one person's opinion. You've got to give space to other voices. axschme (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most frequently mentioned brands in the Billboard Top 20[edit]

original research, indescriminate information Habanero-tan (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reprinting of research done by non-notable group; no relaible sources or information given for why this information is important. Fails the notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SALAT. Overly narrow-focused topic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears to be that improvements during the AfD are acceptable TravellingCari 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues[edit]

Non-notable Neutrality^talk 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC

Speedy delete as copyvio of [39] . the Review may actually be notable, but they need to start over. Very close to a G11, promotional, in any case DGG (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the author wrote the bio on the website [40]and the article - why would you delete it? jennmarie25 (talk)

The article is tagged for deletion because it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject using independent third-party sources. We can see that you done a considerable amount of work on the article. However, it is not encyclopaedic in content or in tone. For example, subscription details for a periodical do not belong in Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Unfortunately, G11 promotional. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added more facts, took away the subscription portion, and added external sources to back it up. What else can I do? Thank you! jennmarie25 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.209.15 (talk) [reply]
Keep - with the changes made to the article in the last day or so, my concerns are mostly removed. There is still some work to do, but we are on the way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now acceptable, like any law review. However, it still needs to be rewritten, for the use of extended quotation to make up an entire article is not encyclopedic style. I'll help, if necessary, because there should be an article. DGG (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krider Performing Arts Center[edit]

Non-notable Neutrality^talk 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Sources look ok, but have no idea how local they are.Yobmod (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a nice elementary school auditorium. Paris is a town of less than 10,000 people. Their local paper is the Post Intelligencer. The articles referenced are an (paid?) announcement of an event and an editorial by the vice president of Wofford? --Smashville^talk 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica man[edit]

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

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An obvious hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot say whether or not this is a hoax, but it is certainly a nonnotable book by a nonnotable author. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable, and, by its very nature, totally unverifiable. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not notable. It's suspect that the user is also trying to promote this with entires in the Beat Generation article. -- Doom (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodview commons[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most individual dormitories at colleges and universities are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small private housing enclave on a local community college campus. --Closeapple (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dormitory, this is the only housing at the college. Therefore, it is an important component of the college and deserves to be merged with the ICC website. You cannot consider something non-notable or insignificant if you have no reference point. This is not a community college but a junior college - and yes, there is a difference. As the only housing at the institution, this is an important reference source for anyone interested in the college. --Nalask (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nalask's claims above are somewhat contrary to reality:

This AfD isn't about whether Woodview can be in the ICC article; it's already mentioned in the ICC article, though it could be removed because it has no reliable sources in the ICC article.
Woodview is the only housing "at" the college because, if I recall correctly, the Public Community College Act does not allow community colleges to have campus housing, but ICC did some very careful legal maneuvering such that Woodview isn't technically a component of ICC at all. That being said: Being the "only" housing is not relevant anyway; whether student housing is grouped under one name or ten does not affect notability. Apartments near a school are not unusual, to put it mildly.
As for the claim that Wikipedia editors "cannot consider something" (whatever that means): such a topic, which people "have no reference point" to judge, would fail WP:Notability by definition anyway.
Yes, there may be a difference between a junior college and a community college: but Illinois Central College (Illinois Community College District 514) is obviously a public community college, just like all the others under the Public Community College Act (110 ILCS 805); I'm not even sure what that has to do with the Woodview Commons article though.
I have no idea what is meant by an apartment building being an "important reference source"; that's what the library (300 feet away) is for. --Closeapple (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Republican (United States)[edit]

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

unlike Independent Democrat, this article offers no examples of or references to Republicans who have failed to secure the Republican nomination for office, then ran as an independent candidate and defeated the Republican candidate. Rtphokie (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of examples. Feel free to peruse the list of former House members to find others. Strongly disagree with this article's deletion. Valadius (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - examples added, notable term. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - examples are nice but they still need to be cited. This article still has no references.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2008
*Delete unless "Independent Republican is a term occasionally adopted by members of Congress in the United States to refer to their party affiliation." is sourced. Without that, we have no proof that this term is ever used outside of wikipedia. Whether there are any examples is less important than whether this is a notable term.Yobmod (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if Independent Democrat is kept, this should too. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yobmod makes an excellent point. Without some reference to this term being used outside of Wikipedia (i.e. verifiable 3rd party source, which this article still has none of), this article is original thought.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Dennis Daniels[edit]

Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:ONEEVENT and our policy on criminal acts. Wizardman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual and the article is what appears to be a BLP trainwreck. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to comment how WP:BLP applies when the subject of the article is obviously no longer alive. Our BLP policies embody a set of principles, one of which is to respect human dignity and cover subjects (living and dead) in a neutral, unbiased manner. This article focuses on a specific (non-notable) event. We are here to create the sum of human knowledge; I see no case to be made that this individual should be included in that collection. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being dead, WP:BLP applies. The article is unsourced, and violates WP:NOT#NEWS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I didn't mean that WP:BLP applies to the deceased. What I meant was WP:BLP1E is roughly similar to WP:NOT#NEWS, and could thus be mentioned. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. First, WP:BLP does not apply to dead people, only to living ones. Second, our policy on criminal acts cited by the nom, is Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which is not a policy, not even a proposed policy but a proposed guideline. I think there is a weak passable notability case here. There was significant media coverage[41] around the time of trial (1990) and execution (2003). The case attracted extra attention because of supposed mental illness of the death row inmate. There was some international coverage of the execution, apparently because of this[42][43], in addition to national coverage[44][45] (and also local coverage in NC newspapers). The case was subsequently cited in several newsstories about efforts to abolish the death penalty in North Carolina based in part on what happened in this execution[46][47]. The case was covered in detail in the book "Death Penalty USA: 2003-2004"[48]. I think there is a passable notability case here under both WP:N and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd definitely say delete based on the article, except for Nsk92's sources; as I don't have time to read them, I won't vote. But come on, how can a policy about LIVING people be about dead ones? Shall we remove most information about Neitiqerty Siptah, as he was once a living person whose article is but little referenced? Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources. The information on the execution should be added. the traditional sentence about the last meal is utter trivia, certainly by comparison, and should be removed. DGG (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are we going to have the criminal records of all executed people on Wikipedia? The article doesn't cite any third party sources to assert notability of this criminal beyond that crime. This is a news story, not encyclopedic content. VG ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not paper. At least for the countries for which we have good accessible news source, it is much less frequent and therefore much more notable than, say, 200 years ago --being only applicable to exceptional crimes -- since only a few of the primary english speaking countries actually have the death penalty. DGG (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Union for Reform Judaism. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

URJ Camp Swig/Newman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/URJ Camp Swig/Newman

No apparent notability. Elliskev 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into URJ_Camp_Swig, which is a pretty short article anyway. I'm assuming you can verify that paragraph somehow, even though no sources are provided in the Newman sub-article. VG ☎ 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Joseph[edit]

insufficient notability: appeared in a couple of notable productions, but not in notable roles; no references other than IMDB and a fansite - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems to pass requirements for actors although he clearly isn't a superstar. Mentioned in New York Times is valid. Needs a lot of work though, from reliable paper sources if possible. As it is, this nomination is completely valid and there is abolsutely no assertion in the content of why it constitutes an article. I would strongly suggest the creator improves it and adds information about his acting career using reliable sources. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NY Times link is not to an article, but to to that publication's own IMDB equivalent. No claim of notability, no other evidence of notability, not the subject of any referenced coverage. 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Node (computer gaming)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that the first game named in the article, Myst, does not use the word "node" anywhere in it at all. A definition looking for a neologism, which makes it WP:OR. Nifboy (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mention of Myst might have been a mistake. But I know Beyond Zork did use the term "node" in this sense. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interestingly, I vaguely remember a book about game design discussing this concept, but I don't remember much of it. I think someone familiar with the field should take a look at this. A quick Google Books search returns multiple reliable sources from books discussing game design that mention nodes, although the topic discussed is different from what is discussed in the article.
Delete — cannot find any sources establishing notability of what seems to be nothing more than a neologism. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that notability is seriously lacking considering the context of the article. JavierMC 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've definitely seen "node" specifically used in the context of text-adventure games, the best case I can remember is Beyond Zork, which had a scrolling schematic of the nodes you travelled across. Basically just like a node in computer science, a node in an adventure game is a room/zone/dungeon/etc that might have doors to only a few other rooms, which connect to other rooms, and the entire game board can be drawn up as a node structure (and was likely represented that way in the software). Try Google web/books/Scholar/etc for "node" and "Zork" (or other adventure games), and sources should be available. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I did that, the sources would be about the games and trivial mentions about nodes. Schuym1 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. You could have an article about nodes that gave specific names as examples. The reason for including games in the search is so you don't get a million articles about data structures. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How would that show WP:NOTABILITY? Schuym1 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did a Google News search for the title and I found nothing. Schuym1 (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what I mean by trivial mentions, is it will just describe the room, zone, dungeon, whatever. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So it would not pass WP:NOTABILITY because it would not count as significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are so concerned about the article, why don't you search for reliable sources that show notability in the remainder of this AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment. A Google News search is unlikely to turn up concepts or techniques used in computer games. A textbook on game design would be more proper. Rilak (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why don't you a find a game book to use as a source in the remainder of this AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the AFD would be over by the time I got the book. There's no requirement to produce the source during the few days the AFD goes on for. Just to show that a source is likely to be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Attempting to determine notability of a subject through an unrelated resource does not carry any weight. Its like searching for a paper about hamburgers in a library that contains papers on the subject of computers - pointless. Also, I was commenting, not recommending. Rilak (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why should editors use a sources are out there keep? Schuym1 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this AFD got closed per sources are out there, there is a possibility of the article sitting there forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found a few items in Google Books that look promising. While I can only get a few snippets of text, I don't think an interlibrary loan is going to get here before the AFD is over:

In The Inform Designer's Manual, by Graham Nelson and Gareth Rees, on p. 369, we have "Regions... or else are delineated by simple geography: cave games are especially prone to this, often having a node-like room with exits in eight cardinal directions. Thus "Zork II" has..."

In Hypertext: State of the Art by Ray McAleese and Catherine Green, on p. 138 we have "little passages of ADVENT and Zork and marketed by Infocom and other companies...where each scene is a node and your options are the allowable paths" and

In Atlas of Cyberspace by Martin Dodge, Rob Kitchin, on p. 181, we have "computer games "Zork" and "Adventure" of the mid-1970s ..... technique: link-node topological map, hand-drawn with pencil and paper."

So while these snippets I found over a couple minutes don't make an article, they do show it's more likely than not (the first book is a game designer's manual) that there really is a concept in game design called a node, and that it's associated with adventure games, it may have been more common in the 1980s, and may have its roots in text-based roleplaying games before computers. So we should give this article the benefit of the doubt and see which sources can be added. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't show notability, and I don't think that any articles should have the benefit of the doubt. This article has had a long enough time to be improved because it has existed since 2006. Schuym1 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are books used to teach game design at a university or equivalent level, and they have a significant material on the subject, then I see little reason to see how they can not be used to prove notability. Also, judging a topic's notability on the quality on the article's content is irrelevant. I have seen basic fundamental topics in computer science lacking content and quality. Doesn't mean they are any less notable than a heavily edited Pokemon article. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's clear that "node" here is the same data structure element as a node in a Graph (data structure) (also called a vertex). The concept of node-based travel in a computer game seems better suited to be discussed somewhere in Adventure Game. --MASEM 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could redirect to Level (video games) if there is no consensus to keep. It already has sections on maps and dungeons, and it wouldnt be too hard to condense the salvageable parts of the article plus the refs brought out in this AFD to create a paragraph discussing node-based gameplay. A redirect will keep the history of this article for people doing a merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IO (band)[edit]

Near as I can tell, this reformation is not notable, even in the German version of Guano Apes. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How's about this? http://www.guanoapes.org/english/index.html

Strummer25 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guano Apes I can find little English sourcing but this search seems to indicate that they have received coverage. The previous band has certainly received the coverage required to be the topic of an article and this reformation would seem to be an reasonably important part of an article about the band. Depending on future coverage maybe a separate article will be necessary but currently I do not think the sourcing to support such an article is immediately available. Guest9999 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Their official website has not been updated since June 2006. It seems they have one album out, and any coverage i can find relates to that, hence they fail WP:MUSIC at this time. Recreate if/when they find more notability or the next album is released.Yobmod (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List group label strategy[edit]

Not sure how this "method" is notable, and how encyclopedic the method is. Appears to be a forum to advertise a method of teaching, with links to companies that offer it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article gives multiple references to books, with page ranges clearly mentioned. This is enough to establish notability. The article does have some problems with context and is a bit howtoish, hopefully an expert can fix that. VG ☎ 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the sources in the article there are loads more found by Google Books and Google Scholar searches that show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seem to be sources; but the article needs some work; it is more promotional than descriptive. Like all teaching methods, there is probably criticism available, and it should be looked for. DGG (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yellow River State Forest. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow River Fire Tower[edit]

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

I don't think fire towers can possibly be notable. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yellow River State Forest. It's an interesting tidbit, but doesn't need its own article. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PrinceOfCanada. And if not merge then delete. Fails WP:N by far, but would make a decent addition to Yellow River State Forest. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per other merge recommendations above. JavierMC 10:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bill Jelen. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Writers Books[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only thing, notability wise, that this article has going for it is the creator, Bill Jelen. Google searches turn up hundreds of thousands of results, but only the first 4 are relevant to the company, and two of the four are the company page. I say delete or merge with a better article. (possible merge with Bill Jelen) Undead Warrior (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bill Jelen, as per nominator. Right now it appears more of a high school contest with a start-up initiative to encourage young writers - not yet notable by itself. Vishnava_talk 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill Jelen per nomination. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Google books search shows six books publish by this company and Google comes up with over 4,400. Until it attains more notibility and more third party ref., it doesn't stand on it's own yet. JavierMC 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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