Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

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 speedy delete...the presence of a hangon tag with nothing posted to the talk page, when it clearly meets A7, means that it gets speedied. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodpecker Proxy[edit]

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

Contested speedy, originally tagged as db-band. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Coren (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Portugal Japan[edit]

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

A bit off-key when it comes to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete ONly one album, so fails that part of WP:Music. And i can find no info since 2007, so maybe they are defunct? Weak is for the possibility of Japanese sources existing.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to normal delete based on breakup, hence unlikely to ever pass music.Yobmod (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Japanese site says the band broke up on 21. Aug 2007, over a year ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The external link to the supposed label seems to be bogus. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – Orphaned, unreferenced and non-notable. Tcrow777 Talk 08:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someday I'll do these non-admin closures myself based on WP:SNOW BMW(drive) 23:25, 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) 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin (programming language)[edit]

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

Programming language which lacks cites from independent reliable sources, and appears to fail the Google test for notability. The Anome (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not reliable third party sources are found. I used the keywords Spin and Chip Gracey (language's creator) and not found any notable sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I contest the methods used to conduct the "Google test". Using "Spin (programming language)" is an unrealistic construct. No one is going to write a book, for example, which says: "Spin (programming language) is used to program xyz". In five seconds, which includes typing and Internet latecy, I found one reliable source: David A. Scanlan, Martin A. Hebel. "Programming the eight-core propeller chip" Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Volume 23, Issue 1, October 2007. I think merge-able content in the article should be merged into Parallax Propeller and Spin be redirected, as the programming language is "coupled" to the Parallax Propeller and doesn't achieve enough notability for now. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I willing to change my recommendation if someone tells me otherwise. Rilak (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given that Rilak found some sources. i think its detailed enuf to warrant its own page too.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. One academic citation is not sufficient to establish notability. Doubly so when it occurs in an obscure journal. VG ☎ 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this article has as topic the language and processors produced by the same corporation, so it's not a third party source. Even worse, the journal article has zero citations. VG ☎ 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm not sure if this helps, but theres an active online forum for propeller/spin at [1] with 20+ posts for just today and also a wiki [2] Mission Fleg (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable academic language. The only publications about it was written by people from the same research group, and appeared in an obscure journal. That journal article has yet to be cited by anyone else. Above !voters clearly did not know how to evaluate such a source. VG ☎ 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the articles on both the Parallax,_Inc._(company) and Parallax_Propeller have zero third-party references to establish notability. VG ☎ 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, I always though that the Parallax Propeller and Spin was created by Chip Gracey and his company, Parallax, a commercial company that markets a commercial product. I see no evidence that this is a academic language. The ACM claims that David A Scanlan and Martin A Hebel have only been affiliated with the Illinois State University and the Southern Illinois University respectively and not Parallax. It appears that either an assessment has been incorrectly made or there is a misunderstanding. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One acedemic paper does not make something notable, most PhDs produce many more, but don't get their own wiki articles. Redirect if an expert knows where toYobmod (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndi Williams[edit]

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

Opera singer with not much of a notability assertion. This Google search returns nothing worthwhile. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Lots of MySpace entries in Google, but no reviews or performances to establish notability at this time. JavierMC 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No reviews or performances? You obviously haven't researched at all. Your vote may not count. Greenface10 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was commenting on what I found through my search for references. And if you have added additional sources since my !vote, then don't come here and make broad statements concerning my comment. Not "spidered by google yet" in your below !vote may be an indication that you should AGF in my search. Also, performances at Amarillo Opera? Is this a major or noteworthy accomplishment to establish notoriety? The opera house only opened in 1988 and appears to be a venue for local performers. My !vote above stands.--JavierMC 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, with all due respect, an honest inquiry will show that the singer in question has had a number of professional accomplishments that are enough to establish her notability. Whatever else the opera house may be used for, Amarillo Opera has been accepted as a professional member of Opera America since 1995, and the performer in question has had a number of major roles in its productions. All this is besides the conformed collaboration with major East-European orchestra on Dec. 13, 2008. The article should remain and a help-improve tag should be posted. Greenface10 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A paid membership by the opera house to be a member of Opera America[3] does not make it notable. I'm a paid member of the American Association of Certified Public Accountants, yet I'm not notible for my membership. Her scheduled performance in December 2008 is over two months in the future and whether she makes the scheduled appearance or fails to attend and whether her performance is notable or not is pure WP:CRYSTAL--JavierMC 02:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you so much for that. She can also be found on OperaBase: [4] Greenface10 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to WP:AGF but considering your sole contribution to wikipedia has been to comment on this deletion and your account was only established after this article was brought to AFD. I think maybe a WP:SSP case is warranted between you and User:Withoutmusic. And again, OperaBase provides no information about the subject of this article beyond her name and a link to a performance there at the Amarillo Opera House. I strongly suggest you read WP:MUSIC.--JavierMC 02:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links you provide above only show scheduled performers at events and does not provide any information on the subject of this article beyond said schedule. Her upcoming performance on the international scene is over two months away and whether she is still able to attend in two months or not is WP:CRYSTAL.--JavierMC 02:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary comment User:Greenface10, you are obviously very new to Wikipedia. In fact, you only joined when this article was proposed for deletion and have made no other Wikipedia edits except in this discussion. Deletion discussions are not determined by "votes" at all. They are determined by the merits of the arguments. I strongly urge you to read these important sets of guidelines: Notability and in particular Criteria for musicians and ensembles, Conflict of interest and Deletion, especially these sections, so that you'll have a better understanding of the process. Voceditenore (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been posted to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not the same thing as "accomplishments" While I wish Lyndi Williams/Fisher every success in her chosen career, she has not achieved the level of notability required for an article on an opera singer. She:
  1. has not sung even one leading role in a leading opera house or festival (Barbarina is a very small role, as is Lula) and with all due respect to Amarillo Opera, it is not a leading opera house. Membership in a service organization like OPERA America does not automatically confer notability.
  2. has not sung as a soloist with a leading orchestra - the Manukyan event hasn't even happened yet. Wikipedia is not about publicising artists or future events.
  3. has not won or been a finallist in a major singing competetion at national or international level
  4. has had no significant press coverage apart from simple announcements of local concerts in church halls, parks or schools or the simple mention of her name as having sung a particular role, e.g. [5]
  5. has not recorded for a notable classical music label
An artist must have at least one of these, supported by reliable, verifiable published sources which are completely independent of the artist, their employer, or their management. To give you an idea of the kinds of requirements, here are some examples of AfDs for fledgling opera singers that failed: [6], [7], [8] and some that passed: [9], [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VdT's analysis seems thorough and, unless that can be contradicted, his conclusion should be definitive almost-instinct 10:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Voceditenore said it all.Yobmod (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I may have indeed created this account to take part in this discussion, but I am only interested in and will respond to arguments made against the points I am making, and not my assumed motivations. However, upon having a closer look at the guidelines (Thank you, Voceditenore), I must agree with the decision to take down the article, at least for now. We can then create it when the subject meets the requirements. I don't know how to delete an article yet, so it'd be nice if someone here could do it. Thanks everyone for the input.Greenface10 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for your understanding. There is no need for you to do anything. An administrator will review the discussion and if it requires deletion, will take care of it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrsty Gemmell[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Non notable musician. Fails Google test. [11] Deadly∀ssassin 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No readily evident notability. rootology (C)(T) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I especially the like the "for almost two decades" part, when they were born in 1992. Oh, and the Bob Dylan infobox. Clear WP:MUSIC failure, kill it with fire. Or alternatively snow. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merited speedy. Nonsense article. JNW (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uberto Mash[edit]

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

Believed to be a hoax. There are no references and no sources that I can find for the person, the Swiss Futurist Movement or the Swiss Futurist Party. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:HOAX. The picture is even photoshopped together! Sam Blab 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. rootology (C)(T) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless article author can provide references. Sounds like a hoax to me. Chaldor (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nine hits is not enough to justify its inclusion. Alexius08 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paut Neteru[edit]

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

I am not certain if this falls into Dicdef category. It doesn't strike me as being encyclopedic. What are your thoughts? Ecoleetage (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Have to agree with you. Unencyclopedic. Sam Blab 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (Stereotypical response) Google comes back with sources and many written sources. Rgoodermote  23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It is dicdef. Move to wiktionary with references. Chaldor (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as dictdef. Sources exist, but give no more info, and seem all to be tied to the one author. Merge where?: It is a foreign term for something we don't have an article. Manna maybe = bread of the gods?Yobmod (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a dictionary definition - only the first few words of the article are about the phrase and the rest is about the concept, which is from Egyptian Book of the Dead. The trouble with this article is that not a word of it agrees with the sources I can find such as [12][13][14][15] which all refer to Paut Neteru as being a company of nine gods. As it stands the article seems to be about a fringe interpretation of the subject without even mentioning the mainstream interpretation. Unless someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have can rewrite this then it should go. I've notified the Ancient Egypt wikiproject to see if they can help - it's a pity nobody thought to do that earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strigoi vii[edit]

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

Fails WP:N guidelines owing to a total absence of reliable, independent, third party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Looks like an attempt at link farming to me. Chaldor (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of ghits but seems to be some kind of forum-centered thing. Notability not established. JJL (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The gits are due to those two words (taken separately) being common in Romanian. If you search for "strigoi vii" all you find is a forum, and a reference in an obscure sensationalist Romanian newspaper. Sanguinomicon is eminently vanity press. VG ☎ 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another ghit I get is the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on Todd Hoyt (direct link is blacklisted on Wikipedia). VG ☎ 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ILLmacuLate[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Chicago Tribune ref appears to write about the entire festival, not so much about the rapper, but I have no way to check that. The Portland Mercury looked a bit too local and "bloggy" to me. While winning the 2004 competition was beyond any doubt. So I went for the one requirement I was sure of.    SIS  22:03, 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, Mr.Z-man 23:18, 5 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, RockManQ (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see how winning a minor award or being mentioned in a trivial contest quite qualifies. Still, it's marginal.  Xihr  04:07, 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 Keep. Orane (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This music single is not notable, under the Wikipedia notability criteria for songs under Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. It hasn't won any awards and hasn't charted in any notable manner. I nominate it for deletion, the information contained can go into the article for the album, Doll Domination. As the prod was refuted, I'm nominating it for deletion, because I suspect a re-direct or merge would just get reverted. Delete--Raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is an official single and currently charting. There are other articles with three or four sentences. They have not been deleted. Charmed36 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unfair to this article and OFFICIAL SINGLE WHICH IS CURRENTLY CHARTING and has a music video. Charmed36 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be new, but in my opinion it still doesn't criteria for notability right now. The article can always be re-created if the subject later becomes notable. raven1977 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is notable. It should stay. Charmed36 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Complete lack of grounds for deletion. The single has been officially released as the second single, the video has been shot and is pending release, the song has charted on itunes and on a couple Billboard component charts and soon will be released in other formats. Misinterpretation of deletion policy perhaps? Apparently you missed the part of the Notability guideline that states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". In other words, the song, being an independent single that is currently being promoted, will have a wealth of information in a matter of days/weeks, and will definitely grow beyond a stub. Orane (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Am I misinterpreting the criteria for notability under songs? I read the criteria about charting to mean "has charted in some spectacular way", and I don't see that in the article for this song. If I'm wrong, and it means simply "has charted", then yes I misunderstood that criteria. As for the song not being a stub, I concur. But just because it's not a stub doesn't mean it's notable.
Also, in regards to my not giving the subject time to become notable, is it really the policy to immediately grant every new subject assumption of notability, because it might eventually reach that criteria? This seems like an unfeasible interpretation, leading to a glut of articles that were created under assumption of notability, but never reached that standard, but are here anyway for people to nominate for deletion later as they find them. In my opinion it's far better to wait until an article subject becomes notable, rather than to just create new articles on subjects as they occur because they may someday be notable. And that's what I believe should be done with this article. raven1977 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles aren't necessarily created after the fact, hence the high number of templates announcing that certain subjects are current, or expected, and information may change in the future i.e {{futuresingle}} or {{futurealbum}}. If a song released by a prominent artist is currently charting, then yes, an article should be created for it, and then expanded and updated as the song becomes more successful, and more information is available. To chart spectacularly is a highly subjective term, and doesn't necessarily mean that the song has to hit number one or even the top ten. Heck, there are many singles from artists like Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, or Michael Jackson that failed to chart and have articles of their own. Should these be deleted too?
I point out this significant excerpt:
Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards 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 on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.
As is, the article satisfied the criteria. Do you honestly see it practical to place all the information on the single into the article for the album? Orane (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes absolutely NO SENSE! It is an official single from off the album. Who would even think of such a thing. Let it stay and DO NOT DELETE IT. Hometown Kid (talk) 1:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. A charting single, recorded by notable artists. Meets WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! do not delete because it is a perfectly fine page, why should this page be deleted whilst theres much worse pages, Coment by ChillaxNOW (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

The article should not be deleted as it is an official single, the video already released and expected to chart. The page would look better as time goes by as there will be loads of updates about it, for example a nomination in a certain award. --HalfCrazy (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is an offical single, due to be released!! -Liamr02 (talk) 22:45, 7 october 2008 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn -- Article needs a good rewrite, not erasure. Sorry for the mistake. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Csonka[edit]

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

Some very serious problems with WP:BIO, to put it mildly. This has to be seen to be believed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to put things mildly, particularly if you're wanting the article to be deleted. Can you elaborate a bit? As prologue, it should be pointed out that "Paul Csonka" was a real person, despite the fact that most of us (including I) thought that the only Csonka was named Larry. However, [16] and [17] confirm his existence. Mandsford (talk) 23:46, 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. per the added references (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Project Management[edit]

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

The only source that I can find is the official site. The article has existed since 2006, and has been tagged for notability since April. Schuym1 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. VG ☎ 21:03, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Birdsong Valentine[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Sam Blab 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion. This article resembles many articles on Wikipedia that are written about lesser-known musical artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockitsideways (talk • contribs) 14:52, 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 Nom withdrawn. No delete votes TravellingCari 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Davisson Post[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Sam Blab 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and well it ought to have been contested. Author of a dozen of so books by major publishers. Article says that he was "not prolific", but I do not know who the comparison is with. By any reasonable standard an author is both prolific and notable who is the author of 10 short story collections in book form, (one of which is in project Gutenberg, one of which, though Americana, was reprinted in the UK),-- and many collected modern editions, such as Post, M. D. (1977). The complete Uncle Abner. The Mystery library, 4. San Diego: University Extension, University of California. No attempt made to look for secondary sources to confirm it--and even out template above is enough to show them. from G Books, a modern work of criticism from a major publisher: Norton, C. A. (1974). Melville Davisson Post: man of many mysteries. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press. Inclusion in multiple modern anthologies, a few of many Best american mystery stories of the century. (2001). Boston: Mariner Books; Greene, D. G. (1999). Classic mystery stories.. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. Discussed in many other academic and popular works--see G Books and G S for details. And, finally,. had an O Henry Prize story for 1920. [18]. DGG (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On top of everything DGG said, he's in the American National Biography. Zagalejo^^^ 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per DGG and Zagalejo. Found some easy information in Scholar as well. Article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. TravellingCari 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oi! I withdraw. How wrong can one person be? Sam Blab 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Gadalla[edit]

Likely non-notable. Very cranky "Egyptologist" whose qualifications are in a completely different field and whose books are all self-published. No actual assertion of notability here, and Google Scholar gives nothing. Moreschi (talk) 22:52, 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) 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian maclean[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Notability is questionable at best. Sam Blab 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article doesn't appear to pass the notability test, and I couldn't find anything on Google other than the IMDB page, or a few fan sites (unless that counts?), and there's nothing about him on Google News. raven1977 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttle: Other references for Sebastian MacLean and his connection to the film Facing Goliath are found on Amazon.com [1] Other sites listing him are as follows [blacklisted - the skomorokh] Variety.com profiles him. [2] New York Times web site profiles him. [3] There is a confirmed distribution house representing the film Facing Goliath, starring Sebastian MacLean, called Canamedia and they can independently confirm the film's broad global distribution on Al Jazeera English Network. [4] He is also confirmed as a producer and co-owner of the film production company PixaTale Media. [5]Abandond (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Facing-Goliath-Sebastian-MacLean-Taylor/dp/B0014H2RPY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1223269863&sr=8-2 - Amazon.com location of Facing Goliath
  2. ^ http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/665106/Sebastian+MacLean.html?dataSet=1&query=%22sebastian+maclean%22 - Variety listing for Sebastian MacLean
  3. ^ http://movies.nytimes.com/person/975684/Sebastian-MacLean - New York Times listing for Sebastian MacLean
  4. ^ http://www.canamedia.com/show_pages/catalogue_can_docu_goliath.html - Canamedia is the distribution company representing Facing Goliath, the film starring Sebastian MacLean and airing around the globe in 160 countries on Al Jazeera, November 9th, 2008
  5. ^ http://www.pixatalemedia.com/about.html - PixaTale Media is the production company co-owned by Sebastian MacLean
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. With respect to the items listed by Abandond:
  • Amazon does not establish notabilty, just that he is involved with Facing Goliath
  • Variety provides a profile which is simply a database entry and not an article about Sebastian MacLean
  • Ditto the NY Times
  • Canmedia is the distribution company and is not an indpendent source
  • PixaTale is the subject's company so again, not indpendent
-- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 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 redirect to Corporate manslaughter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate killing[edit]

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

The article states that it is a term used in the UK (mainly Britain). This is nonsense, i.e. it is used everywhere in the UK apart from Northern Ireland! Apart from that, the whole article, such as it is, is merley using the phrase 'corporate killing' in place of corporate manslaughter, which is widely used in the UK (including Northern Ireland). The external link to Mark Thomas' show (of which I'm a great fan, incidentally) is the only use I can find of the term: note that the relevant UK legislation is called the "Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007", which even this article admits. There is no evidence that "Corporate killing" is widespread at all. Emeraude (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to corporate manslaughter. Sounds like it's an alternative phrase popularized by media (even if by only one source). It's conceivable that individuals searching for the term would type this phrase in as well. Chaldor (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as indicated by Chaldor above seems appropriate. VG ☎ 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. I'm happy to restore the content if someone cares to merge it. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juicer (Rifts)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters in a role-playing game. No independent references to demonstrate notability. The article is mostly plot summary. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. rootology (C)(T) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a notable class of characters in a notable game. Otherwise, merge. Such material can always be merged, since section of an article does not needs sources for N, just enough for V.DGG (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, or merge and redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game). One of the most recognizable character classes in a notable RPG, but doesn't really need its own article. Edward321 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE; Rifts is notable, but juicers aren't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 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 G11 by Lectonar , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trialphaco[edit]

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

Page created 18 July 2008, with no significant development since apart from being tagged as orphaned, unreferenced, unlinked and needing copy editing. Apparently, no one cares to sort out any of these, perhaps because no one can. This appears to be another example of using Wikipedia as a directory for companies that have no notability beyond a Wikepedia entry! Only remote claim to notability is that the company "witnessed tremendous growth.....within a short period" which is a claim hat can be made by every start up company. Emeraude (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity (word)[edit]

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

As the article says "brevity" is indeed a word but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wiktionary already has an article). Guest9999 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an empty page/dicdef. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nomination and lack of information.Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Could have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can speedy this. rootology (C)(T) 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "Brevity is a word." I get it, a brief article on brevity. Ha ha ha. Not bad as jokes go, and it looks like it served its purpose. Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lydd. BJTalk 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydd Town F.C.[edit]

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

Three sentence article on a football club which fails to meet the well-established notability criteria of having played at Step 6, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. Was kept in a 2006 AfD, but things have moved on since then, as shown in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 most recent AfDs on similar subjects and the subsequent deletion of two other articles kept in that debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per snow in October. Certainly cold enough this week! TravellingCari 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Rock Named Haesuus[edit]

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

A proposed television show which doesn't appear to have aired. There is nothing on Google with this name. Its supposed "official website" is on bebo.com. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created the article keeps removing the afd label. I've asked them to stop. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've had to report them for vandalism for repeatedly removing the afd label. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is completely unnotable.--Woland (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: When I searched for it, Google asked me if I meant A Rock Named Hesus. When I clicked on that, it asked me if I meant A Rock Named Jesus. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of that, it looks like a hoax. Schuym1(talk) 21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it exists, it's a pilot. Many, many pilots are produced that never get aired. If it get aired, per WP:CRYSTAL, then will be the time to write an article about it. I wonder if one of the article creators is Mike Stevens or Joe Macari? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a hoax without any doubt. An 8 minute pilot? That would be a first in TV production. Note to FisherQueen: My date, please ;-)    SIS  22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why not speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that the article should be deleted per WP:SNOW. Schuym1(talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. Should have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability concerns, and not enough sourcing to show notability. rootology (C)(T) 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem close to notable. We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for TV, I guess. The article says the show will be on national TV in a couple of years. Maybe then it will assert notability. Wikipeida is not a crystal ball. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe speedy as an advert. Did not see that. Dlohcierekim 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I came up with no 3rd party sourcing for this. Dlohcierekim 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Barry[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable musician who falls a long way short of meeting WP:MUSIC. A couple of unsourced claims in the article for which sources do not appear to exist. Nuttah (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, in my page I have stated that the singles I had released were with my former band which I did not mention the name of as I have nothing to do with them anymore, they were not released under my name but the band name and we were unsigned at the time.

If you have access to the Catco official UK music industry database you will see that my debut single 'Nothing's How It Used To Be' released under my name 'Julian Barry' is due for official release on 30th November 2008 on phantomystery records. This is not un-verifiable information and can be 'verified' not only on that database but also on my official website at www.julianbarry.com.

I will ammend the page so it has alot more relevant information and I hope that you will come to a decision not to delete it as it would be most appreciated and I would make donations to the site accordingly if this stays on.

Regards

Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianbarrymusic (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced article about an unreleased musician. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through all of the information you have written, I understand the idea is to have the interests of wikipedia at heart but I want to point out this is not a self promotion tool, or vanity as written in some of your info. I decided to add it as a search tool as some of my music fans use wikipedia, and when I search for my favourite artists on here I read through their page, so I thought it would be good for them to ba able to do the same for myself.

I will not continue to ammend or add anything to this as it will probably get deleted anyway, I'm sure my other sources of promotion will be sufficient in acheving what I hope to acheive.

All the best and if you feel the need to delete then do so, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.198.187 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WtcBB[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can't find anything either. (And their development page[19] hasn't been updated in 2 years.)    SIS  22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 23:13, 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 delete. BJTalk 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reforestation Services Heliport[edit]

Reforestation Services Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Once again, fails WP:N and WP:RS. Directory sites do not confirm notability. See the notability section on the Aviation WikiProject. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the Aviation project guidelines have no bearing whatsoever on anything whatsoever since they have not been vetted and approved as a Wikipedia guideline and should not be mentioned since they have as much value as my personal musings on my user page which also have not been approved by the Wikipedia community, this still fails the only relevant notability guideline, which is the main WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia does not yet recognize it, the project does. It's a general consensus now. The only thing left is for it to be considered a real guideline. The consensus stands that all aviation related articles must still pass WP:N and WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then mention it when it becomes an actual guideline. Think of it like this, what if WP:ORE has a guideline that all things in Oregon are notable, then this would pass that guideline, so which way does this article go. That's why WikiProject rules mean nothing unless they become Wikipedia guidelines/policies. And since all articles must pass WP:RS and must pass WP:N if not covered by a recognized sub-notability guideline such as WP:BIO, then yes that would be the consensus for all aviation related articles along with all articles not covered by said sub-guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. In all my last discussions, a few editors would come in and say keep because there is a consensus among aviation editors that airports and the like are inherently notable. This would cause some of them to reach no consensus discussions. I am putting in that there is a new consensus before any comments like that can be made. I can mention anything I deem relevant in a deletion discussion. Since this is aviation related, I brought up their own consensus to further back my point. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have experienced the same thing I have in AFDs where people cite un-approved WikiProject rules, thus why they should not be mentioned at AFDs. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT an unapproved wiki rule. It's a consensus among editors. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consensus among editors at a WikiProject, and that is all it is. Thus, unless it receives consensus from the broader community and becomes an official guideline, it means nothing in an AFD. Ten people (or a similarly small group) getting together and deciding how things should go in a much larger community is called an oligarchy or in Wikiparlance a cabal, something that is frowned upon. Aboutmovies (talk)
Wrong, it's a general consensus. I put my opinion into it and I'm not in that project. The people who were in on the consensus were in the project and the people who were involved in the numerous AfDs for the articles it covered. The people who would vote to deleted the articles gave input, the people who voted to keep them gave input, and the people who have never even seen the AfD gave input. It is a general consensus. Just because it's not widely known does not make it any different. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, until it becomes an actual guideline, it means nothing. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what guideline are you actually talking about: This which is the one I assumed you were talking about, which again everything above stands in that it is a WikiProject guideline and that's it. Or do you mean this stale proposal that had a total of what ten or so editors "involved" after the discussion was moved to its own page. And in which there does not appear to me to be a consensus to me, just lots of comments and proposals, but never even a straw poll to see if there was some sort of minimal thing everyone could agree on. It just died out, which is why despite being involved in some of the related AFDs for the previous round of deletions for these private airports/heliports, I did not comment on the proposal. Again, ten people is not a consensus, especially when they don't all agree. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point completely. For one, it does not matter if it is not approved or not. People count essays in deletion discussion when the essay is not completely accepted or known, yet there is nothing in wikipedia that directly states not to do this. If you can quote to me where it states that you are not to quote consensus that has not been widely accessible, then I will believe you. But until then, nothing wrong has occurred. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it is wrong per some policy or guideline, I'm simply stating my opinion (and reasons for that opinion) why WikiProject guidelines should not be brought up in AFDs. And as to other people and past AFDs using essays or WikiProject guidelines, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to why that argument carries little weight. You are welcome to your opinion on the use of the aviation WikiProject and other WikiProject guidelines, I simply disagree for the reasons outlined above. It's simply a bad idea, as I think you may recall from last time several airport/heliport articles were brought up for deletion. Had the unapproved WikiProject Consensus never been broached at that time, far more of these utterly non-notable airport/heliport stubs could have been deleted and a lot of back and forth about airport notability could have been avoided in those discussions. Instead that topic could have been covered in a standard guideline proposal and a lot of time saved. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the private helipad itself does not appear notable. An article about the company might be more appropriate, but even that is questionable. I found one news item about a company helicopter that was forced to land in a remote area during poor visibility. The helicopter was prevented from taken off once the weather cleared by a person who objected to aerial herbicide application.[20] Other than that, I can't find much. The coords listed in the article don't seem to show a helipad, but just to the north there is a helicopter parked in what appears to be an unmarked parking lot. A parking lot is not notable and wikipedia is not a directory to list all FAA approved landing areas. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. WP is not a heliport directory. To me the clue is that no one would want to read the article unless they needed a place to land their helicopter (and in that case it would be better to rely on official sources not WP), nothing interesting otherwise. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:N. Little content in article as well. Chaldor (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prior AfD records at WikiProject Airports indicate general consensus that private-use airports (ones which are not open to the public) fall below the threshold of notability regardless of required government filings, such as with the FAA for US airports. (That's the basis for private-use airports being considered non-notable in the proposed guideline at WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability.) Therefore fails WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 06:57, 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) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Bagdasar[edit]

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

Notability at best borderline, but seems to fail. He has indeed published a book, but I find no evidence of the "acclaim" mentioned in the first sentence. Biruitorul Talk 04:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has published 3 books, over 50 articles and 300 collaborations at radios in Bucharest and Paris. Prolific in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Nemes (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know quite a few profs that have over 100 papers, and they're not Wikipedia (they still fail WP:PROF). VG ☎ 08:19, 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) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers foot soldiers[edit]

I have checked two articles of Power Rangers foot soldiers that should be deleted. They lack coverage in reliable sources. Previously, an article listing the foot soldiers of every Power Rangers series was also deleted. The articles I'm nominating are:

I just bothered to check them today when I was checking out the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article. Mythdon (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per elements of fiction, or redirect to Power Rangers.--Woland (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do they even need to be deleted? I'm suprised the 2 articles have bumbled into each other and self-exploded! delete as no real world notability (or even in universe notability - wasn't the whole point of them that they were useless and ignorable?).Yobmod (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources and completely in-universe (violating WP:NOT#Plot). Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEU Law FC[edit]

FEU Law FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem notable and appears to be a local university football club without national exposure, may be better merged with Far Eastern University Institute of Law but doesn't appear to stand on it's own as a separate article. JavierMC 05:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red letter[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Personal though unfounded suspicion that this is a hoax anyway. Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - My suspicion that this is a hoax is heightened by the appearance of the word 'notable' in the first sentence. That's generally a bad sign. (Has someone already coined that as a 'law'?) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if it's true, it's far from notable.    SIS  20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just googled for "Red letter" game and found half a million hits, with the first page being descriptions of the same content (I didn't check all 500k hits). I suspect that the game is notable enough, and the problem is simply that the article is very poor quality. That can be fixed. I am adding some citations. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • just added a link to the BBC where they explain how it is exactly what the article says it is, and has all the rules. I'm pretty sure this will pass notability by itself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that a joke? Seriously, the article you referenced says nothing about teams, nothing about hiding, nothing about counting out a minute, nothing about looking for anybody, and nothing about fighting. It's a completely different game. On another note, the figure of a half-million hits is meaningless: your search returned every page that has "red letter" somewhere on it and also "game" somewhere on it. Just from scanning the top hits it was clear that a large proportion of the hits include pages with the expression "red-letter day" and extensions thereof. A search on <"red letter game"> returns 71 hits; a search on <"red letter * game"> ("red letter" followed closely but not immediately by "game") returns 55 more. Looking through several dozen of those hits, I still find none that have any relationship to what's described in the article; most of them use "red letter game" as a play on "red-letter day". —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment So the article needs work in accuracy. The game exists, and the BBC wrote an article explaining it. My goal wasn't to rewrite the article, it was to see if it was notable, and if so, cite it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it definetly needs to be tagged for a lack of references.--KojiDude (C) 23:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a description of something utterly different. In the event that someone should chose to write about the actual game described by the BBC, fair enough, but there's not a shred of fact in the article as it stands. MadScot (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do you delete something for inaccuracy if it is cited? You tag it, or stub it, but there is no criteria to delete an article that is cited because a section is inaccurate. My guess is there are many varients of the game, just as there are darts, hopscotch, jacks and other games. I have no idea, never heard of the game, but it took me 2 whole seconds to find a BBC reference. Wanting to delete because of inaccuracies is simply off policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If someone creates an article on, say, "historic churches of montreal", and procedes to then write an article on gay strip bars in the same city (or even a different city of the same name), I think it'd be as well to wipe the slate clean. Yes, the title could have an article written. But if you remove the nonsense there will be a blank page left, and to what end? MadScot (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apples/Oranges. This article just has a different type of rules. It may very well be that BOTH are valid rules for the game, as I pointed out above if you read. Either way, the "different" rules are similar enough that it is obvious that they are talking about the same game with different rules. Wikipedia policy does NOT say that a delete is the right way to handle this situation. This is what TAGS are for. Citations were so easy to find, it should have never gone to AFD to begin with. It should have been tagged. So far, we have all written more words that it would take to simply modify the article to say there may be more than one set of rules, and quote the BBC set of rules. Again, it exists, it is notable, it is cited. Why we are arguing to delete is pretty silly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is described in the article DOES NOT EXIST. It shares a title with someone that exists. I could describe a game called "Hopscotch" which involved ripping off people's arms and beating them unconscious. The fact that my hallucination shares a name with a real game doesn't make it any less WP:BOLLOCKS. This nonsense article describes a purported game for primary school children that often leads to hospitalisation. WHAT???? A hoax is a hoax even if it uses a real name.MadScot (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fact that a title given to an article has a real meaning that someone could write an article about is not justification for keeping an article that was created badly through and through on the grounds that someone, some day might write good content for it. If someone comes along who wants to write that good article, he'll create it himself. It isn't as though keeping this article around just because it's already there gives that future writer any advantage. And if anyone thinks it would be a good article for someone to write, WP:Requests for creation serves that purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThose of you that keep screaming "IT DOESN'T EXIST" might actually try looking at the article. I have found several different versions of the game that are similar, and added links to it. If you would quite screaming and try to actually LOOK for it, you would see it isn't that hard to find many references to RED LETTER, even if many people play a similar game with different rules. Again, rather than sit and bitch, I went and easily found some references, which is supposed to be what all editors do when discussing an AFD... PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And just out of curiousity, did even one of those references describe a game leading to hospitalisation and "beating the shit out of" small children? Or did they all describe subtle variations on the BBC game, the title of which the hoaxer no doubt ripped off while making up this article. MadScot (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article doesn't say that, when the new sources were added, the junk was deleted. Again, it took less effort to fix than all the hissy fits going on in this afd. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did look, and I told you I looked, and I told you the result, so kindly don't be a smart aleck. And the original article did thoroughly deserve to be deleted. If you decided to create a whole different article about a different subject that happens to have the same title and that merits inclusion in Wikipedia, there's nothing at all wrong with it and it is one way to deal with an article that would otherwise beg to be expunged, but please don't imagine that you've demonstrated that it was a mistake to call for the deletion of the article as it was. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, granted, the nom was valid, and I shouldn't have made the comment on the nom. I do owe an appology for that. However, the article has fundamentally changed to a valid article. I knew exactly zero about the subject matter (I'm an american, not familiar with UK games) but it wasn't that hard to fix. My frustration comes when it takes less effort to fix an article than to debate, assuming (as in this case) that the actually subject title is a valid topic for an article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak keep now. I've come across other articles where there was some indication, or I had some knowledge that told me, that something real could be made out of what was there, and in some cases I've taken care of it. I didn't perceive this to be that kind of case. You were the one with initiative this time. Wikipedia is a cooperative venture. I think, though, that you needed to paraphrase the material you found rather than quoting so extensively. I'm not in a position to judge the notability, but I see no need to delete right now. —Largo Plazo (talk)
  • Keep Article has been fundamentally rewritten since AfD began, rendering nominator's original reasons moot. gnfnrf (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The alleged BBC article is actually a page from h2g2, a user-created online encylopedia hosted by the BBC, but with a more humorous tone and lower verification standards than Wikipedia. Attirbuting the article to the BBC is misdirection; h2g2 is not a reliable source. I'd want to see a reference from some standard work on the subject, such as Opie's The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren, to be persuaded that this isn't just a hoax or urban legend. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. Google searching for ("red letter" game) yields hundreds of thousands of hits that, except for the "BBC" link mentioned above, are all random confluences of the phrase "red letter" and "game". "Red letter game" yields fewer than 1,000 hits, and the first couple of pages were not about a game such as this. In articles about folklore and children's games, a certain informality of sources can be tolerated. So can variations of the rules. But the wiki-style user created content on the BBC site seems to be the only mention of a game such as is described in the article. Suggest redirect to red letter edition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Try searches like "'red letter' playground" or "'red letter' schoolyard" and you'll see plenty of references to this game, though not many from reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The first couple of pages of results from "red letter" + playground yielded possibly three relevant results ([21][22][23]) coupled, as usual, with dozens of instances of irrelevant combinations of the phrase "red letter" with the word "playground". "Schoolyard" yielded one more. ([24]) "Red letter" (day) is a fairly common phrase, and as such any search engine strategy is probably doomed. I am convinced that this is, at minimum, not a hoax. Again, for folklore subjects I think some leeway should be given, since "reliability" is a relative thing, and we're not dealing with urgent matters of political controversy; but none of the pages so found seem to come close to more conventional standards. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure I recall games with similar 'mechanics' as a child (that is, the non-hospital-visit-inducing mechanics), so in that sense I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax. What, if any, name the game went by, though, is lost in the dusty recesses of my brain. MadScot (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that nominator now says "weak keep" after many modifications to the article. It is his option to withdraw the nomination now that the article has substantially changed and now appears to meet Wikipedia standards for an article. I don't expect it, but it is his option. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that virtually the entire article is now a copyright violation, I think it needs to be deleted anyway. To me, deleting it falls under the heading of "no harm done". —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a bit thick in quotes, but it is not a copy vio in any way, the source is clearly stated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure about that? Citing the source doesn't avoid a copyright violation problem if more than fair use is made.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it likely needs to be modified, I didn't quote enough to prevent the copyright holder from profiting from their work, ie: it only covers one small section of the work and wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking the rest of the article because I had quoted enough to make such an action pointless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is that an adequate defense in UK copyright law? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:55, 6 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, Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, can we discuss the sources for this please. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, sure. BBC is the British Broadcasting Corportation, which is kind of like CBS or NBC, only it's British. Sarah Jordan is a person who does workshops in Bristol-- not Tennessee or Virginia, but in England. And Heath Primary School is a school in Ireland. The website www.bbc.co.uk is as reliable as the BBC, so it would be a reliable source. Merely being mentioned on the BBC doesn't make something notable, but yes, the article has a reliable source. Hope that helps. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A page on a website is not inherently reliable because of the webhost. The page in question is some user's contribution. Newspapers typically have pages with reader comments, opinion blogs, and so on that don't become reliable just because they're on a particular website. It's essential to distinguish between content published by the organization that owns the site and content published by outsiders. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford, if you'd read my post further up, you'd see that I'd already mentioned that the BBC page cited is from h2g2, a project not unlike Wikipedia, but with lower verification standards and a penchant for the eccentric. It's not a reliable source. Please don't mislead other AfD participants by misattributing this content to the BBC itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm supposed to assume that www.bbc.co.uk isn't reliable because Alex Tiefling said so? Interesting. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've provided you with enough information to deduce the reliability of the source yourself. And please note that my comments do not apply to the BBC website as a whole, which represents a large compendium of sources of a wide variety of types and reliability, but only to h2g2. I wouldn't rate, say, the BBC News 'Have Your Say' forum as the same sort of source as the BBC News homepage, much less their history documentary pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on deletion or keeping, but if this is deleted it should be recreated as a redirect to Red letter edition. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, because that is only one use of the phrase "red letter". Could be a disambiguation page instead.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. h2g2, even if it's hosted by the BBC, does not count as reliable to me. Compare with the iReport (hosted by CNN), which recently announced Steve Jobs death. VG ☎ 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The How to guide page is not a reliable source - the BBC hosts it but does not have editorial responsibility. Without that, there really are not enough sources to show that this is a notable game.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apart from some copyvio'ed H2G2 stuff, there's nothing here worth keeping. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Styles in Europe[edit]

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

Good title for a coffee table book, but the article says nothing. Could have been a start up article, but there has been no significant development since it started on 18 Feb. Emeraude (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'd meant to do something about this and forgotten about it, had asked a while ago on Architecture project page if it was of any use and was advised to delete, no ref's and actually very hard to define for this purpose what are 'European styles', and what should be excluded. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A sub-stub of an existing article section without an obvious path to stub-hood. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barring orinigal research, i don't see how this would ever get written. Very few architects can now be described by their country of origin, and Europe is too vague (that could include Turkey, hence ALL islamic architecture).Yobmod (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Yorkshire and the Humber[edit]

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

There is no official capital of Yorkshire and the Humber, the content of this article is original research and completely unsourced. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Article is WP:OR and reads like a school essay. Peanut4 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely original research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regions in the UK do not have capitals, as the article admits. Therefore, by it own admission, the article is pointless and OR of the worst kind. Emeraude (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previous comments have suggested, a ridiculous title for an article. GRB1972 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd have been tempted to speedy delete this as blatent nonsence. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had the deletion for discussion for Capital of the North been closed (it looks like it's heading for delete) I would probably have speedily deleted this article. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTCRYSTAL - it is speculating what would happen if someone decides to have a capital of Yorkshire, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele per nom. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No original research in Wikipedia please, such as this per WP:NOR. – RyanCross (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – POV and unreferenced. Keith D (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Both as POV and OR. — neuro(talk) 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article amounts to pure speculation on the part of the author. The first sentence of the article (There is no official capital of the Yorkshire and the Humber region of Great Britain) pretty much sums up the reason why there should not be an article on this topic. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sentence is verifiable. Here's one source for almost those very words: Charles Bungay Fawcett (1919). Provinces of England: A Study of Some Geographical Aspects of Devolution. Williams and Norgate. p. 146..

      One can also source the assertion that York is the capital of Yorkshire to sources such as Richard Brookes (1838). "York". The London General Gazetteer; Or, Compendious Geographical Dictionary. T. Tegg and Son., whose entry contains those very words in the first line. One can further source historical discussion of the capital of Yorkshire to sources such as Sydney Smith; Francis Jeffrey Jeffrey; William Empson; Macvey Napier; Henry Reeve; George Cornewall Lewis; Harold Cox; Arthur Ralph Douglas Elliot (1925). The Edinburgh Review: Or Critical Journal. A. Constable., which note that whilst being the military capital of Yorkshire in Roman times, and a municipium, Eboracum was not the Roman cantonal centre of the Brigantes.

      And although Tubs uk (talk · contribs) admits outright, on xyr user page, to being here at Wikipedia in order to push a viewpoint, one can independently source that viewpoint, that Leeds is the industrial capital of Yorkshire, to the Grolier Encyclopedia of 1998 and the entry for Leeds in the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1993.

      Yes, this article is rubbish, but there is sourced material to be had on the subject of what the capital of Yorkshire is, which other encyclopaedias appear happy to address. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Yorkshire, summarising it considerably. This is certainly not a subject worth an article of its own. After merging delete and salt. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-topic PamD (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to merge. No use for an article at this title. Uncle G's info could possibly go into the article on Yorkshire, but not Yorkshire and the Humber. Warofdreams talk 01:51, 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. Spellcast (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epitumomab cituxetan[edit]

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

No reliable sources that establish notability. Seems to exist per WHO catalogue but there are no sources to base an article on. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ziralimumab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dorlimomab aritox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sontuzumab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all. Without reliable (and available) sources, all appear to fail WP:N. If, at some point, information becomes available, we can re-add the articles. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless the requisite reliable sources can be found to support the article(s). RFerreira (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Monoclonal antibodycruft. We've been through a whole spate of these in the past. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 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 speedy delete under CSD G7 - Original poster of only significant content requested deletion in good faith. J.delanoygabsadds 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines[edit]

Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this page is still marked "under construction", the direction it has taken so far is that of a personal opinion, or original research. Either way this page cannot become encyclopedic without a complete rewrite from scratch, even if properly referenced. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to all editors.
I just wrote this new article and the system immediately proposed that it should be deleted because (1) it is written as an essay, (2) supposedly includes original research, and (3) does not give any references. I deleted the tag for proposed deletion because I think these concerns can be either easily addressed or are incorrect.
Concern (1): Please feel free to give the article a more encyclopedic format. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't see much of a difference between what I wrote and other short articles, though I must agree that my article is somewhat opinionated and, in that respect, needs improvement.
Concern (2): Even though it may at times look that way, the article does not include any original research. It simply describes how the scientific method is currently used (albeit incorrectly) in social sciences and some natural sciences. Again, please do not hesitate to make the article look more encyclopedic with respect to the illusion of original research.
Concern (3): The article does not cite any references because almost everything in it is common knowledge, and hence, according to academic standards does not require referencing. However, please feel free to add references to anything in the article, since this seems to be the rule in Wikipedia, even for common knowledge. For my part, I will try to add references, in the coming week, to the section on ecology, since it is not quite a common knowledge.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Q42Dqv (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q42Dqv (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - As far as I can tell this is an unsourced POV essay. Notes to Q42Dqv: Your remark "everything in it is common knowledge, and hence, according to academic standards does not require referencing" is interesting but doesn't meet WP requirements. You might want to read WP:V for background info on the matter. Furthermore, the article is basically a copy of your earlier posting here[25]. You might also want to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks,    SIS  21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate if you guys helped me to improve the article instead of trying to condemn it. In fact, you guys are in a better position then me, to do so, because you guys are obviously more familiar with Wikipedia and its guidelines then me. Moreover, I think it is unfair to delete an encyclopedic article just because the person who started it is not very good in writing such articles. Wouldn't it be more constructive to improve it?--Q42Dqv (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While style and structure of an article are rarely enough to warrant an article's deletion, notability is. If you cannot find published reports on this subject (i.e. primary sources), then this article does not belong on Wikipedia. For example, I could write an article on the misuse of doorknobs for back-scratchers, but that doesn't make my observations encyclopedic. Regardless, don't let this potential deletion put you off of writing on Wikipedia; just read up a little on how to contribute to the project and your help will be greatly appreciated!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Aside from the extremely muddled nature of the argument, the article's very title displays the POV nature of the work. Such unsourced, OR essays are disallowed by basic Wikipedia guidelines. I would suggest that the author tries to contribute to 'criticisms of evolutionary psychology' or similar, but not bother unless they can bring reliable sources to the table. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is this essay does not conform to any of Wikipedia's core inclusion policies, it is not reliably sourced or verifiable, it is not neutral and it appears to be based entirely on original research. A complete rewrite would be required, presuming that the sourcing does exist. Guest9999 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is impossible for an article on the "misuse" of anything to conform to WP:NPOV, as everyone targeted would dispute that they "misuse" it. Much has been written on social science methodology, but this essay doesn't refer to that literature — and even if it did, it would still be an essay. An article could in principle be written on social science methodologies (plural), but it would have nothing in common with this one. RJC TalkContribs 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV essay. andy (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys for giving you all a head ache. I had a need to express my opinion on the subject, so I wrote this article without considering any of Wikipedia's rules. I realize that was unethical, so please delete this article as soon as possible because I am not sure about how to do it.--Q42Dqv (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper: David's Story[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced, largely based on unverifiable rumours. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:25, 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 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless (Kanye West song)[edit]

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

No independent third-party confirmation of this record being released as a single. Winger84 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a video which is labeled as one of the sources on the page that has Kanye confirming himself that the song is going to be the next single off the CD. If that isn't enough proof than I don't know what it. Dfnj123 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The video is also a video from Consequence's video blog. Consequence is a rapper on Kanye's record label GOOD Music. Therefore, the video is in someways first party.Dfnj123 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deductive reasoning is not sufficient to prove reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Also, artist statements are not reliable, given that the artist has very little control over their A&R anymore. --Winger84 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added more sources last night, thats all I can do for now. Sorry I'm not so much on top of wiki rules and such. I'm just a little agravated because this has pretty much been confirmed. Dfnj123 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided qualify as a source that would meet requirements. An official statement from the label or a linked "going for adds" post from Radio and Records is really what we're looking for here. --Winger84 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable THIRD PARTY publications. JBsupreme (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kanye himself confirmed the fact it's a single at the T.I. concert he performed at. FortWhatever (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is recorded proof that Kanye has announced that the song will be the second single from the CD. MTV (reliable THIRD PARTY publications) is reporting this as well and I have added them as a source on the page for the song.Dfnj123 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been added for confirmation. Recommend withdrawal. GlassCobra 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep music single which meets WP:MUSIC, second the recommendation for withdrawal at this stage. RFerreira (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources listed still are referring to a confirmation from Kanye West himself, which is not enough to prove that it will actually be the album's second single. Artists have very little control over their A&R anymore. --Winger84 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has control over singles, it Kanye.Dfnj123 (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion. --Efe (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but saying that a statement from Kanye along with reliable sources isn't proof then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfnj123 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MTV. It's early days, but the article will develop once released. Spellcast (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MTV source still says that the single was announced by Kanye, not the label. --Winger84 (talk) 23:13, 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 21:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renting digital cameras[edit]

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

Unremarkable rental topic. BJTalk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not so much because it's unremarkable but because it's original research, mostly unreliably sourced with blogs, and very, very spammy. (And by the way, isn't this kind of rental already covered under leasing? If so, then make it delete and redirect.)    SIS  21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it's not spam, but it's not much more noteworthy than the practice of renting out a videocamera. Mandsford (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable topic. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Bongomatic (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a how-to guide. Alexius08 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You can rent almost anything and we don't need a topic on every single one (renting lawnmowers, renting carpet cleaners, renting dvd players anyone?). Even Movie rental is a redirect and that is a notable, widespread (even cultural) practice. Renting sufficiently explains the practice and is applicable to anything rentable. Unencyclopedic. Sassf (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons above, plus another one: that for the part of the world where I happen to live, what it says is plain wrong. (For anyone who happens to be interested: Where I am, digital cameras are rented out just as film cameras were [and are], and lenses, and the rest: over the counter, and primarily to professionals and others whose regular equipment is being fixed or who want to experiment before buying or who need particular exotica [e.g. an ultrawide lens] for a particular shoot.) I've no reason to presume that third, fourth or further countries resemble either the pattern I know or that described in the article; so the article is not only incomplete but also unfixable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the North[edit]

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

Article is simply original research and does not provide a single reference. As the title "Capital of the North" is not official and rarely used in any form of media it does not warrant an article. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At best this article is original research; at worst it's just a pseudo-random braindump. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be deleted but only on the condition that the nickname 'Capital of the North' is removed for Manchester. Leeds is referred to as Capital of the North far more regularly than Manchester. Basically, the term 'Capital of the North' shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.1 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A totally unreferenced and poorly written article which only uses original research. Referring to the previous comment, only referenced and verifiable statments are permitted on any wikipedia article so if there are no supporting comments that Manchester is sometimes referred to as the 'Captal of the North' then it can be deleted.If the claims are substantiated with a relevant source then it can remain GRB1972 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total nonsense. Apart from the fact that there is no widely accepted definition of "the North" in England, there is no official or even unofficial acceptance of the term. (For benefit of readers, I live in Sheffield.) Emeraude (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'd have been tempted to speedy delete this as blatent nonsense --Jza84 |  Talk  21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Jza84, I wonder why this wasn't speedy deleted. The reasons in favour of deletion given by others here are compelling as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands the article is unreferenced streamofconsciousness WP:OR. The phrase "capital of the north" is used from time to time (and verifiably applied to Manchester, at least), but it's totally unofficial. I don't think an article will ever go far. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems to have been created with an ulterior motive in mind, does not seem to be the subject of significant coverage. the skomorokh 15:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a real topic, just a phrase occasionally used (as in the refs) but with no encyclopedic significance. PamD (talk) 07:09, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Snowball closure. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese minelayer Okinoshima[edit]

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

Same reason as below nomination. See this. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

same answer as before i have only started to work on this. i'm new and it took me some time to do the infobox. Okinoshima was a large warship by any standard (over 4500 tons full load, the size of a cruiser). since i see that wikipedia has tons of articles about even little warships Okinoshima deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosmark (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The cleanup tags had been put on the article less than 7 hours before, right after the article was created -- that's not exactly giving enough time to let them work. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the creator some time to work on it.--Woland (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needed expansion and improvement as per cleanup tags I added (now removed) - but not AFD. --DAJF (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated on the other deletion page, commissioned warships are considered inherently notable. Benea (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex (iPod game)[edit]

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

Nothing to show this is a notable software game. There's a link to the apple website, and a link to a cheatcode website, neither of which grant notability. seresin ( ¡? )  19:01, 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 (non-admin closure). I think WP:SNOW is applicable here. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese minelayer Itsukushima[edit]

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

Little content. There are 5 tags on it, and I don't really sense any notability. Pretty much per WP:CSD, I could probably speedy it but I'd rather bring it here. — Ceranthor [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for God's sake i have only started to work on this article today, obviously i'll expand it in the following days.Loosmark (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Give the creator some time to work on it. --Woland (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this certainly needs improvement and expansion (it was me that tagged it with a number of maintenance templates), deletion is not a fair option just yet. For the record, speedy deletion is not applicable here, as notability is at least asserted. --DAJF (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Commissioned naval ships are considered inherently notable. Benea (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article improvements have been made since it was tagged for deletion. Shinerunner (talk) 11:15, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schuler Books & Music[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable bookstore. Only five locations, no substantial sources found. Only sources just mentioned events at certain stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny local bookstore applying for beer license ≠ notability, and no claim of notability in the article. Bongomatic (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Schuler Books is a fairly significant presence in mid-Michigan. While others scoff WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a very good reason, if we're keeping pokeman characters this is certainly of greater note than many such characters. Its mentioned in a few publications about the bookselling industry, Big-box Swindle, Rebel Booseller. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've substituted "greater note" for "of more interest and importance to thinking adults in mid-Michigan". I would guess Pokemon is a hundreds-of-millions of dollar a year business with tens of millions of avid fans (however, such fans not generally falling into "thinking adults" category). Bongomatic (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I picked Pokeman because it is an easily recognized shorthand. We have articles on 19th century companies of arguably lesser relative significance, countless articles on places in which nothing of note ever happened and that few people have ever heard of. Is an article on a relatively large regional bookseller that is "of more interest and importance to thinking adults in mid-Michigan" than minor Pokeman characters unencyclopedic? older ≠ wiser 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might have missed the fact that over 90% of the Pokémon articles got merged into lists last year... Stifle (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA Plex[edit]

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

Non-notable software. VG ☎ 01:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's been fixed. Still, Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that I do not find an obvious way to enter this conversation from the page so I am directly editing. But I found this page helpful in my research about the product and would prefer to just see it expanded instead of deleted. I have just found an expert on CA Plex over at ADCAustin.com and will attempt to get them to contribute. - Symbology101 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author, and very inexperienced at this. I am doing some research on what should be done to make this notable. Any advice is appreciated. I simply followed some examples of other articles that seemed equally brief (I would like to expand on this in the future certainly), but must be doing something wrong. Jdrhodes (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Two different editors declined an A7 speedy, but given that this is an autobiography heavy with contact info, I deleted it on g11. If anyone other than the original author wants it restored and brought back to AfD, let me know and I'll comply. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luiza Lago Martins[edit]

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

this article is a total and utter mess... but it asserts notability, so not a candidate for CSD on those grounds. I recommend deletion, or a major rewrite if someone wants to take it on. - Philippe 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is not only a mess, it appears to be written by its subject. --otherlleft (talk) 02:35, 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. BJTalk 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal Mitra[edit]

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

No notability established, but its borderline speedy and normal XFD criteria, so I'll nominate it here instead. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 18:52, 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) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Brother: An Urban Erotic Appetizer[edit]

Baby Brother: An Urban Erotic Appetizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability.Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only ghits are online bookstores. The article passes none of the nutshell criteria at WP:NB -- #5 (notable author) could be debatable, though the author is notable for music, not writing. —97198 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:15, 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. Spellcast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reportbug-ng[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable software. No reliable sources offered or available. The software it is a alternative for is not notable enough for its own page Nuttah (talk) 18:12, 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 speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti (Chris Brown album)[edit]

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

Per reasons given here. I tagged the article with a CSD tag but it wasn't deleted DiverseMentality(Boo!) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).--Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Olsen[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Olsen Gang. I can find sources to establish notability but since they would all be in Danish and most likely not viewable for free outside of Denmark that would be a waste of time better spent sourcing the Olsen Gang article (which isn't much better right now). I agree that the article is mostly OR. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as all issues seem to have been resolved now and I found out that English language sources are preferred if available but not required if they are otherwise reliable sources. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a new Characters section in Olsen Gang, but not for lack of notability but because sources are hard to come by for pre-internet fiction to support a spinout at this time. This character is extremely widely known in former East Germany (think Homer Simpson) and inherits some cult status from its film series. Ove Sprogøe (the actor) received one or two Bodil Awards for this role. [26] shows scans of old East German newspapers and magazines for the films, the actor and the character (unfortunately too tiny to read). Egon received four drive-by mentions in reliable German online media in the last month: in de:Mitteldeutsche Zeitung[27] in an article about school systems, in die tageszeitung[28] about political reforms, in linke-bildung-kultur.de [29] about political misuse, and a TV magazine of Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk[30]. I see no apparent OR in the article. – sgeureka t•c 19:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep. I've added everything I could find (and understand) from Google News. It looks pretty decent now (although it's overwhelmingly Eastern-Germany/Danish focused now, sorry), and I may just have found a new FA-worthy project that would interest me big time. – sgeureka t•c 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is Arve Opsahl's legendary character, indeed this obituary of Opsahl is titled "All Norway's Egon Olsen." Also contained in the same article is some "real life" information, e.g. that Carsten Byhring was considered for the role, and that Opsahl was given a leave from hospital to play in the last (senior) Olsenbanden movie. The basic of the plot surrounding Egon, in particular, the running gag about him always winding up in prison while the rest of the gang escapes, is also covered in that article. This article provides more "real-world" notability; a prison road in Denmark was apparently named after Egon Olsen. More notability: An entire restaurant chain in Norway is named after this character [31]. To sum up, contrary to the nomination (which has been copy-pasted on several AFD's within the space of a few minutes), there is notability independent of the series (restaurant) and there are third-party sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After Sgeureka's edits, I think the notability is rather clear. Nicely done. Just for the record, after all that talk about how famous he is in the former East Germany and in Norway, I would like to add that he is also very well known in Denmark. Hemmingsen 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - It seems fine now. TTN (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Rochelle, New York. If anyone wishes to merge the content, it's still there. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayberry, New York[edit]

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

The notability of the topic and the validity of the article are both in doubt. According to the article, this is a residential subdivision of just 200 homes, inside an incorporated city. Nothing in the article suggests anything unusual about this subdivision. The main sources cited in the article document that this place exists are maps that identify it not as "Bayberry", but "Bayberry Park." The one source that refers to "Bayberry" is in a discussion of the author's childhood in the introduction to a book -- a book that is not otherwise about Bayberry. Except for that book reference and the content sourced to it (which I added), the only substantive contributions to this article have been made by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, a banned user with a long record of not being truthful. Considering the lack of verification and the relatively trivial nature of the subject, I submit that it is better for Wikipedia to delete the entire article than to retain it on the off chance that it might be OK. Orlady (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(KEEP - notable community and easily verifiable) The area is noted as a CU populated place and is well known in the region (example). It is frequently noted throughout the region, such as in the news (example). There is also a homeowners association (example). and day camp associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.232 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 204.15.226.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no indication that this has ever been more than a neighborhood, built in the 1950s as a subdivision in New Rochelle, New York. It's very upscale, and located between the Bonnie Briar Country Club and the Wykagi Country Club, and Sheldrake Lake. Every city and town has subdivisions-- a real estate developer purchases acres of land, puts in infrastructure, marks off lots, offers them for sale, and makes a profit. The sources indicate that a fellow mentioned that he grew up in the Bayberry Park section of town. This is not a suburb, not an unincorporated community, not a place that once thrived as a town in days gone by -- it's a set of streets and houses, and the inherent notability of populated places does not extend to individual streets, nor collections of streets. Maybe this can be merged to Sheldrake Lake, but my neighborhood and your neighborhood don't rate their own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New Rochelle, New York, the city of which it's a neighborhood — neighborhoods in some places are definitely notable (see Pittsburgh neighborhoods, which have officially-designated boundaries), but there's nothing here that makes me see that this is a sufficiently-distinct neighborhood to get its own article. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 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) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Blue Magpie[edit]

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

Not sure quite what to describe this as other than "unremarkable horse". I'm not aware of any WP policies on animals, but if we take WP:ATHLETE as an example then this horse does not qualify; it's a year old, too young for any racing or sporting competitions, and as a result hasn't won any. Google brings up next to nothing of note, and a decent breeding lineage is not enough, otherwise every foal of a breeding stud would have an article. Ironholds 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is interesting for people researching a bloodline or breeder to be able to find a plethora of horses, not just the ones who've competed in racing and sporting events. Afterall, a yearling is old enough to compete in halter showing. Furthermore, since when did wikipedia limit what information is important or not? Isn't this supposed to be a place of limitless knowledge? Does it not have room for small articles anymore? I personally wouldn't care if every horse with a good pedigree had an article. It would be a useful resource for other horse owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.236.15 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most widely misunderstood thing on the site, and should be printed in big letters at the top of every page; Wikipedia is not a limitless collection of information, and has always been selective. Considering your only contributions are to the article in question your opinion that "I personally wouldn't care if every horse with a good pedigree had an article." doesn't hold much weight. There must be hundreds of thousands of horses with "good pedigree's"; you have horses pimped, as it were, for breeding purposes. A rule on Wikipedia is that notability is not conferred; if the first Earl of Arundel is important, we don't have an article on the SECOND Earl of Arundel unless that Earl is also notable for something other than his bloodline. The same can be applied to horses; other than a genetic structure, what makes this horse notable? Ironholds 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This reads like an advert, and I see no assertion of notability. I find no third party sources on the net. No news reports, books, scholarly papers discuss this individual. I see no basis for a claim to notability. Interesting information does not make for encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironholds makes very good points above. Dlohcierekim 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable soruces about the subject and would fail WP:BIO#Horses if there were such a thing -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Munna Bhai. Obvious merge target, if the character is important enough to merge there Black Kite 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit (film character)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its films. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 17:51, 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 The museum is a good enough assertation of notability for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Mall[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable mall. No substantial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Apparently this mall has housed the Birthplace of Country Music Alliance Museum (for example, this is mentioned on this page on the sponsoring organization's website and this timeline of the organization's history; elsewhere on the same site I saw announcements of country music concerts at the mall). That aspect could make this mall noteworthy. I expect that third-party articles exist about the museum in the mall that would establish notability. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - a relatively simple search finds that sources are available to back the WP:Notability of this mall, they just havent made it here yet. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably most malls aren't notable, but this one looks to be of interest. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burdon Bootleg discography[edit]

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

Unverifiable collection of non-notable bootleg recordings. None of the list entries will ever have its own article on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a page completely useless. Cannibaloki 19:59, 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. Non-admin closure. Both notable state poet laureates with RS coverage despite WP:COI. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Low[edit]

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

Non-notable person. COI is apparent, as the user admits on their talk page that the subject told them to write the article for them. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons.
Jonathan Holden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Low has received an award from the National Endowment for the Humanities, there are even more awards listed for Holden. Before I cast a vote, could the nom perhaps explain why these awards (and being a Kansas Poet Laureate in particular) do not lead to notability? As an aside, COI is not a reason for deletion. If the COI has led to a POV, it's a reason for cleanup, but AfD is not for that. --Crusio (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to being the Kansas poet laureate and the awards, 152 gnews hits, 51 gscholar hits and 167 gbooks hits give ample material from RS indicating her notability as an author and under wp:bio. e.g. this, this, this, and Denise Low: Words of a Prairie Alchemist: The Art of Prairie Literature and Interview with Denise Low by W Sheldon in Midwest Quarterly, 2007. The COI puffery is minor, easily fixed and not a reason for deletion. John Z (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Jonathan Holden, whose AfD nom directs here, Keep is even clearer. I just added this book - Buchanan, Carl Jay (2003). The poetry of contemporary American poet Jonathan Holden. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 0-7734-6630-4. about his work to his article - strong proof of notability, in addition to many others, he clearly passes wp:prof, wp:bio, wp:creative too.John Z (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if not all State poet laureates are necessarily notable, with this much published work, Low certainly is. As for Holden, the work of criticism about him from a major academic press is additionally enough to show it beyond much question. I am glad someone had enough interest to write these articles, and hope people do the other state poet laureates also. The nom should learn we do not delete articles because of COI. DGG (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. In the future, I'll be aware that autobiographies written by the subject or people affiliated with them should be welcomed on Wikipedia instead of discouraged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the point is that we be aware of the COI , and edit carefully--and, if necessary, skeptically, especially for autobio. "Associated with" is a very broad term--I'd say most good bio articles on Wikipedia are written by some associated in some way with the person. And it is generally a good idea to write with the cooperation of the subject. I've asked subjects many times for details and suitable references--they often know. DGG (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From GLG >>> It is probably because of my recent additions to both Jonathan Holden and Denise Low’s pages that someone suggested the material be deleted (as well as my lack of knowledge of how to correctly make an entry to Wikipedia). Please note that I have just gone back in to both posts and "removed" mention of my name in association with KansasPoets.com a website (a platform used by both poets as well as many others) dedicated to note worthy Kansas Poets. I’m assuming this might have been reason for the conflict of interest flag. Please know there is no conflict of interest. As far as is these two poets' worthiness of being included in Wikipedia… most especially, Holden is currently recognized as one of the most distinguished and notable poets in the United States. Likewise, Low is very well known throughout the United States for her continued contributions to poetry and academics. In regard to my previous note of over a year ago, perhaps I worded my response incorrectly.... before taking it upon myself to create a Wikipedia post for either, I thought it prudent that I get permission from both Holden and Low before moving forward… something to which both approved. --- 6 October 2008 (sorry I don't have more time at the moment to figure out how more properly to add a comment in this space.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limestone9 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Heavy conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep conflict of interest is not by itself a reason to delete. The individual passes WP:BIO. This just means we need to keep a careful watch on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both. Certainly WP:COI is a concern, but it is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason for deletion. Rather, it is a reason to inspect the case much more closely and skeptically. Here the WP:BIO cases for notability certainly hold up on closer inspection both for Low and Holden, based on the awards listed (for Holden also based on the distinguished professor position, under WP:PROF). Nsk92 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With respects to the nom, notability has become apparent and a welcome inclusion to Wikipedia. WP:COI is being addressed by the attentions of other editors. Wiki is improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability sufficient, {{COI}} and compliance to such is the requirement. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have done some cleanup, sourcing, and wikifying to the Jonathan Holden half of this AfD and will begin same for the Denise Low half. INRE WP:COI: I am not either of these two individuals, nor am I associated with them... and I do not believe I have ever been in Kansas. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:48, 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 Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESilicon[edit]

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

User:Gporter1974's edits suggest he/she is employed by an advertising agency that creates Wikipedia articles about organizations.

Not finding related articles

When I started this AFD, I had the impression there were some other articles that should be deleted together with this one, but it looks as if they have already been taken care of. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to request for deletion

I am not employed by an advertising agency to create articles about organizations. Any contributions I make to wikipedia are on my own time and dime. Other articles that you felt should be deleted could not have been contributed by me since this is the first and so far only article that I have created. I have, however, made modifications to the ASIC article, and the Mike Farmwald article, which is what you may have noticed although these modifications have not been undone. I based this article on other company articles in wikipedia and took pride in providing citations from reliable sources for all of the content. Soon I will submit two new articles. One on Alchip, another fabless ASIC company, and the second on ParkerVision, an RF IP supplier. Can you suggest edits that would remove your concerns about this article?--Gporter1974 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious to know if Gporter1974 has read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and believes that his or her edits comply with the policy. Sometimes it is a conflict of interest for an employee to write about a company, even on his or her own time. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change opinion

After reviewing Gporter1974's responses and edits since I nominated this article for deletion, I no longer suspect he or she is conducting an advertising campaign and withdraw my suggestion the article be deleted. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:43, 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 and redirect to Seth Putnam. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impaled Northern Moonforest[edit]

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

Non-notable band, does not satisfy WP:MUSIC Has been deleted twice before and recreated regardless ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, AFD started by banned User:JarlaxleArtemis. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Dorléac[edit]

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

No sources and no notability given. WP:NOTINHERITED. Boatslanding (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No sources and no notability are good reasons for requesting improvements to the article, but hardly for deleting. A simple google search using www.google.fr rather than the English langauge versions turns up 2090 hits. Clearly, not all will be relevant, but the third item listed (http://www.cinema-francais.fr/les_acteurs/acteurs_d/dorleac_maurice.htm) reveals that Maurice Dorléac appeared in 32 feature films between 1938 and 1976, which in itself solves the notability problem (and is a good source). Room here for someone to improve the article, but absolutely no reason to delete. Emeraude (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic black metal[edit]

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

Riddled with original research, barely any sources supporting claims of such a genre even existing. If it does exist, it's little more than a neologism. The 'bands' listed are clearly nothing more than a parody (and one even has the claim that it's from not Germany, but Nazi Germany). A non-existent genre. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with black metal. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hardly a neologism, it's existed for about 11 years. Most of the bands listed have actual demos available, and some even have releases on records labels (Impaled Northern Moonforest for example). If you'd bother to do a little research, you'd realize that it's a small, but active musical community. Just head on over to http://www.acousticblackmetal.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.67.149 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if it's apparently existed from 11 years, it's so underground and unheard of that getting enough sources to verify its importance is difficult. There are links, sure, but I seriously doubt that they express that it has any real world notability ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what other editors have stated.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NSR77 TC 02:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very strange. – "Casio keyboards are popular with ABM musicians because of the low sound quality..." (←hahaha!!!) Cannibaloki 20:05, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of food venues in Bangkok[edit]

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

Appears to be an arbitrary list of various Bangkok districts and neighbourhoods, half of which are red links, with no discussion of significance, popularity or notability. Does not provide navigational aid, and hardly any encyclopaedic information. Even if the list is expanded, the result would likely be a huge directory listing where every type of restaurant is found in the city. Likely violates WP:NOTDIR Paul_012 (talk) 16:32, 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. Black Kite 20:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Populationist[edit]

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

Not notable. Original author is a single purpose account (SPA) that has created a whole circle of articles to create the illusion of notability, which are all included in this AFD. No citations, new terms (NEO), etc. I have already trimmed out all the dupicate external links and the multitude of vague SEE ALSOs, but in the end, I just don't this passing policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Although I've been on Wikipedia a long time I'm not on it enough to be familiar with this AFD or where I'm supposed to respond - the instructions for response to AFD are not at all clear so I would appreciate some guidance if this edit is not appropriate. 2. My entries were not an attempt to create any kind of "circular" link to imitate notoriety or "advertise" - populationist, Wilderness Defense!, and those issues in general are very much related. Wendell, himself, was a Colorado activist of some notoriety due to his involvement in regional controversies related to the environment. Additionally, he's currently heard throughout much of Colorado on his own radio broadcasts at KGNU. 3. Wilderness Defense! was a Colorado nonprofit/charitable corporation that was formally and legally dissolved sometime in the early 2000s - it would seem fitting that information regarding its past existence, history and philosophy, remain accessible through Wikipedia. 5. In my entries I believed I had "sourced" most of this with links to each major subject or website. I would appreciate your guidance (or just a couple of examples!) on how better to source and reference each if what I've already entered doesn't meet with your satisfaction.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaKaySmith (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable walled garden. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable term, with vague definition and trying to tie together disparate ideas. Third party independant sources are needed to show notability: the links to the homepages show it is verifiable (ie, it exists) but not that it is important beyond this circle. Papers from sociological journals using the term would be ideal, and national newspaper articles about the people or organisation. The creator sounds in good faith, so maybe userfy, if he want more time to find sources.Yobmod (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I redirected one of the 2 articles that had identical content, keeping the one with more external links for convenience.12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. I have counted "transwiki" as "delete" for the purpose of this closure as anyone !voting to transwiki (other than Super Shy Guy Bros.) implicitly does not want the article on Wikipedia. If anyone actually wants the article content for the purpose of a transwiki, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game slang[edit]

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

Not sure what the purpose of this list is. Much of it is a horribly sourced fork of Video_game_culture#Slang_and_terminology, and doesn't even cover exclusive slang. We aren't a dictionary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Can't believe I am saying Keep as I went expecting garbage figuring this would be as easy delete, but it is actually well sourced and "encyclopedic". I checked, and it isn't a copy paste of the source articles. The only reason I lean keep is that it is basically a "language" and this article sticks to its purpose of quickly explaining what the expressions mean. Taken individually, I would agree that WP:DICDEF applies, but this isn't an AFD about a single term, it is about the LIST of the term. It is notable, sourced, concise, and well organized. It is also a few things that don't matter in an AFD such as useful and informative. Regardless of any narrow reading of other policies, as a group of terms, they notable and worth including. As a group, the concept of the article is valid. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with much of what Pharmboy said. The article is indeed well-referenced, and well-organized. However, it is a collection of dicdefs, and I'm not entirely convinced that being a list of dictionary definitions rather than a single term excludes it from violating WP:DICDEF. I'm also not sure what the purpose of the article is, and it is only borderline-encyclopedic. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of what pushed me from Neutral to Keep was WP:IAR and WP:NOT#PAPER. I can see it is a borderline case, so I kinda have to lean to keep something useful (yes, I know, not a valid argument in an AFD) when it doesn't absolutely offend the policies here. Besides, I haven't gotten to invoke IAR in forever ;) When all is said and done, I asked myself "is Wikipedia better with this article or without it" (via IAR) and the answer was clearly with. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're someone doing research on gaming culture, and you don't know what these terms mean, and even what some other terms of the culture are, this is an good base point with references. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of the references are to a forum posting, and thus not reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary. That said, these terms should be brought into the core gerne/gameplay articles, as all these terms should be redirections to the right place. I understand the intent to keep, but this is a clear case of where we should not go. --MASEM 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • continued notes on the sources: I removed all the forum posts refs, which all linked to the same post. The remaining three (albeit duplicated references): one is a copy of wikipedia, one is a glossary on a parents gaming site and then there are the official ESRB pages. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it's notable, people. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a repository for fad-slang terms. I have also removed the nationmaster.com references. Nationmaster.com clearly copies its contents from Wikipedia (look at the cleanup template at the top of the referred article) without proper accreditation. Per WP:SPS, these references are not accepted. The links from theocp.com are also questionable. It is a project to present The History of Computing, and in its infancy. In short, it is a work very much in progress and we should be concerned if their current information are accurate (the referred page lists a Reference section without references). Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix, per what eventually happened to fighting game terms (now here). Nifboy (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia. Meep meep. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition many of the sources are questionable. On the other hand, this is why we have Wiktionary. TallNapoleon (talk)
  • indifferent: If it bothers you that much, merge it with the video game culture article. I think that's a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just it though; if any part of this list was found in an actual article, it would probably be removed on sight per WP:DICDEF. Nifboy (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. We are not a dictionary indeed. RFerreira (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate. Makes no effort to distinguish between slang, jargon, and terminology... let alone game industry, game playing, and game design slang. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps another article with a discriminate list of terms would be appropriate, but not this one -- not in this scope. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit: How about this: Instead of deleting the whole article, how about we delete the definitions, and leave the words. That way, people ignorant of video game culture will see that these words have definitions exclusive to the gaming community, and then can the definitions up elsewhere. It won't be a dictionary, then, because a dictionary, by definition, has definitions (no pun intended). Can we compromise on that, so that all my hard work doesn't go to waste?Dstebbins (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It fits better there, and the content will not be lost. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki - I don't see anything wrong with keeping the article within Wikipedia, but I suppose a transwiki to Wiktionary will do. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:HARMLESS, which documents other arguments to be avoided during these discussions as well. Cheers, RFerreira (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a specialized lexicon, and is an encyclopedic subsection of Video game or Video game culture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"AI", "bug", "Crash", and "developer" are hardly specialized lexicon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but "God game", "Sandbox", and "Turn-based strategy" are. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nifboy. This is more Wiktionary-type material. Spellcast (talk) 22:54, 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 to List of Dragon Ball characters. BJTalk 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (Dragon Ball)[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Was merged to List of Dragon Ball characters[32] per a larger merge discussion, but it was felt that the merge was against consensus and demanded that the article be "properly" taken to AfD for "real consensus" so now doing so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, well it is very notable in the series.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Notable within the series, as the main villain, but not demonstratedly notable in the non-fictional world Wikipedia inhabits. If reception information can be found, I'll change to a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. Unlike the previous AfD, in which the nominating editor nominated the article mostly on the fact that the character died in the show, the nom actually makes a good reason to merge and into a better article. The character isn't notable outside of the series, and a huge chunk of the article is plot synopsis and a paragraph or two could reasonably fit in List of Dragon Ball characters. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Three points: (a) The character was a pretty major villain in the series, if I remember correctly. (b) The article is well written, relatively well sourced. (c) If you are going to delete this, why keep Pikachu and other similar articles? Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Pikachu has outside notability from the series. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede Pikachu was a bad choice. But look at all of the other Dragon Ball characters that have their own page. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And look at all of the ones that have been recently merged, and recognize that the merge discussions this article was part of was the first round of such discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I look around, I see that you are right. As long as all of the information is kept, I see no reason it should be merged. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reconsidering thanks to JJJ999's links....Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The article does not have any notability establishing real world information, so it does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Main villain of Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT (two series). There is many individual articles in Wikipedia of many villains in another anime/manga series. If there is a problem, the solution is clean-up not deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to have a clean up since June and there is no improvement.Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect without prejudice for unmerging if significant amounts of real-world development and reception are found and added to justify a spinout. Yes, Cell has significant in-universe notability, but all that matters for wikipedia is his real-world notability. Keep !voters keep failing to provide evidence of that. – sgeureka t•c 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant sourced information to List of Dragon Ball characters. Article hasn't improved much since the last afd, so a merger would be the best option. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell should be deleted because he is really only known for the Cell Games and we all know how bad those were. He's just made up of different cells and isn't even real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZFAN88 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. Neither is any other character in the Dragon Ball universe. None of them are real. JuJube (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per eveyone, unfortunately this article had its chance. JuJube (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i would have chosen to keep this one as sufficiently important, sufficiently distinctive, and sufficiently documented. DGG (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Survived AFD with a keep decision only a few months ago. Too soon for renomination. And the fact it hasn't been cleaned up in a few months is irrelevant. Show me the Wikipedia policy that indicates a time limit exists on such things (WP:BLP issues notwithstanding, which I doubt exist with a fictional character). 23skidoo (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All the arguments for keep seems to be "he's an important character in the anime!", and not addressing the reasons why this article was nominated in the first place. As Quasirandom says, it needs to be "notable in the non-fictional world Wikipedia inhabits". -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fails to demonstrate notability as only primary sources or sources of questionable reliability have been found. Does not seem to have sources for real world context necessary for satisfying WP:PLOT. Jay32183 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- what has changed since the strong keep AfD only a few months ago? Nothing. This is premature and bad form from a determined article killer on this subject matter. It is unsurprising every AfD you make has been killed, and it is also unsurprising you failed to notify the merge discussions as to your actions here. You're supposed to allow the merge discussion you initiated to finish before running off to do an AfD while everyone waits in good faith for you to reply to the discussion on the "list of characters" for DBZ page. This is really low, but what can I expect given your past on this...JJJ999 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE- in case anyone is wondering, he's pulled the same trick for Tien, nominating it for an AfD again after only a few months.JJJ999 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been 4, not two, and what has changed is nothing. No sources have been found since that first AfD, in which three editors said merge and another accepted merge over delete. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those are not sources in any sense of the word, and you can't even claim they have real content because it is obvious you don't actually own any of those books are are mostly just guessing based on the Google Book search results - never mind that "cell" refers to an extremely common term in the animation world. The first two are DBZ guides = meaning non-third party sources. The third lists an actor's list of roles, and nothing more. It is not a discussion of Cell as a "notable" character. The fourth is a DBZ game guide, again not a secondary source. The fifth lists DBZ in a lists of books. Please point to the actual discussion on Cell. You have no idea if the sixth has a discussion of cell on it. It isn't searchable. It has a section on DBZ. If you don't own the book, you can't say it has a anything but just his name. Ditto the last source. The results of the search are not viewable so you are just guessing that it has anything more than his name in it and that said name is said in connection with DBZ. The manga selling hundreds of millions of copies does NOT make him notable, it makes the manga notable. Ditto the sales. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To call guides to DBZ a "non-3rd party source" when it is not actually published by the owners of DBZ, is simply to distort the meaning of 3rd party. It's like calling a political TV show "non-independent" when it discusses politics, because it is designed to cover politics, or saying a biography of John McCain wouldn't show notability. It does when it's published by an independent source. Pojo is not the owner of DBZ, so his book is independent. It sells alot too. Glancing over the sources it is obvious they are (with one exception) by independent publishing companies, not Viz, so they are independent. Yes, the subject matter that the independent publishing company has chosen to publish the book on is dragonball, because they deem dragonball to be notable. Cell is so notable he is not only in the content, but appears on the cover of at least one of the books. Nor are the references I made about "cells" in animation, they are clearly about "cell" the person, which when you look over them becomes obvious. You dismiss Cell in all of them, but you have not read the sources, and you make it clear you have no interest in reading them.JJJ999 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 'Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television' ref. That is even a '3rd party source' by AnmaFinotera's definition.Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you did take a look at that reference, right? It does not discuss the character of Cell, it is listing roles voice actors have played. It does not, as is claimed above, call Cell a "notable" role, even. It is simply noting that Dameon Clarke voiced "Cell, adult Gohan, Killah," etc. in the DB series and gives a brief note about what DB is. That's it. That is not significant coverage of the character, that's note even significant coverage for the voice actor, just a confirmation for roles he played. It is a confirmation that Clarke did the role, but that isn't really needed as the primary source, the dub, already does that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-note- removed one source I messed up.JJJ999 (talk) 06:44, 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 Don't delete. Whether and where to merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tien Shinhan[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Was merged to List of Dragon Ball characters[33] per a larger merge discussion, but it was felt that the merge was against consensus and one demanded that the article be "properly" taken to AfD for "real consensus" so now doing so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The source in the Reception section describing the character as a "fan favorite" is suggestive that more can be found. I'm not immediately finding it on a cursory search, but I'll withhold !voting pending further research. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that source is from a fansite and certainly not a reliable source. It probably shouldn't even be linked to at all considering the amount of illegal copyrighted material on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - seems like there is not enough real world data available. In fact, it doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:WAF at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Until reception information coming from reliable sources is added.Tintor2 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tien should be deleted because nobody who doesn't live in Japan really cares about him. And people only like him because he beat Goku in the tournament, but that was only because Goku got hit by a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZFAN88 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Dragon Ball articles in general had their chance to demonstrate notability, other than the obvious characters (Goku et al.) none of them really have. And DBZFAN88 needs to stop posting nonsense. JuJube (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Further searching is finding nothing even not-really-reliable like the one source I mentioned above -- notability not demonstrated, so merge it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep: Logical_Premise's sources, supplimented by the one reliable source mentioned by JJJ999m, sufficiently demonstrate notability. If these, or sources like them, had given been before the vitrol, this would have been a much politer discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it looks like we've got a verification issue with those sources that swayed me. Retracting my !vote till this gets sorted out. If verification fails, I'll return to my original merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, with about zero effort I found a nytimes article. There are also clearly books on the subject matter. Lastly a main character from a book that sells hundreds of millions of copies, is marketed en masse with action figures, videos, etc, is obviously notable. With time and effort do you really doubt sources could be found, especially by those who have better access to Japanese sources? A merge makes no sense, especially as information can't be added to a redirect!JJJ999 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times reference is a skeleton summary of a Dragon Ball episode that has nothing more than Tien's name in the title. That is not significant coverage, which is required per WP:NOTE. There has been no notability asserted, and if it was easy to find, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. And your comment about the merge is nonsense, as the material would be merged into List of Dragon Ball characters and then the page would be turned into a redirect. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Sephiroth says: the New York Times link doesn't establish the notability of the character. Hits in themselves are not enough -- they have to be quality hits. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and condemnation of Collectonian and his posse. I am going to report this to several mods. You did not even notify the talk page where discussion is ongoing as to this article, and where consensus is in favour of keeping it. It's yet another submarine edit. The arguments for it's noteability have been covered long ago, and every time Lord S does this, he's hit down. He was hit down on Cell in AfDs, he was hit down on Krillin, Roshi, Bulma, and now he's trying to subvert the discussion he started, just because it didn't go his way. Disgusting.
Cell is alot less notable than Tien, who has been around for 32 books in the Manga, and is a feature character in a series that has sold hundreds of millions of copies. Here's how the Cell vote went (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cell_(Dragon_Ball) This one should be even clearer, and frankly if you had notified the talk page it already would be. The claim there are no real world sources for Tien is insane, and shows you aren't even interested in trying. The millions of G-hits he gets is the first clue, the application of common sense is another. He is not notable in the sense that G.Bush is notable, but he clearly meets the notability for a fictional wikipedia character. I am reminded of the argument Viperix posted here which you never got back to about, which showed you didn't even understand what OR is or how it works(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muten_Roshi)

There is stuff like this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1168073/ that is effortlessly found with a google search, or this http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dragon_ball_tien_shinhan_box_set/, or http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Ball-Fortune-Teller-Shinhan/dp/B0019AGF2M, or http://www.tv.com/dragon-ball/tiens-atonement/episode/243813/summary.html or http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=459698&site_id=4&site_media_id=2 or http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/301819/DragonBall-Yamcha-vs-Tien/overview, and that's without even trying. I suppose the NYtimes and such isn't "notable". you guys are wilfully blind to the guy with millions of google hits. He also pushes misleading searches- stuff can be found using the slightest variation on his words here; http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&q=%22Tien%22+dbz and here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tien%22+dragonball but Lord S doesn't do searches that might reveal info, he does the ones that won't, also evidenced here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tien%22+dbz , so with the merest of effort many sources can be found. These guys just don't want to find them. there are even some for scholar! http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Tien%22+dbz Assumedly with all these new sources, he'll change his mind. But he won't, because he is committed to deleting all DBZ pages, no matter what sources are found. If I can so easily find NYtimes articles and movie reviews and multiple novels about the subject matter, a subject matter that has sold hundreds of millions of books in one country alone, then it becomes absurd to suggest such a pivotal character doesn't gain notabilityJJJ999 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a giant banner on the top of the article. If that isn't a notice, then I can't help you. And stop your threats of "reporting this to mods", as no administrator is going to do anything to aid you in the manner that you want. In any case, AfD supersedes any local consensus on the article, so it's irrelevant what the local editors think (who are welcome to comment on this AfD, although if you canvass, it will not be taken kindly). And per previous comments I've made with you, there is no notability asserted as Wikipedia treats it, and not your vague notion of importance. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to be condescending, but JJJ999, your efforts to "save" this article will be more effective by adding real-world information to the article than by getting into unfocused discussions in an AfD. By the way, IMDb, amazon reviews and tv.com are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. – sgeureka t•c 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources and searches I link to do establish it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs certainly do supercede the consensus, but only someone of exceptional naivety could believe he had notified the talk page. I am going to notify interested parties myself since he has not done so. It is complete folly to believe that Lord shess and Collectionian haven't privately canvassed the merge voters, especially given the way previous discussions on these matters have gone (namely that they have consistently been defeated in AfDs and merge discussions). It is not "canvassing" to tell interested parties who should have been notified on the merge pages that Lord S and Coll are trying to circumvent it again. The "weight" the mod closing gives to this is up to them, I feel confident they will not allow you guys to circumvent againJJJ999 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All your edits are canvassing, as this is clearly not neutral, nor are your messages neutral in any fashion. Collectonian is not required by any means to advertise the AfD; the fact that there is an AfD is blatantly clear to anyone interested in the article. There is also zero evidence that Collectonian or Sesshomaru have canvassed anyone, and your lack of good faith here is rather disgusting. Note to closing administrator. Note the canvassing by JJJ999 to various editors: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you like, but those people have all been engaged in good faith editing and trying to get to consensus on the talk pages for weeks and months, and you have turned around and nominated it for an AfD without even mentioning as much on the merge discussion which you were losing. Canvassing implies that the majority and arguments aren't on my side. They are, and that's why these guys keep losing AfDs and merge discussions. They should have been notified.JJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much effort they put into the article is irrelevant. And no, canvassing does not imply anything about a "majority" or a "minority". Canvassing is specifically non-neutral messages to editors catered to a specific point of view, which you just did. If they wish to participate in the discussion, they are free to do so, but canvassing is not acceptable in any circumstances. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong, and I feel confident in the way the discussion will be seen in the end. Nobody was looking at Tien's user page, which is why there has been editing on the merge discussion in the last few days, but nobody had noticied this AfD, because people were discussing on a merge page on the list discussion, not on the Tien talk page, and the discussion had long moved past reading the content, and was now about upholding the consensus. The decision to not notify the merge discussion about your AfD is unfortunate to say the least.JJJ999 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...your logic is bogus. Anyone who is watching the talk page is watching the page itself, and thus would be fully aware of the AfD discussion. Ergo, anyone who has a vested interest in the page already knows about the AfD, and your messages are canvassing all the way. You've actually done yourself a disservice, as canvassed !votes are treated with much less weight by the closing administrator, but consensus as it stands appears to be fairly clear. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the talk page is on the list of character talk page, not the tien talk page. And also because the discussion was no longer about the content, because the consensus was for notability. The issue was upholding that. For Lord S to turn around without even telling the merge discussion (except the elements he likes privately perhaps), and to begin an AfD while people awaiting his response to the consensus against him, is inconsiderate to say the least. Notifying the people who don't know, but were involved in those discussions, is only good manners.JJJ999 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that someone editing the Dragon Ball articles doesn't have all of the related pages on their watchlist is laughable to say the least. And no, it's not "good manners" to place an obviously non-neutral message on ten or so editors pages of this AfD, it's canvassing. That you persist in your bad faith allegations against Sesshomaru with no corroborating evidence whatsoever is also rephrensible and rather repulsive. Even this is ignoring the obvious problem that you've provided absolutely nothing that aids the article in meeting WP:NOTE, and that you probably can better your cause by trying to find sources that have significant coverage rather than wrecking your credibility here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The practice of bypassing discussions to press your own view should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are more of a canvassed vote frankly given your past defending these 2. This is a notified vote of someone who was previously engaged in good faith editing and discussions, and who Lord Shes is trying to screw by bypassing. Do you really expect the closing admins to believe that it just is luck that only those who support these 2 were here for the first 2-3 days, when they are in the minority. Get realJJJ999 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to amaze me with your unsubstantiated statements. First, I cannot be a canvassed !vote because I was never informed of this discussion (I don't even have the page on my watchlist). Next, any closing administrator is going to see a swath of !votes that were garnered because you left a non-neutral message on their talk pages (to users you specifically know would !vote "keep" on the article), and more or less disregard them. That there !votes are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT opinions doesn't help your cause either. AfD is not counting heads, but rather considering arguments, and until you provide sources that assert notability, then you're not making any headway here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue, I notified whitearticwolf, and he's voted for merge. These people all needed to be informed because it is obvious you were sidelining themJJJ999 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ999, you better knock it off right now. Are you trying to incite me? I have not initiated any deletion discussions on Dragon Ball-related pages yet you keep trying to put me in the blame of it all. STOP IT NOW, and please, leave me alone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no more than repeated what I already said, plus the white wolf comment. If you are asking whether I believe you and Colleconian are tag teaming, obviously something is going on there, because you guys have posted back and forth on each others talk pages during this whole process, and you have a history of AfDing these articles (unsuccessfully), while Collectonian has a history of attempting to merge these articles (unsuccessfully). It pretty much speaks for itself.JJJ999 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not notable enough for a separate article. Don't let the number of non-primary sources fool you; many of them are unreliable and are used to source in-universe information that may as well be sourced from the mangas themselves. This AfD is also a perfect negative example of the fan enthusiasm that makes policy- and guideline-based discussions/negotiations on an article's talkpage impossible. – sgeureka t•c 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This character was a major villain and major character later on. Reliable sources could be found if one wants to find them. I will try do something on it, although some users are trying to stop it. SSJ 5 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How pathetic, people are thinking of merging this or deleting this. You forget that Tien Shinhan is one of the main and major characters of DBZ. Why don't you delete Yamcha all together, eh? How can you ever think of deleting it? It would be stupid to delete it, and even if you do, I'll just put it back on. Piccolo The Demon King (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what if you do? If it's a merge, you'll probably be reverted, and if it's a delete, it will just be WP:SALTed eventually in the event of repeated recreations. Besides, you didn't justify what we at Wikipedia believe to be demonstrative notability per WP:GNG. Oh btw, in case anyone didn't get this by these rebuttals, I !vote merge per WP:GNG. Sasuke9031 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed !vote. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilarious Keep - I love Anime AfD's, where people toss out all the common sense, WP:RS , and WP:CIVIL and go right for the vitriol. Okay, let's do this one by the numbers. I *hate* anime with a passion and even I know who Tien is, IIRC he used to be the Evil Bad Guy until he did a turn and became one of the gang, or something like that. There are sources found in "The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture (ISBN 0834803801, 9780834803800) on this particular character. It's mentioned again in "500 Manga Heroes" (ISBN 1843402343, 9781843402343) on pg 335 as "influential to the series" with a short entry on the character. And yet again in "Anime Explosion!: The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation" on page 60 and 61 with some details about the drawing and meanings of various outfits and what not. Now , the problem is that these sources aren't in some news story. You're not going to get major news coverage in most cases about this. But it's clearly notable to the genre, even if it's a bit hard to put sourcing together for it. I'd say keep it and everybody -- merge, delete, keep voters -- need to calm down, chill out, and relaaaaax. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I own Anime Explosion and Tien Shinhan is NOT mentioned on pages 60 and 61. Those pages discuss the attitude of sex in manga and then moves into talking about a monk from Konjaku Monogatri. There is nothing about Dragon Ball, nor this character there at all. In fact, Dragon Ball is only mentioned on three pages at all and NONE of those mentions are about this character. Others who actually own those other two books may want to check those sources...however 500 Manga Heroes and Villains is Google searchable, and it also does not support this character being in there, and checking the index of The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture shows nothing for Dragon Ball either. So...where did you find these sources exactly?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last time I checked, AfDs weren't votes. Just because a user's been notified of a discussion it doesn't make their opinions on the matter any less valid. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Without the necessary coverage in reliable sources, this does not need a separate article. TTN (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There isn't enough real world info for it. If someone can dig up information, then it can be added back. I honestly don't know why any report was left on my Talk page--I haven't been working on DB at all, either, except for some cleaning up the Yamcha article and putting in my vote for merges. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote. LogicalPremise found some perfectly good sources and was willing to show the links for their ISBNs. The question is whether or not the rest of the community will be willing to use these books to claim notability. I for one am convinsed, especially by the links. Changing to keep based on that. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my note above. At least one of those sources has been shown to be a false claim. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have been given, you guys continue to ignore it and clamour for a merge because you're determined to kill it against all evidence.JJJ999 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: these procedures of AfD are completely WRONG. Discussions regarding the merger of the characters' articles into the List of characters have not finished. You cannot ignore other discussions and begin a new one without finishing and getting consensus from the original one. You must not ignore what people in the Merge discussions have expressed. I will ask an admin to close this discussion with No Consensus as result as we have not finished the previous one yet. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct and the merge discussions were completely derailed with JJJ999 being the first to demand that the merged articles be taken to AfD and now he's claiming that's "submarine tactics" as well. If folks in the merge discussions want to express themselves, they can come here and do it...oh, wait, they all already have thanks to JJJ999's mass canvassing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is not a good way to approach other editors. Also, everyone has the right to express their opinion and vote. I have requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal, rather than asking the discussion to be closed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are insults and blatantly false accusations, but I don't see you chastising JJJ999. This isn't a vote, and anyone involved in the initial merge discussions WAS notified by JJJ999 per his canvassing efforts (as per an admin, he was canvassing), so there is nothing secret here at all. Nor is this discussion somehow invalidated by a merge discussion that stopped any real progress, nor does a talk page discussion supercede an AfD. It was very obvious those opposing the merge were not basing their discussions in actual policy and guidelines, but their preferences for the character and his role in the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without waiting for the results of this AfD, Lord Opeth has opened an informal mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Tien Shinhan about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a hilarious post from someone who hasn't even waited for the merge discussion that they initiated to end before AfDing without notice. At least the mediation process doesn't require consensus, meaning his lack of notification (which he in fact gave above) would be meaningless.JJJ999 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Look, the "notability" JJJ thinks he's asserted is a bunch of Google hits to fansites and completely unrelated shit that doesn't do anything for the article. I understand that you're angry that we don't want an article on a character as worthless as Tien, but don't try to worm your way out of things by claiming that it's a capitalist plot and Sephiroth and Collectonian are out to get you. Wikipedia is not the Matrix, and even if it was it wouldn't change the fact that no matter how many "keep" votes you get your friends to post on here, it won't change the fact that the article fails all WP:FICT guidelines and by definition must be merged. Suigetsu 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • and people have criticised me for being too offensive. Talk about a partisan who hasn't been following the discussions to date.JJJ999 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3 things:
1. Ad hominem attacks suck
2. You haven't provided notability
3. Have a nice day Suigetsu 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 thing- read. That is all.JJJ999 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not notability. Most of them don't even have anything to do with Tien. The only other thing you've said of value is that you want the Mediation Cabal to somehow make WP:NOTE and WP:VERI disappear. Sorry, but that won't happen, and it doesn't matter how soon or late the AFD started, either. There is no "due process," if there is some question as to whether or not the article has enough notability you make an AFD and discuss, if there is no notability at all you freaking merge it. BUT IT'S OKAY, because as you claim, you've done nothing but "repeat yourself" and canvass people who don't understand how Wikipedia works -- not unlike yourself -- and think that you can actually save the article by attempting to convince people that your little articles have not been given "due process" or whatever. Suigetsu 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is going on with this discussion? Now it's decayed purely into a place for personal attacks. People should just calm down and actually make valid arguments ABOUT THE AfD. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ turned it into a flame fest when he realized he couldn't win arguing on WP:NOTE alone, and promptly changed his arguments from that to "it's a conspiracy, seshomaru sephiroth and colectonian are out to get me, the mediation cabal will surely negate WP:NOTE for me." Suigetsu 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussions. Finger-pointing doesn't help either. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer I lie and say it's Collectonian's fault for wishing to merge/delete an article that fails notability? Either way, "valid arguments about the AFD" (god forbid we talk about the AFD on the AFD page, you know) don't seem to matter any more, since the discussion seems to have shifted to the Mediation Cabal case page. Or something like that. Suigetsu 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that there's no point in finger-pointing. I can read and I know who started what, so there's no point in emphasising. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is here, and not at the Mediation page, since there's still no mediator, and that the mediation is on a slightly different issue. I'm currently waiting on the verifiability of the above books before giving my !vote; verification by someone who has the book and can say which part of the book explicitly gives notability to this character -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian already did that, I think. Suigetsu 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One has already been unverified (I can scan in all of the pages discussing DB if desired). As the original noted as not replied to the concerns, I'm inclined to disbelieve the other two. I can check the 500 Manga Heroes if desired, but I've looked at it before and found it a fairly useless source for most characters as it mostly just gives a short summary of their role in a series and often with mistakes. It rarely says "why" they are a top character. I've asked at the Anime and manga project to see if anyone has either book, though, to see if the information can actually be confirmed. If there isn't an answer within 24 hours, the local university library has the The Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture and I can go check it as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Please let us know of any results. I believe the result of this discussion will depend heavily on what can or cannot be verified by these two books, which are claimed to provide notability. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm heading to Barnes and Noble tomorrow to pick up D. Gray-man tankoubon, and they have the 500 Manga Heroes book. I'll check in it and see if there's anything worth mentioning. Suigetsu 02:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article as a good enough amount of reception and there is even more other media and popular culture appearances that haven't been put on yet. - SuperTiencha (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. BJTalk 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goten[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Was merged to List of Dragon Ball characters[46], but two editors felt this was done against consensus and one demanded that the article be "properly" taken to AfD for "real consensus" so now doing so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters -- I didn't find material to support the character's independent notability during the merge discussion, and I'm not finding it now. Do not delete, because plausible search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this is not the forum for merger discussions, they should take place on the talk page of said article. Not enough notability to warrant an individual article. – Toon(talk) 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that we agree...but other editors feel that merging without an AfD is "stealth deletion" so here we be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notifying people who are in the middle of a good faith merge discussion (which you started) that you have abandoned the discussion they are waiting for you to reply to, and nominated it for an AfD is a stealth deletion.JJJ999 (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stealth about it, nor is there any requirement to put a notice on the list page in a dead merge discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the best thing to avoid the content being completely lost. The character appears to have no outside notability, but he is important within the DB universe and content about him must not be removed for a better comprehension of the topic, so the best thing it to have a good section in the List of characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notability is just a guideline, not a rule (and a breathtakingly stupid guideline, at that). There is more than enough information here to justify the full article. Thanos6 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom. The character didn't have as much a role in the series as the others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goten should be deleted because I always liked Trunks better anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZFAN88 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That alone is not sufficient enough for constructive consensus. Sorry... Anyway, I myself say Merge to said list. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DBZFAN88, please stop posting nonsense. JuJube (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is important in these merges that content not be lost, but this was a good merge, done properly. If the content is preserved, and the combination article does not get too long, i don't see that it make much of a difference. I think its time we realised we need a method of determining these merges and redirects beyond the inadequate one of using the talk pages, and the inappropriate one of using AfD. Maybe WP:RM can be turned into a place for discussion. DGG (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not a character with enough real-world relevance for its own article. JuJube (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me Jube, how do your votes on DBZ match up with your vote for Baby face in Batman TAS?JJJ999 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I don't feel as strongly about Goten, my instinct is keep, and I believe good sources could be added. However it won't be by me anytime soon. What is annoying is the lack of notice for any of these AfDs after good faith merger discussions were started, and where people are still waiting for further discussion. Collectonian and Lord S started these discussions, were eagerly using them to merge articles, and while people await in good faith their replies they have done these AfDs. It's not acceptable really.JJJ999 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. Does not meet notability guidelines on its own. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source for Goten here; http://books.google.com/books?id=EbWPyAm0E_8C&pg=PA32&dq=cell+dragonball&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U2YChjRNC3fjYALiZh0ffUse9t37g

I suggest more could be found quite easily. But of course, most people here aren't interested in reading the sources, since they've predetermined they want to kill the character.JJJ999 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no actual evidence. Unable to provide a page number or quotes, showing you have no idea at all if the book actually discusses him with any depth. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that source is a book named "500 Manga Heroes and Villains" - not soley about the character, which would be fine if it covered the subject in depth, but the link shows a page and a bit of text about three different characters - that's what, a little over a third of a page in an entire book (of 352 pages) coverage. That doesn't support a keep !vote. Your argument will be stronger if you can actually demonstrate to us that the subject has been subject of significant coverage, instead of suggesting that some could be easily found, and insulting people involved in the debate. – Toon(talk) 00:22, 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. BJTalk 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain characters[edit]

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

The subject named by this article has no international criteria or finite scope, and furthermore is chronically unsourced and orphaned.

The laws determining what is in the public domain vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, including "everything" (Afghanistan), "works by people who died over 50 years ago" (Canada), "works by people who died over 70 years ago" (EU), "works by people who died before 1928" (Mexico), and "works created before 1923 plus those failing paperwork requirements" (USA). The country of origin is not helpful in determining which rule to apply for a given work, because it is not relevant under international law. So there's no single standard for Wikipedia to apply to this list. For a work which is in the public domain in a given jurisdiction, every character in it might be listed, and the works in question stretch into the ancient past (and into debates about historical figure vs. fictional character). Additionally, this article has lain unreferenced and orphaned for far too long to expect these problems to be resolved. Because of the nature of copyright law, there are usually no sources to cite for any given character, unless the question has gone to trial somewhere (and there again we have jurisdiction limitations). It's unmaintained because it's unmaintainable. It'd be a worthy project for a site which doesn't have to abide by WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BIAS, but doesn't work as a Wikipedia article. -JasonAQuest (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I recognise the potential usefulness of such a list to some, I fear that being unsourced, it could lead people to infringe copyright etc. Since WP:V is one of the big 3, and this case presents such a good example for just why verifiability is important, I think this must go. – Toon(talk) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JasonAQuest's points are enough to show why a "list of public domain works of fiction" would be impossible. A "list of public domain characters" is even worse, since it can't account for characters who are strongly associated with works inside and outside the public domain (for example, Sherlock Holmes in the US). People looking for preexisting characters for use in an original work of fiction would do better to start by looking at Category:19th century novels and the like. EALacey (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is crawling with [citation needed] and has been since at least February. [citation needed]. I think this article consists of the assumption that since these are characters created long ago, and that therefore they are "in the public domain". But I wouldn't rely upon this article to determine whether I could have free use of a character. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [citation needed][reply]
    • To be fair, the article was created with more research than that, but the research is mostly Original, and the rest of it is also US-centric. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree. Owing to the nature of Wikipedia, it would be impossible to maintain an article of this nature that would not run into issues involving different laws. I could see, perhaps, separate articles on different countries. But the problem is copyright rules change from time to time. Didn't the US recently add a bunch more decades to the copyright term, for example? 23skidoo (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the complicated legal issues, this list could run into the hundreds of thousands and can never be complete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland)[edit]

Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, regional event with only 300 participants. jergen (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This event is notable, mainly to mark the 100 years since the first Scout Camp after Scouting started in the UK. It is now sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable event - marked the centenary of the birth of Scouts and an crucial point in history. Also brought about a continuing development model for allowing access to activities - must be recorded! --Porlhews (Discussion) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable event - reasons given on talk page. NOT regional - INTERNATIONAL. Marking centenary of First Scout Camp. Attended by members of WOSM and WFIS. Attended by members of both main Scout associations in the UK. Was externally sourced prior to deletion demand. Number of participants surely not relevant unless Jergen is proposing we delete Brownsea and Carr Edge 1907 as well? (Apologies for sarcasm...) DiverScout (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Sole for the number of participants, the Camps on Brownsea 1907 and in Carr Edge 1908 would not be notable; they are notable because of their historical impact - but I do not see the historical dimension of this event. Camps with three hundred participants are organized every weekend through the world (I attended three of that size during the last three weeks), participants from different organizations are not that particular outside the UK, regional media coverage is normal... So what? This was a small camp with half the expected participants, mainly from the region, and it had no impact on the British Scout movement. If it were the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA, it could gaine historical significance; but this can not be judged right now. --jergen (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:In a country where a senior member of one Scout Association refers, on public record, to the other Scout Association as "a dissident organisation" (see reference 7 on main article), an independent Jamboree that brings elements of the two together is certainly notable. It has been reported on nationally on the television, and internationally in the press. The main notability for this event, though, is that it was the major event celebrating the centenary of the first official Scout Camp held by Baden-Powell. This, in itself, is notable. DiverScout (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    "I do not see the historical dimension of this event" - time will prove the historical dimension to this event, that is exactly why it must be recorded now!
    Jergen's main point seems to be the size of the event - this seems to show a lack of appreciation for history. Small acorns leading to mighty oaks as Baden Powell fameously wrote. If Jergen's point stands then the majority of Wikipedia needs to be removed - Sellafield railway station is an obvious example that the "Random Article" feature brings to mind.
    As Jegen says, as this was a significant as it was "the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA" and as such may gain "historical significance". Whilst the offer was apparently controversal, it was taken up by a number of WOSM and SA members. See the 147 posts discussing Jamboree 2008 and the BPSA on the popular Escouts Forum for further discussion proving this event's significance.
    Porlhews (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porlhews (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep. The article needs more work, but is not irredeemable. More reliable sources have been added and the citations have been cleaned up so that they are more recognizable. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary Sources (Specific issue cited for this article)[edit]

Although some of the news entries had been deleted before I could link to them, there are now several reliable tertiary sources added to this article, in both the UK and Portugal. Hexham Courant (Northumberland, UK), Lynn News (Norfolk, UK), Primeira Mão (Portugal), Maia Hoje (Portugal), Awards for All, WFIS, a Scout Association County newsletter and an entry from the Northumberland National Park.

The first four appear to be good sources; the others are more primary, but helpful. If you still have the links to the online articles that were deleted, list them on the talk page an we will see if we can recover them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this meets the requirements in terms of referenced tertiary sources needed for a Wikipedia article? Please compare this to Jamboree 2008 (Ireland) (noted as needing extra sources on 1st August 2008, but not placed AfD) or 21st World Scout Jamboree (all bar one entry appear to be non-tertiary, and the tertiary source is regional media (see above)). DiverScout (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles have problems, then they will be dealt with as needed; we need to focus on this article in its own context; see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can trace the old articles. I agree that we do have to look at this on its own merit (which I maintain it has!), but the extra comment probably relates to the fact that I must confess that I'm still slightly "peeved" that this has been forced to be done through the AfD process, rather than the normal channels employed on other Scout articles! Also, as it says on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists; "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." DiverScout (talk) 13:26, 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) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaha Harvest Festival[edit]

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

Declined G11, but still asserted to be a non-notable festival. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable festival and a very spammy article indeed ("A toe-tappin', cider-sippin' fun-for-everyone Arts Festival!")    SIS  15:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The expression "A toe-tappin', cider-sippin' fun-for-everyone Arts Festival!" is a direct quotation, not editorializing. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I stand corrected. Doesn't make much difference to my views, though.    SIS  22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert and prove notability. The article is written like an advertisement, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does that amount to significant coverage? Most of them seem to be "the festival will take place on..." type announcements. – ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 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 Withdraw. Never mind, it does pass it. Notability is inherited in this case according to WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Paraskevas[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:49, 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. with consensus for merge, when a suitable target is found. BJTalk 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male abortion[edit]

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

I did a quick Google search for "male abortion", and I usually came up with "male abortion rights" and a lot of blog hits. More than a few repeat hits, and one or two hits of very old material. What we have here is essentially a notability problem. Male abortion seems to be a term that some men's rights groups use back and forth as a short hand for arguments about men's rights, father's rights, and male reproductive right's, all of which should be covered in those articles. The page does not assert notability for the term, and I can't find it either, so I think it should be deleted or merged.--Tznkai (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a notable term.    SIS  15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but if deleted, I suggest merging with Dubay v. Wells. Most (all?) writing about "male abortion" is about that case. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please define what makes a term "notable". Is this what determines wikipedia entries? Even if the term isn't "notable". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is at least a verifiable term that has been used in the past by a number of groups. I feel it is worth keeping. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fr33kman. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you already say you wanted it kept above? Perhaps you could put your comments together. It's a bit misleading otherwise.--Slp1 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refactored/reformatted for clarity--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- whilst certainly a controversial topic, it does have scholarly coverage; International Survey of Family Law, 2003,McCulley, Melanie G. (1998). "The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Obligation to the Unborn Child". Journal of Law and Policy: 1, 2.. It also has coverage within the academic community surrounding family social work and law; Independent think-tank on Child Support. It also has additional coverage within "society's conversation" (blogs, open content etc.); Mr. Men's RightsProfile AmericaVote.com which, of course are not good sources, but do show that the public is talking about it and does recognize the term "male abortion" as referring to a man's right to disenfranchise himself from a birth. It is also the recipient of press coverage Western CourierMilwaukee Journal SentinelNational Review Online. The topic is referenced in different cultures also; Jewish World Review Male abortion is also a term used within population studies and medicine to denote a possible trend in some countries towards the aborting of males in favour of trying for female births. As such, regardless of opinion on the merits of the topic, it should be kept as a topic worthy of inclusion. Further, the term "male abortion" is used within plant studies Plant study use of male abortion The references for this term are many and varied. fr33kman -s- 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be two uses of the term "male abortion". One is the meaning described in this article (the opinion that men should not have to pay child support of unwanted children). The other is abortion of male fetuses. Two two are completely unrelated, so I don't think one article can describe both. When searching for "male abortion" there are also many irrelevant hits like "male abortion doctors". --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there are many irrelevant hits, does not invalidate the many relevant hits. Also, just because a topic is not liked, or is distasteful to some, does not mean it shouldn't be here. The term exists and is used in contemporary society and scholastic publications. fr33kman -s- 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. A non-notable term used in this context by some men's/father's rights activists mainly in the US. What is striking about it that even the activists themselves (and others) often enclose the term in inverted commas implying that it isn't an accepted term per se. Googlehits in web/books/scholar sections include multiple false positives, in part because of what Fr33kman refers to above: the term "male abortion" also means the selective abortion of males (often because of genetic disorders) or in plants, meaning that the term is highly ambiguous. Limiting the search by including the term "father" leads to only one (non-citation) hit in google books, (with the term in inverted commas again)[50], two in google scholar [51][52] (both also used in inverted commas), and googlenews only 11, with 4 in inverted commas.--Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that many false positives occur. Perhaps the article should be moved to "Male abortion (men's rights)" or some such similar? fr33kman -s- 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is not that there are many false positives, but there are very few true positives. I do not believe there is enough evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to make it notable enough for a stand-alone article (per WP:NOTABILITY) --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I got that, I just think that the number shown above, and there are more, show that there is contemporary research and thought that has been done on the topic. I have no personal opinion on the topic, but do feel that it passes WP:NN and is certainly not a neologism. So if its not a neologism and there is sufficient sources for it, news reports on it, books that contain it, and law journals that discuss it and contemporary society is actually discussing it; why should it not be here: because we find it distasteful? It certainly is not only discussed in "biased" sources, I've shown that above. It should be expanded however, that much is clear fr33kman -s- 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody has suggested that it is distasteful, have they? The arguments have been about notability, as far as I can see. The notability guidelines says we need to focus on reliable secondary sources, so the blogs/forums/webpages cannot influence the decision. (BTW, I would include the website you described as an independent think-tank[53] in this category. I can't see any evidence that this isn't just a personal website with a grand title [54].) To sum up, there was one article in a law journal "The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Obligation to the Unborn Child" that actually coined the phrase, an article has been cited by others. Other that that, there is only one book, two journals, and 11 newspapers (including several opinion columns) that mention the term, and more than half of them put the term in inverted commas. Not enough to make it notable enough for its own article, in my opinion.--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no body mentioned it as distasteful, that is an extrapolation on my part based on having read what is elsewhere on the subject in prep for commenting initially here; dangerous I know ;-). What number makes it notable? Does any number? What about borderline cases? Defining something by a number is dangerous (that's why we don't do "votes" here at Wikipedia, as you). Quality, not quantity? People are talking about this (blogs etc [and no, under NO circumstances are they reliable]) and reliable secondary sources can be found that also reference it. Just because they use inverted commas doesn't mean the term is superfluous or doesn't exist. It might just mean a personal opinion of the author? fr33kman -s- 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is, of course, no fixed number, and all we are asked for here is our personal opinions... mine is that it is not notable based on what I have found in reliable secondary sources, and you seem to have come to a different conclusion. C'est la vie. Others will add their thoughts and some poor admin will determine which arguments are the most convincing and decide accordingly. BTW, I agree that quality comes into it, and that is why I put such store in whether subjects are discussed in scholarly works and mainstream media, and in what depth. So far, what I have found is few mentions, very few in the higher quality sources, and the mentions are also often very brief.--Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make no judgements on male reproductive rights arguments or any of the rest, I think male abortion as a term doesn't pass muster to deserve its own article, but is more of a component of men's rights as a topic.--Tznkai (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus isn't to grant the term its own article, the term and all information should at least be moved to a subheading of a separate article. To delete the information entirely would seem to me like censorship simply because it is a small and controversial topic. I don't feel the information should be removed from wikipedia (relocated maybe), but not deleted. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge This article does have very good information, however, without major expansion, should be merged with the Men's Rights article. I would declare notability as being a serious stance of the men's rights movement, not by using ghits. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we are seeing a growing consensus for a merge. How about Paternal rights and abortion?--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is better than merge, but, I'd go for that. The term "male abortion" should be explained there, however, as it does enjoy some reliable usage. It should not be defined, but it should be explained. fr33kman -s- 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The term is not used sufficiently in this narrow context to entitle it to more than a place on a disambiguation page. The arguments belong as a subset of parental rights or even men's rights in respect of fetuses. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joke -- I saw a cartoon once. It shows a young couple, on an excursion. The young mom is looking at her watch, while she addresses a comment to the young dad, who is holding a baby. She says something like: "Gosh honey, I am sorry to hear you are tired of carrying junior, but, by my calculation you still have another eight months, three weeks and five days to go." Geo Swan (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Real term, needs references, and possibly a rename to something like male abortion rights, as suggested above. Geo Swan (talk) 08:45, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Alley[edit]

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

lacks any reliable sources to establish claim for notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A quick web search turned up quite a lot, including articles in Time Magazine[55] and at NASA[56]. The stub needs work, not deletion.   SIS  15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the NASA ref to the article.    SIS  15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, why didn't I think of that pun ;-)    SIS  22:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess puns weren't up your alley today.John Z (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable investigator. More does have to be added, including his major works--and, probably in this case--criticism of them. But the sources above are sufficient for t hat. DGG (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards weak delete. Somehow, after looking through the sources mentioned above I am not finding them quite sufficient for passing a notability case under either WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. For the latter, there seems to be fairly little evidence of passing the standard criteria of WP:ACADEMIC in terms of scientific impact or citability of his work by other scholars (GoogleScholar[57] and WoS give fairly little), nor are there significant academic awards, journal editorships or the like. There may be a passable WP:BIO case, but somehow I don't see it based on the references provided. The NASA, TIME and most googlenews and googlebooks references provide coverage that is mostly of fairly weak nature: as someone who relayed some information to somebody else, or performed some fairly technical (even if important technical) function in the Apollo project. The coverage never really seems to concentrate on him, and his sientific/engineering role in NASA is not described as sufficiently prominent (at least not IMO). One could, perhaps, make an argument that there is a multiple nontrivial coverage here which makes this pass WP:BIO, but I personally don't quite see it here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the principal source of notability comes from his being the lead investigator for the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. I think this experiment was well known enough and influential enough that this proves his scientific impact. That his (uncontroversial) contributions mainly precede the internet makes the usual tools a little suspect. For example, the NASA page used in Alley's article refers to Alley's history of the project, "Laser ranging to retro-reflectors on the Moon as a test of theories of gravity," published in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and Measurement Theory, Eds. P Meystre and M.O. Scully, Plenum Publishing (1982), but it does not appear in a google scholar or google book search on his name.John Z (talk) 19:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byss[edit]

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

No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. No reason whatsoever for this article not to fit in with the myriad other minor worlds and redirect to the Star Wars list of planets -- but User:GlassCobra has reverted redirect, so taking this to AfD to get this tripe erased and the redirect restored. --EEMIV (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Academy (Star Wars)[edit]

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

No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Entirely plot summary. A minor component within Star Wars, and wholly insignificant in the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appropriately placed spin off article, decently referenced. GlassCobra 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An interpretable non-canon Star Wars subject that also contains no inline citations, thus making this sort of article vulnerable to original research. Please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the Imperial Academy is notable (which this page does nothing to demonstrate), the current article is so in-universe it would have to be rewritten from scratch to be suitable for an encyclopaedia. The reader doesn't even learn who (in the real world) invented the Academy, or in which works of fiction it has appeared. EALacey (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source by giving the specific places in the works where the various statements come from. That's the proper sourcing. DGG (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The article is fairly cited, no reason to delete. Could do with a bit of a clean-up though. TheMoridian 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some tidying up, other than that there's no reason to delete. Walnutjk (talk) 21:49, 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.

Old German Sheperd Dog[edit]

The result was withdrawn ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no such breed of dog (taking into account that the title is spelt incorrectly) and would make an inappropriate redirect (to German Shepherd Dog).

There is no "Old German Shepherd" in that sense that it is a different breed of dog, just in the sense that the breed (like all other dog breeds) has changed over time (see also German_Shepherd_Dog#Modern_breed).

Also the idea that the "Old German Shepherd" had long fur is ludicrous. The original German Shepherd Dog (Horand von Grafrath) had short fur; a double, waterproof coat. The long haired variation of the German Shepherd is only a single-coat and not waterproof (often considered a fault).

That aside; no reliable sources to verify that it can considered a separate breed, factual inaccuracies that contradict the books I have on the breed and there isn't enough that could be said about the "old breed" to warrant its own article (really, they're not that different, just a few genetic defects as the result of poor breeding standards). ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Apart from the claimed lack of notability and reliable sources, I don't think the other reasons provided are grounds for deletion. The German Wikipedia has a corresponding article on the subject, and a google search for "Altdeutscher Schäferhund" gives 47,400 results. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, thanks for pointing that out. Deletion may not be appropriate, I may actually be able to rewrite it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I have been able to gather a reasonable amount of material. I was too hasty in listing this after I misinterpreted the subject of the article. Withdrawn. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 11:15, 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, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9000D[edit]

9000D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While not exactly a hoax (mathematically, the definition is correct), it is pretty clear that someone was trying to be funny and make a joke here. There is, of course, nothing any more special about dimension 9000 than about dimension 765,902,517. Even Wikipedia does not have enough space to have a separate article about every natural number. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Its a dictionary definition not an encyclopaedia article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparent dictionary definition of an apparently undiscussed topic. A Google search of "nine thousandth dimension" gives only the Wikipedia article no results. [58]. Guest9999 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial information. There is nothing special about having exactly 9000 dimensions. JIP | Talk 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my earlier PROD nomination, "Trivial. If this remains, I look forward to the appearance of articles 8999D, 8998D, 8997D, etc." The article is practically begging for someone to make a point. (This is not a threat: no such article is forthcoming from me.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's actually wrong: "the space consisting of all such locations" is not called "the nine thousandth dimension", it's called "a nine-thousand dimensional space." But even if corrected, it would be trivial. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters[edit]

List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does anyone have any idea what's the reason to have this article? They are already

  1. List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-)
  2. List of past Coronation Street characters (1990-1999)
  3. List of past Coronation Street characters (1980-1989)
  4. List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article and then delete the article. Ced 12:49, 5 Octobe 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ced, just copied my concerns written in the Talk Page of Wikipedia's Project Soap Opera. I still agree with the nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge where appropriate. Although the nom is a proven sockpuppet, it probably wont invalidate the AfD, and I think the cause is genuine enough, even though the nominator isn't. The article is unnecessary. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close on the grounds that the faith of the nominator is in question and there are accusations of sockpuppetry. Allowing an AFD to continue under such circumstances would set a bad precedent. No prejudice against the articles being renominated under different circumstances, but right now things have become too cloudy. Recommend this be closed ASAP and Magioladitis be invited to submit a fresh nomination, since it appears the concern may have originated with that editor. I'm reserving my comments re the actual articles for now. 23skidoo (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The other articles listed are for full-time characters. Don't give in to the rather childish behaviour of a sock puppet. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think once they leave, it matters little as to whether they were full or part-time, unless highly recognised and memorable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:21, 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 redirect to Weatherfield. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of residences in Weatherfield[edit]

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

I think this is original research and completely in-universe. Moreover, it depends of the "current status" of the characters, as seen in the last episode played on TV so fa [so this status is not valid for someone watching the series on VCR or dvd]. Magioladitis (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Weatherfield, where an overview of the residences (currently a list) may be appropriate. This unsourced list goes into excessive detail on a continuously changing plot point of the long running series, there is no real world context or information and it seems dubious that any could be added relating to the residences themselves, not the characters who "occupy" them (who have separate articles). Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Redirect or) Delete' per nom and Guest9999. Weatherfield does the job just fine and has a better potential to be written from a real-world perspective. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still quite new to Wikipedia and I'm glad that List of Residences in Weatherfield was a popular page with a lot of input. But to be honest, I only made the page for fun. I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to delete it. Cutekitten05 (talk) 17:11, 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 redirect to List of Power Rangers episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Quest[edit]

Ninja Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not see enough notability for this 4 part Power Rangers episode to have its own article on Wikipedia. Sure it is an episode of a notable television series but that is very insufficent as the notability of a television series does not mean the episodes of the series are notable. Mythdon (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: to List of Power Rangers episodes. The plot doesn't need to be merged to the episode list because none of the other episodes show the plot. Schuym1 (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Power Rangers episodes, as it is the article is a plot summary of the four episodes with little in the way of real world information or critical commentary. I think it's pretty unlikely that any reliable sources will be found for the topic, especially as - airing in 1995 - it predates the current age where everything that airs is given some sort of review on the internet somewhere. An expaned list with a brief summary of each episode such as this one might be appropriate and are generally acceptable as a complement to the main article on the series. Guest9999 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Power Rangers episodes and leave a note on the talkpage for future expansion. Article violates WP:NOT#PLOT, and as this is a pre-internet kid episode, it is unlikely that reviews exist in reliable sources to establish notability, but a short plot summary is alright for list of episodes. – sgeureka t•c 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm certainly no fan of every single episode of a TV series getting its own Wikipedia entry, but these episodes *are* very important to the show. Sadly, I'm not in a position to improve the article, but I think it would be a mistake to delete. It needs improving, not deleting. 82.32.184.190 (talk) 21:18, 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. per the added sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoDisc[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to a company of any particular note. neon white talk 11:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Business week article seems ok but it needs more to pass notability. --neon white talk 08:13, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 23:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacilando[edit]

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

It started as a DICDEF and has devolved into a debate-in-the-mainspace about what the word means. BJTalk 09:50, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakia and his Southern Cousins[edit]

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

Non notable band that falls a long way short of meeting WP:MUSIC. Even the winning of a local award is not backed up by the supplied reference Nuttah (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (not speedy - listed sixth in best new band category - claim of importance) I do not think that the level of reliable sourcing exists on which a verifiable article could be based, of the sources that appear in the article, one is an interview in a blog, one is a list on which they are placed sixth in the Austin music awards best new band category (with no additional information) and the other is a review on a site called Twangville, which even if it did count as a reliable source - with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - I'm not sure if it could be the basis of an article. Guest9999 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to him, I think Red Thunder is saying that even the sole notability claim doesn't stack up as verifiable. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 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) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet Resource Downloader[edit]

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

Non-notable software. BJTalk 09:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Tedickey (talk) 17:08, 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 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waltermart Santa Maria[edit]

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

Non-notable mall. BJTalk 09:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - try "Walter Mart" also. not much in addition, but seems different ppl spell it differently. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The search above picks up both versions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search and a search in the Philippine Daily Inquirer website turned up nothing.--Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More like a crystal-issue to me. Anyways, the first mall to be in Santa Maria is not as notable as the first mall in Asia.. it will only be notable if Waltermart Santa Maria will be built in golds or the such, but i doubt it. :) Yeah, I've made some clicks and no sources. Axxand (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real notability outside Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddavey (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being an unnotable mall, although Walter Marts do exist, there is one in Quezon City and another in Pasig. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sudan-related topics[edit]

List of Sudan-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is it just me, or is this way way way waaaaaaaaaaaaay too broad for a list? I don't see the value in such a loosely associated list of items and I'm pretty sure this fails WP:LIST too. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to WikiProject space. Irrelevant to have in article space. (PS there are many more) Punkmorten (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Portal:Sudan (it needs so much work). The topic is way to broad, there must be thousands of articles. If anyone is looking for a list of sudan related topics, try Category:Sudan. — ^.^ [citation needed] 11:29, 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, Cirt (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bad case of listcruft if I've ever seen one. Themfromspace (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wishes to improve Portal:Sudan they are more than welcome to do so, but this type of list does not belong in the main article space. RFerreira (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the majority of the portals on the front page contain links to pages like these. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We must have several hundred of these articles in Category:Topical indexes. They're navigational tools, and might be useful to people who don't like to use the categories (or aren't aware categories exist.) We should probably have a discussion about these pages in general before we start picking them off one by one. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many of those lists do not belong here either. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that it's worthy of inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, yeah, I knew someone would say that. I don't really feel that strongly about keeping these articles myself. However, I don't want to set a precedent for hundreds of deletions without a larger discussion about these articles. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree on the whole discussion thing, there are pages for nearly every country. RedThunder 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an established type of article. It should never have been nominated individually. I think the opinion at a general discussion will be very firmly for keeping these article. We are weak in navigational devices and should not destroy the ones we have. DGG (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close On preference I'd probably say delete as I don't really see the purpose of these pages when categories (in my opinion) do the same thing in a superior way. On the other hand the deletion of this article would either lead to the deletion of hundreds of others or the decision being overturned at deletion review, if the first occurs there needs to be a general discussion, if the second occurs this discussion isn't going to have an effect anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This list is a navigation aid. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Thyssen-Henne[edit]

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

This article appears to have been recreated, intact, after its earlier deletion for such flagrant abuses as this: "Despite her many different activities, Renate Thyssen-Henne has always been a caring mother and a committed head of the family. And of course her beloved dogs Jacky and Halifax are part of her close family." Obviously written by a publicist, employee, friend or family member of the subject, if not the subject herself.Wlegro (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Fixed malformed nom. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We still do bios of the Seriously Rich Folks, don't we? Obvious issues with the non-encyclopedic writing style, so get in there and fix it. Deleting these things on no grounds other than sheer jealousy has to wait until Year Zero. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after removing the PR. Sufficient social importance--for whatever reason-- to be notable. DGG (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andy Dingley is off base; attributing my problem with the article to "jealousy" is a slur and has nothing to do with the issue. The nomination has to do with the quality of the article, not the subject. She seems indeed accomplished in some way, famous both for her achievements and for "being famous." Whether she is notable enough to be in Wikipedia isn't my concern here and I offer no judgment on that; so many things that many might think are not notable are included in Wikipedia that it's impossible to set a standard. But a standard of quality of writing and information is possible, and this article falls far short. My "issue" with the non-encyclopedic writing style is something I picked up from much reading of Wikipedia and the great many objections and nominations for deletions, so that issue is a legitimate one. If Dingley can't do better in advocating a "keep" he should refrain because all he's done here is insult. My problem with the article is similar to those already noted in previous discussions. If Dingley thinks it's a keeper, he should be the one to rewrite it or contact the author and offer instructions on how to write a decent entry.Wlegro (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Setting aside both the lousy writing style and the tone and content of Andy Dingley's remarks, I think this individual seems pretty notable. She's done prominent work in business and charity, and is an active participant in a reasonably high-profile social scene. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is she notable? Every gnews return for her name appears to be about her daughter's marriage/divorce. Most of the early ghits look like wikipedia clones or blogs. If she's a notable philanthropist or business leader there should be something beyond this for coverage. Whole article reads like a press release. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:53, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:16, 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) 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 Jays[edit]

The 3 Jays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't really appear to be a notable band. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Goes On (The Article)[edit]

Life Goes On (The Article) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly, WP is not a news wire, so this article does not belong. The entire existence of this article is so that an assertion that Russian troops entered the Roki Tunnel on 7 August not 8 August. The mere fact that the article was pulled off the site and a correction made (like how uncommon is this in worldwide media!) is not reason enough for the nuttery and speculation that this is somehow a notable article. Not to mention it is a copyright infringement, as the images clearly infringe on the copyright of Krasnaya Zvezda, as the uploader has placed this into the public domain, even though the website states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a link and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws.") This article is an example of everything that WP is NOT. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry, I thought I had provided English translation. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.    SIS  23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment To understand why the editor has started this article, one needs to read Talk:Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war#August_7. Basically, some editors are using the date in the AfD'ed article, which was later retracted, as a source in the timeline article to put forward their contentious POV that Russia had entered South Ossetia before 8 August, although all evidence presented from all sides of the equation refutes this. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The copyvio (if it is one, I'm not 100% sure) can easily be solved without AfD, but WP:NOTNEWS is a different story.    SIS  23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Correct translation "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства" - "Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws." You have translated the word "ссылка" from Russian into "link" the correct translation is "reference". The wikipedia entry clearly identifies identifies the name of the author, and refers to the Krasnaya Zvezda as the original source of publication. If you think the link is critical, I will add the original link to the article. Would that satisfy your copyright concern?WH Coordinator (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake in regards to "reference", however, that only applies to the images which are in the WP article (meaning that they need to be properly licenced); it does not divert away from the WP article itself having zero notability and not being squarely against WP:NOTNEWS, and dare I say some original research to boot. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was noted in 2008 South Ossetia war and Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war entries. Please be more specific on WP:OR. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the article is marginally notable per "The New York Times" publication. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be notable enough as a subject of important controversy. The article was also covered in multiple 3rd party publications.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep as I am persuaded of its notability. Also I find the text in Template:PD-RU-exempt interesting, suggesting that news reports are not copyrightable under Russian law - not sure if this applies here. Regardless, if the material is truly public domain, it belongs elsewhere (like Wikisource) and not in the form of images on Wikipedia. Reswobslc (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it also talks about "official documents of state government agencies...", which Russian Ministry of Defense is. WH Coordinator (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Be careful, because it only talks about official documents, news articles are not official documents. Laws, decrees, etc are official documents. I was unable to convince on the use of Kremlin.ru photos under that same argument, instead I had to obtain official written permission allowing usage before that was able to be done. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - given that this article is about a russian newspaper, and the screenshots are all in russian, wouldn't it make better sense for this assumedly controvertial article to be in the russian wikipedia? I don't really see how many English speakers would find this notable (or undesrstandable). More than likely, and reader who would be interested in this controversy will more than likely be literate in Russian. The article itself seems relevant/notable to me, just not in the english wiki. Chaldor (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, in Russian Wikipedia it would also be relevant. The subject of the article, however, concerns international issue - a War Between Russia and Georgia, that is currently a subject of a worldwide interest, especially in the US where it is being frequently mentioned in the Presidential Debates. Depending on who you ask, some people think that the article was a mere hickup on a part of the newspaper of the record, while others think that this is an admission by Russian government of starting the war. It is this controversy that motivated me to post this article. WH Coordinator (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that the Wikipedia notability policy is universal. There is no such thing as notability only for certain languages. Either the content is notable or it is not, and if it is notable, then it is so on the English Wikipedia despite it being about an article written in Russian. Reswobslc (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The war is notable, one article about it is not, despite two paragraphs in the NYT. This issue can be covered adequately in one of the articles about the war.  Sandstein  08:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be done with the links in those articles that otherwise point to a non-existent page in Red Star? WH Coordinator (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Life Goes On" should be expanded. Its content is at the beginning and still in the centre of a current important controversy about presence of regular Russian troops in Georgia before a certain date in August 2008. It belongs to some unintentional sources which seem to point to another time line as one conflict partner asserts and should be added in this context too. Red Star's article and the circumstances leading to its notability and vanishing quasi post factum were and are not only topic in NYT but in different international newspapers and magazines too (as Germany's SPIEGEL, FAZ or Süddeutsche Zeitung) in the context of the Russian-Georgian War 2008. Elysander (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It needs to be noted again that this article was retracted by Krasnaya Zvezda, and a correction article published. This happens every day in the media world. Heaven forbid we should be editing articles of the various people who CNN and BBC have declared to have died, either thru their own mistakes and/or incorrect information; should we be editing the articles of those subjects and pushing the line that they are in fact dead, and of course, we should also be publishing those articles in their entireity as they were also picked up on by other media outlets. This is how the media world operates people. Articles and information gets published, is picked up on by other media outlets, and is then retracted. It happens how many times a day in the media world? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An important part of media war during the Russian invasion. The controversy surrounding this article has been reported in various international sources.--KoberTalk 17:00, 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. BJTalk 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlipStream Data[edit]

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

also included in this AfD: Propel Accelerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I recently deleted a newly created page twice under CSD G11. I received an email from the creator of that page asking why I deleted his article but not these articles. I looked at both of the pages, and neither is referenced and neither provides any assertion of notability.

I looked for info on Google but I could find no sources for either page. In addition, both of the pages are clearly written like advertisements. Apparently, these pages got passed over in Special:Newpages when they were created. No assertion of notability + spammy tone = delete.

tl;dr version: If I saw either of these pages while patrolling Special:Newpages, I would have CSD G11'ed both without hesitation. J.delanoygabsadds 06:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - per above. J.delanoygabsadds 06:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they're just ads. Agree with J.delanoy, would have CSD'd them both. Chaldor (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am a leader in the field of deleting spamming articles. Delete PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. If there turn out to be notable facts about this subsidiary of a notable company, they should be included in the RIM article. Bongomatic (talk) 06:04, 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) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De bene esse[edit]

De bene esse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Canis Lupus 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to the dictionary definition problem, this article may have been created to push a Sovereign Citizen Movement point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't see any POV pushing in that article.    SIS  21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From the day the article was created, there has been a quotation from "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona, All Rights Reserved without Prejudice" in the article. The use of a comma in the middle of a person's name and phrases such as "sui juris" and "without prejudice" with no clear referent are characteristic of the sovereign citizen movement. Since Wallen is not otherwise identified, I wonder about the inclusion of this person as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but I still don't see a POV being pushed. The article is a neutral explanation of the Latin phrase as far as I can tell.    SIS  23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dictionaries don't explain things this well (see this example[59]) and the article is well sourced. I fail to see the problem.    SIS  21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neptune5000 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On present state, this article appears to comprise a dictdef, together with a special pleading definition drawn from, and in the language of, sovereign citizen sources. It will be for wiser heads than I to decide if this meets Wiki-standards. IMHO, it does not. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The article could be merged into the Wiktionary version of this article, which seems like a better place for it. Neptune5000 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge with Wiktionary article. I finally understand, however, what Metropolitan90 meant by saying that the article may have been created with the intention of pushing a Sovereign Citizen Movement POV. The person "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona" signed the article upon its creation, and they could have aimed to push the POV by declaring that the citizen is allowed to refuse to submit him- or herself to the jurisdiction of the court, which is a right claimed by "sovereign citizens". However, I personally don't see an overt attempt to recruit "citizens". My reason for supporting the merge proposed by Neptune5000 is that, as Strikeout_Sister suggested, the Wiktionary definition for de bene esse is relatively poor in quality. We can thus choose either a good dictdef by merging this article into Wiktionary, or a mediocre dictdef and stub-class article by leaving them both as they are. What does have to go, though, is the reference to "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona, All Rights Reserved without Prejudice". That is original research, since editors cannot cite themselves. Not to mention that she can't have all rights reserved "without prejudice" because she released that information under the GNU licence by putting it on Wikipedia. Phlyght (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear to me that Wallen is the person who created this article. The username is not similar enough for me to conclude that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I assumed Wallen created the article because I don't see why anyone else would tag the article like that upon its creation. But even if Wallen is not the editor herself, Wallen cannot be cited as a source because they are identified as a citizen, not a publisher of a legal journal or an editor for a legal dictionary, but a citizen. Phlyght (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly agree that Wallen is not a reliable source and should not be cited in this article. The text cited to her appears to have been taken directly from this document, which appears to be a court filing she made on her own behalf and is far from a legal authority. In fact, in this later document, Wallen purports to, among other things, revoke her birth certificate. As to why someone other than Wallen herself would quote her as a source, all I can say is that it's called the sovereign citizen movement because there are people who believe this stuff and consider each other authorities on the law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about a legal concept, not a phrase, so WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 4 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is what this is for. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to link provided by Kickstart. Many of the terms there have several lines describing them. This could easily fit within that. Chaldor (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PbNation[edit]

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

Failed, since July 2008 request, to prove notability. Kickstart70-T-C 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per improvements done by User:Bilby Delete or merge to Paintball. Poorly sourced article and its few sources feel marvelously like WP:ADVERT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability. I don't support a merge to paintball. Not likely any substantial text to place, and it would end up as an EL. It seems a bit against the WP:EL policy to me if it were in paintball. However, if a clever editor can find a way to integrate it into the article content and use it as a reference, I'm fine with that. Chaldor (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don't see how there can be notability from this nonsense. DO NOT merge with Paintball. That would be dumb as there really isn't anything to merge except for the URL. Tavix (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's not confuse ARTICLE QUALITY with SUBJECT NOTABILITY. While the article clearly needs work, it does establish notability with independent references from Forbes and Chicago Tribune as well as a paintball publication. It also appears to have considerable coverage in other unaffiliated paintball media. (http://www.68caliber.com/features/editorials/story042516.php, for example) Raehl (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is one paintball website talking about another one. The second is just talking about online advertising purchases and PbNation gets about half a sentence mention. The third doesn't actually link to a reference or citation...it just claims that this citation exists, then links to the Wikipedia page for the Chicago Tribune. Maybe the site really IS notable enough, but based on the evidence presented (which is all we really case base it on), it makes a bad case for that notability. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this stage I'm not inclined to make a call for keep or delete, however as regards general (non-wp) notability, the argument that it is the major online resource for the sport should probably carry some weight. The Chicago Tribune article is short, but it does as the article states - lists five "tips" for turning pro, and the first tip is to get involved in PbNation. In terms of the article it is non-trivial, but it is a short mention. The Forbes article is a trivial mention, and doesn't count towards notability as such, but it does provide evidence of the importance of the forum. If the claims that it is the major online forum for paintball is accurate, then I would imagine that the paintball publications would provide enough to establish notability, but I don't have access to any to confirm. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about the sport could clarify this. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first reference is on a paintball website indexed by Google News. Regardless, whether the site is "just another paintball site" or not is irrelevant; the question is whether it is an independent reference, which it clearly is. And while each reference may not, by itself, establish notability, I can't see how the combination does not, at a minimum, show that notability has not been and can't be established, which are the criteria for notability deletion. Raehl (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We need to be careful here, not to give Undue weight to references that do. Jimbo's quote there should be the determining factor. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsalvaged despite the relisting; sadly, "is interesting" does not allay the lack of notability. — Coren (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our wee country[edit]

Our wee country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, neologism. Smashvilletalk 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"

The website and forum was the awarded with the ‘Unsung Hero’ award in the international football section of the FFA awards for the good work it did in stamping out sectarianism within Northern Ireland football - Official Website Of The Irish Football Association as recognised by FIFA

The awards night was attended by Gregory Campbell MP, Kate Hoey MP. The Awards Ceremony which was held at the Ramada Hotel in Belfast; was hosted by Northern Ireland’s very own Radio One DJ and Channel Five Football Presenter star Colin Murray and local actor and director Dan Gordon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MazePrison (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - if it is a nickname for a country (as the very first sentence states), then it should be in the Article about that country. As for the Fansite/forum, Citations out the wazoo are needed to support all the statements made. Citations for "7000 members" & "400,000 topic views a month" being highest on the list, if thats where WP:N would be claimed. A good first attempt at an Article by a new Editor, but, decide what the Article is about, streamline it, assert WP:N, give inline Citations. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was deleted a few days ago and this editor has attempted to restart it again. A fan website is not notabile.CroatiaShoes (talk)
    • Comment The deleted version consisted only of the name of the web site; it was rightfully deleted as lacking content, but that deletion shouldn't be used as a reason to delete this version, which has much more information and an attempt to source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retraction Sorry; I see it now, at the differently capitalized Our Wee Country. That one was deleted as lacking an assertion of notability and was quite similar to this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The independently referenced award establishes notability per WP:WEB. There is no policy or guideline that says "a fan website is not notabile (sic)" - any type of subject matter can potentially be notable if the sources are there to support it. Any issues identified above are matters for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not as convinced as you are that the Award passes as "a well-known and independent award", but then I dont really know much about Irish Football Awards/Leagues either. What are your thoughts? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m working on more sources and some fixes to above said article. What we have in OWC is a movement sweeping across Northern Ireland, it was a seed planted by Our Wee Country forum and website to make Northern Ireland football and country a better place for all and its working for all. MazePrison (talk • contribs)22.54 5 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:55, 5 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is interesting enough to be a keeper. If it needs fixing then please feel free to fix it. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:10, 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. MBisanz talk 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peril (band)[edit]

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

This stub has been around for three years. I couldn't find any reliable sources. It fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Might qualify under criteria 6 of WP:MUSIC as many of the members are notable and went on to form or be involved with notable groups. --neon white talk 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 6 specifically suggests redirects for bands that themselves are not notable. Make mine Delete.  RGTraynor  14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:MUSIC criterion 6. I agree that redirects make sense for otherwise non-notable bands with a notable member, but in this case there are three otherwise notable members, and if nothing else this page serves a reasonable function in connecting those three. ~ mazca t | c 17:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with Mazca's reasoning. If there's no one place to redirect, that's a sign that it shouldn't be redirected. I note that per official policy, being a stub -- even a permastub -- is not a wikicrime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sometimes small stubs that can connect the dots (that have no other place to go) are incredibly valuable. Chaldor (talk) 07:57, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona Juvenil A[edit]

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

This article is a lower standard than notability as in (Wikipedia:CSD#A7) Worldboy13 (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Besides that the article consists of just raw data about the team. Nothing of interest to someone who is not following the league. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's notable as far as being an official spanish soccer team. I think one can argue that it satisfies CSD A7 by listing the titles its won. Just because it's only of primary notability to a select group doesn't mean it should be tossed. Consider the example of high schools having their own article. Chaldor (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not professional club and also Real Madrid Juvenil A deleted with the same reason??.--KSAconnect 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant content, hardly notable as a stand-alone article. I would say "merge it", but there's actually nothing to merge, it's a raw list of non-notable footballers and youth level awards. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be Barcelona's youth team rather than a reserve team as stated in the article. We have articles on the youth teams of some other big Eurpean clubs, e.g. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea so I suspect that the team is notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia and have some information about it. I suspect the apparent lack of sources is likely due to sources being in Spanish. (This is not a normal WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement as I'm not suggesting it should exist because the others do but rather suggesting that as other similar teams have enough notability this one will do if we can find it). The information on many youth teams is included in a 'parent' article, either on the club itself or bundled in with the reserve team. The latter wouldn't seem sensible as the status of reserve teams is different in Spain and they play in the normal national league system. Given the length of the main FC Barcelona page having a seperate article on a youth team would seem a sensible way to stop the main article getting too long. At the very least this should be merged somewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Barcelona's youth team, but merely a youth team. We have articles about youth systems, not single youth representative teams (they happen to be no less than four or five). --Angelo (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed as the A team they were the top youth team. Regardless, if we have articles on 'youth systems' then merge the information into such an article. If such an article does not exist (and I don't think it does) then I'd suggest renaming this article and using for a basis of a 'youth system' article. Either way this article then becomes a redirect so shouldn't be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editorial issue. We're discussing here about the notability of an article about FC Barcelona Juvenil A, whose content attempts to cover solely that one team. If you want to create a FC Barcelona youth system article, I would not oppose in principle. If you instead think the Juvenil A team is notable on its own, well, I just don't agree with it. --Angelo (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless they play in the actual Spanish league system (as Barca's reserves do), any youth team wouldn't meet the genrally accepted notability standards for a football team. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that the 'generally accepeted notability standards for a football team' don't trump the general WP:N guidelines - if there's been non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources then the articles should stay regardless of whether it meets the normal football club criteria. Hence why, in my opinion, we have articles on other club's youth teams. I suspect if we looked in the Spanish press such coverage would be there (certainly for the 'youth system' - see my comments above). Dpmuk (talk) 15:57, 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. TravellingCari 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Hartwig[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion becuase it serves only to expand upon the article USS Iowa turret explosion. Clayton Hartwig was accused of setting the blast, but was later cleared of any wrong doing. Like Bud Holland, the individual is notable for only one indident, and as he is now numbered among the dearly departed I doubt he will be adding to his reputation.

Delete Notable only for one event. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:07, 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.

The result was speedy delete. Spam / non-notable and utter idleness - just copying their website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepole[edit]

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

Non-notable company. BJTalk 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability, seems like advertising. Could have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deocredism[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable philosophy whose only references are on Facebook. The article itself seems to argue its lack of notability. Rnb (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my intention was never to insult or inflame. The article strongly seems like a WP:HOAX, and if its sole existence is within the confines of facebook, then it lacks WP:V and also fails the test for WP:N. For those reasons, I find the choice clear. Chaldor (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and unsourced religion, probable hoax. JIP | Talk 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am truly shocked by the bias of wikipedia. This is a true religion and to demean it to no more than a hoax is utter racism and inequality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deocredist (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This religion though small and not well known has the grounds for publication. It is not possible for an encyclopedia to omit something that is real. How can one even propose such a measure. If this article is deleted that action will be in serious violation with the Civil rights act. To delete this article would count as discrimination against a sect of people which is strictly prohibited in the great United States! I strongly urge the editors of Wikipedia to rethink this deletion, a deletion that if were to occure would harm the good name of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deocredist (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia intentionally omits many things that are real for good reason. You may wish to review WP:VERIFIABILITY. Rnb (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only source currently included in the article does not even mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: The main aspect of this Deocredism is the existence of God in everything around us? That is a feature of God/Creator which is already described by many other religions.. Perhaps this belongs in an existing list of religious sub-sects or obscure religions? At least, until it gains enough followers to encourage the creation of written stories and records.. Just my $0.02.. --Weasel5i2 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Thank you for considering a merge with the sub-sect religions. I feel that would be okay. I also want to thank for all the people who are considering this merge. I feel that it is the most reasonable action. I also want to apologize for appearing to be insulting wikipedia. That was not my intention, I just felt that my views were being shot down as hoaxes.--Deocredist (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I just want to assert the fact that this is a real functioning religious philosophy and I understand that there aren't references to back it up. This is the fault of the followers who are both small in number and lacking in publication. I would like to however say that it should be included with the sub-religions. I once again ask wikipedia to please consider doing this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Freund[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for news and he is only notable for one event. Schuym1 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherStar 4000 Emulator[edit]

WeatherStar 4000 Emulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current conditions: 0 degrees with heavy cruft. The notability pressure is falling too, as is the ceiling. (Oh, and the humidity is 101%). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wikipedia Weather Service has issued a Severe Conflict of Interest Warning for this article. (Creator name? TWC Fan Chris. Uh, we KNEW this was coming.) Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to make a genius program more famous that was developed by people who have worked hard to make the graphics for. The program is free to run, and it does not contain anything from the real WeatherStar 4000. TWCFanChris (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it meet Wikipedia's NOTABILITY standards? Emulators generally don't make the cut. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 06:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A piece of software like this does not seem to be a notable topic for a WP article, even if it was working. Better to publicize it someplace else. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could have CSD'd this one. Chaldor (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable program that emulates a well-known local forecast from The Weather Channel. It is popular and should NOT be deleted. Take a look at the forum here and see how popular the program is. MikeM2010 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There have actually been people wanting to download such a popular program, and over 500 needed support. TWCFanChris (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. please post under me if you want to vote instead of inserting yours above me (this makes me think your a WP:SPA) and 2. "I Like It", or "It has fans" is not a reason to keep. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:48, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Joe[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this. Schuym1 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I found one in this work from Google Books, with 622 hits overall. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The character does not seem notable enough. An article on the author should be enough. Besides the article makes a big point about the antisemitism of the books, surely the author's problem, not "Baseball Joe's." Northwestgnome (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough the antisemitism issue is not mentioned in the author's article. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:01, 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. MBisanz talk 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Railroad Museum[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. From the source, it looks very iffy that this will happen and whether it will be significant if it does. Nv8200p talk 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Delete a supporters' group "working to establish" a museum doesn't mean that museum is yet encyclopedically notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I was involved in categorizing it but have no knowledge of this project's current or future significance.Plasma east (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seem to be some sources, but there also seem to be a number of museums with similar names. I don't know Texas that well but the results are coming up with Amarillo and Galveston, nowhere near one another. There are also some book refs to an existing museum with that name so I want to dig further to see a) if this museum does exist and b)if not, whether there really are multiple museums with this name. That said, I'm not likely to get to either during the course of this AfD and will work from a userfied version if this gets deleted. TravellingCari 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is supposed to be located in Ft. Worth. -Nv8200p talk 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, I wasn't clear. My question was to whether the museum was planned in Ft. Worth but was ultimately created elsewhere. TravellingCari 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fort Worth, Texas until the museum is under construction. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 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 Withdraw and Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Locust (comics)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this one-time supervillain. Schuym1 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy future of North America[edit]

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

Personal Essay. Fails WP:NOR Anshuk (talk) 02:42, 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. No objection to anyone adding relevant sourced content to a related article in the future. Spellcast (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law school pedagogy[edit]

Law school pedagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book advertisement disguised as an encyclopedia article. References do not establish that this is a recognised or common term (article was moved from "Law School Labyrinth"); possibly a neologism. Somno (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no longer a neologism following the page move. Having said that, the article is a terrible mess and, as tagged, has multiple issues. It does though have several reasonable sources and, indeed, is a valid and encyclopaedic concept. I am prepared to give it time to see if it can get cleaned up. TerriersFan (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. If cleaned up, would the article contain anything that didn't belong in legal education? EALacey (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggestion. Probably Law school would be a better merge target as more directly relevant. I wouldn't object to a merge there. TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay. A proper sourced article, on methods of education in law schools, can not be based on this. The present contents, if not plagiarism of the web site, is totally OR. The change in title does not disguise the fact that this is a publicity piece for a forthcoming 2009 book. [66] -which can hardly be notable yet, even if it ever becomes so. If kept, the article would need to be rewritten. The first step would be deleting every sentence with the word "labyrinth in it. I am very reluctant to say an article cannot be cleaned up, but there is no basis here to start doing it. DGG (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent POV essay. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:05, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAG compulsory routines[edit]

USAG compulsory routines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for lists of gymnastics exercises. Tikiwont (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well, Wikipedia is for lists of gymnastics exercises, in that a comprehensive article such as gymnastics has, and should have, an annotated list of the various forms of gymnastics. However, this is more of a curriculum than an encyclopedic list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed referring to stand alone lists of specific routines as this one and not to lists of exercises in general.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gymnastics -- ratarsed (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 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. TravellingCari 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owl + Owl[edit]

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

Article about an album released by a band whose notability is question ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 03:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No establishment of notability. No reason to believe the album meets WP:MUSIC, Looking at the band's page, it may also be a candidate for AfD... -Verdatum (talk) 16:54, 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 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its positive reviews include "undertheradar." Well, under the radar is the problem. Since Wikipedia is not striving to replicate or replace www.allmusic.com or the other omnibus sites that are indiscriminate collections, because Wikipedia requires that the album be notable, it fails the deletion guideline at present. If it's tiny label grows or its sales take off, then that will be different. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:12, 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. Wizardman 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Life History and Life Writing Research[edit]

Centre for Life History and Life Writing Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (fails WP:N and WP:ORG). Google returns little of interest besides the site for the Centre and Google News doesn't look to hold anything either. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 13:47, 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) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG, I can't find much about them either.    SIS  00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect to University of Sussex if it is significant to the university. Either way there's not enough coverage to support an article. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:51, 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 00:54, 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 Withdraw. Don't relist it, I will just merge the dang thing. Schuym1 (talk)

Summer of Camp Caprice[edit]

Summer of Camp Caprice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 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. per snow. No reason to keep this one going longer when it's unanimous and the deletes are sound. TravellingCari 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Puneet Tiwary[edit]

Ram Puneet Tiwary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A criminal. Unclear why must be in wikipedia. Twri (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 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. JIP | Talk 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical representations of two-way-contest opinion polling data from the United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

Graphical representations of two-way-contest opinion polling data from the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of nothing but many election graph links from the same website. Qualifies for WP:CSD A3 but is related to current events. Reywas92Talk 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmar Bernardes da Silva[edit]

Edmar Bernardes da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent vanity page. Subject appears to be non-notable. However the claim to three international prizes (which were not listed) IS a claim to notability, and therefore disqualifies this from speedied. That said, Google News indicates that he is not notable.

  • Question: Someone speedied this as I was creating the AFD... should we remove one or the other, or what? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually been speedied twice; the first time the article creator removed the tag. If you think it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (as you've said above), you can remove the speedy tag and it can remain here. Somno (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reliable sources are needful. Blogspot are not reliable! And we need sources of notability of your awards and your works. Source please or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:PROF and no independent reliable sources. Tosqueira (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adjunct professor at a college. Three prizes for short stories (only one of them a first place). No published professional work DGG (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Problems with WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 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; lack of established notability wounds the article, but the absence of reliable sources is fatal. — Coren (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar del Rosario[edit]

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

PROD contested without explanation given. I have not been able to locate any evidence that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER (there would be at least a few sources if he has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") or the primary criteria at WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on him with verifiable information. I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier. As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources) and nothing aside from a list of his films can be verified about him.

I do realize that Google searching turns up results, but few of them actually relate to this individual. Cheers, CP 00:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There isn't any? Have you searched? Hits in Google doesnt prove article's notability nor it proves that it met the criteria for entertainment. Try considering books and archives cause we are talking about pre-dated information here. Axxand (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is to be hoped that in some archive somewhere is something about this Filipino actor who began his career during the Japanese occupation of the Phillipines during World war II and managed to be part of Phillipine resurgence in film after the war. The search may be difficult, but possible. It was a difficult time, to be sure... So its time to do some deep digging. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have myself begun digging to source and expand the article. Luckily WikiPilipinas has information and source links that might serve here as well. I'll do what I can. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs Further Developing The director/actor has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. He is one of the not-so-many directors who are the pillars of the movie industry way back World War II in the Philippines, and as weighing things, he deserves a page in Wikipedia. This is history we are talking and deleting this will just make Wiki what is not. Axxand (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page had undergone a makeover. Thanks to Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.. Axxand (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't a beauty contest, it's a Wikipedia article. While I appreciate Michael Q. Schmidt's determined efforts, this "makeover" has not really addressed my stated reasons for deletion. The sole reference is a blog, which is not a reliable source. Of the external links, the first two are IMDB, which is not reliable, the last three do not mention him but discuss Philippine cinema and of those, the fourth one is a blog! If anything, these sources should be used on Cinema of the Philippines, but they do nothing to prove that this individual has had non-trivial mentions in reliable publications or that a full and neutral biography could be written about him. At best, I would concede that perhaps this should be redirected to Cinema of the Philippines, with no prejudice for reversal if sources are found. You argue that "The director/actor has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. He is one of the not-so-many directors who are the pillars of the movie industry way back World War II in the Philippines", but I have yet to see that that's anything more than an opinion, rather than a fact stated in multiple reliable sources. Cheers, CP 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I surely grant I am having problems with sourcing and need expert help in the the subject area. Sadly, many Fillipino films and Fillipino newspaper archives were destroyed out of hand by Japanese occupation forces during the war, and those that survived were only because they existed as copies outside the Phillipines. Much was lost. I am hoping that someone with a greater understanding of Tagalog sources may come forward with post-WWII references, as I am reaching my own limits. Any help would be appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, I have just left a message on WikiPilipinas to the the author of a similar article there. She may have access to informations I do not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:38, 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 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Songs (Ashley Parker Angel)[edit]

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

Like Rare Songs (Katy Perry), this fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Not an artist who requires such a list. Not sure how one would know whether a song is "unheard" or not. - eo (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from falling under a few WP:NOT categories, "rare" is almost certainly destined to be someone's POV. Cheers, CP 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Move The content of this page belongs on the Ashley Parker Angel page. If you have a problem with the artist not establishing sufficient notability or longevity then I suggest you make your case on that articles discussion page. Bubblesort (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A record can, in fact, be considered "rare". See Princeton's Wordnet for definitions of "rarity". Don't you beleive that any real object can fit the criteria of any of the three definitions there, including records? Bubblesort (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article cites it's source for this information as ASCAP, which is, in fact, a well recognized union of songwriters and composers. The list checks out. ASCAP lists these songs as having no performers or publishers, which means that, as the page suggests, these songs are "Unreleased/Unheard". I don't think that a recording that does not exist can be described as having "noteworthy scarcity", as Wordnet would define "rarity" as being. Scarcity implies existence, and if the track is unrecorded then it does not exist. The composition exists, though. Perhaps we should change the title of that part of the page to "Unrecorded Compositions" or perhaps "Unperformed Compositions"? Bubblesort (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It definitely doesn't need its own article as it can be merged in her main article's discography. Many notable musicians have unreleased or "rare" songs; imagine how unnecessary it would be for every musician to have a separate article listing these songs. Spellcast (talk) 22:30, 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 delete. BJTalk 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Songs (Katy Perry)[edit]

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

Bad article title (no idea who deemed these "rare") but hardly an artist that requires a "songography". Fails WP:NOT#IINFO. - eo (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Aside from falling under a few WP:NOT categories, is almost certainly destined to be someone's POV (same argument as the other list). Cheers, CP 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not part of a catalog album, digital release or even a concert freebie, this is an extraneous list without a purpose. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list of songs that aren't on an album. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NPOV issue calling these songs rare. Katy Perry is does not have a substantial enough catalogue, nor has she achieved the longstanding fame or scholarly interest to justify an examination of unreleased works, unlike Elvis or the Beatles. No objection to a paragraph being added to the main article with maybe a couple of examples, since we at least have a source here (for some of these). But that's about as far as I can see this going, at least until she achieves Madonna-level longevity. 23skidoo (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 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 redirect to One Buck Short. Return to the same status as after the previous AfD; notability of the single has not been established — Coren (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Times (song)[edit]

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

See also this AFD from earlier this year. Unreferenced (and possibly NN) article on a single. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for now. I found a few sources, one of which might be an RS?: [67] and [68]. The article can be cited now, at least. I won't say anything toward notability, as I'm not sure this doesn't fail WP:Music. If nothing else, I'd say a redirect to the album, but I won't make that my final stance. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The single song doesn't achieve note as a single, and the article is written by someone who doesn't know anything about it. It "seems to be" a live recording, the author thinks. Well, when the song is well known, it will be something people want to look up. Until then, this is a delete. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. :/ If you're going to delete, find a policy or a guideline or an essay and delete per that... --Izno (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, indeed. If an "article" does not offer even an assertion of significance or notability, then that article is an A7 speedy delete candidate. In this case, we have a potential for someone else to possibly, potentially, find some facts about the song, but there has been nothing to testify to any notability for the song whatsoever. Therefore, it fails the deletion guideline on not having any notability. This is in addition to the fact that the article as written probably qualifies for speedy deletion. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The assertion of notability that it makes is that it is the first single of the album, so I do not think it falls as a CSD. As for general (or music) notability, as I said before, I did find sources, neither of which you commented on in your delete rationale — you completely ignored them for whatever reason. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 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 speedy delete. Creator and sole contributor (apart from AfD tagging) has requested deletion (see note at bottom). No objection to re-creation once notability is established TravellingCari 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHM Air[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. An "airline" with a single on-demand leased Cessna 172, connected to a magazine with an article that was deleted. The article even states "not founded" in the infobox. The website is just an under construction page at a free hosting provider. Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - wow, an airline operating one four-seater prop plane that they don't own and haven't received yet. They have not conducted any flights on the plane they haven't got. Their website does not yet exist, and they don't plan to do anything for at least another five months. No mentions in independent sources. I'm going to venture that this fails WP:ORG. ~ mazca t | c 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - If you were the owner of the company and you were told the company was not notable. Well, look at some other articles about Canadian airlines like this airline: White River Air, no references, half the size of AHM Air does not show the destinations and barely any text, its not being deleted! Why is this article? Whenaxis (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about X? falls under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Non-notable articles are found out and removed in due course. AHM Air should stand or fall on its own merits. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question to author: What published source is this article's information coming from? • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AHeM Feel free to nominate the article White River Air if you wish to do so. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A very non-notable airline. Schuym1 (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. More important, this airline fails WP:Verifiability without sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - THis might be a hoax. 2 crew members? — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, probably a hoax. Why would a Canadian operator use an american registered Cessna on public transport duties, also N3602 is not a Cessna 172. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - To adminstrators or whoever this may concern, I am the creator/author of AHM Air in good faith, I want AHM Air to be deleted for now, but when AHM Air and or Atlantic Hurricane Magazine become notable enough, I, Whenaxis must be able to recreate one or both of these articles. Whenaxis (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Gadalla[edit]

Likely non-notable. Very cranky "Egyptologist" whose qualifications are in a completely different field and whose books are all self-published. No actual assertion of notability here, and Google Scholar gives nothing. Moreschi (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Shores[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (films). Closeapple (talk) 23:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_5&oldid=1081071936"