Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexualization[edit]

An earlier version of this was nominated for deletion on August 9. The article claims that "Heterosexualization" has a specific meaning linked to the Westernization of non-Western cultures. This concept seems to unique the source used, which was determined to be unreliable by the Reliable Sources board some months ago. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Masculinity_for_Boys). Google scholar reveals that a significant number of articles do use the word "heterosexualization", but most seem to use it to mean nothing more than "removing homosexuality" [1]. For example an article on lesbians in mainstream cinema discusses the fact that most "lesbian" scenes are not designed to show actual lesbian life, but to appeal to heterosexuals in the audience. Though the word appears in a few article titles, it does not seem to be a significant concept in its own right. I don't really think there is enough there to justify an article. The definition used in the article - which is presented as undisputed fact - seems to be unique to user:Masculinity's source, which has already been deemed unreliable by the community. Paul B (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. The first afd was closed as userify, and the article is different, but no better now. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Aleta ^Sing 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. If the word exists, it can be defined in wiktionary. Without sources showing the concept is discussed (using this term), it is non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Aleta ^Sing 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm not sure what to do with this. It is not acceptable as it is, however. At least some of it is WP:OR, such as saying heterosexualization exerts pressure on boys, and then backing it up with an anecdote of someone who had pressures exerted on him. Aleta ^Sing 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masculinity has now tried to resolve the problem by simply googling the word "heterosexualization" and stuffing the page with pseudo-footnotes to create the impression that these support his initial definition, which they palpably do not since many of them are unreliable and others are presented with elaborate misleading glosses by the editor. This is obvious intellectual imposture - the epitome of WP:SYN. It's just the sort of thing that Wikipedia should zap on sight. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleta, whatever is decided about this page, Wikipedia's rules specifically say that summariziing a valid research from a reliable source is not original research nor POV. The example of Troben is quoted only to give a very specific example. The said research from Denmark is full of accounts of boys undergoing the pressure to be heterosexual, both by ridiculing and disowning their sexual feelings for boys and by faking up sexual need for women. Please have a cursory look at the research before you decide about that. Besides I have given four different sources, including additional fifth sixth and seventh sources within the research from Denmark, which talks about this pressure specifically (I'll quote: Görlich & Kirkegaard emphasize that to be a real boy one has to live up to a series of principles on masculinity (See also Søndergaard 1996; Demant & Klinge-Christensen 2004). One of those principles is to choose and direct your heterosexual desire towards girls). Besides, I've now qualified the paragraph with, "According to some research available", which should address the reservations about the said paragraph. (Masculinity (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You are aware that Denmark is not a "non-Western" country, so it has nothing to do with your definitional claims? All that this evidence proves is that boys feel pressure to be "normal" according to the expectations of their society. This isn't news, and it sure is not evidence for the claims that the article makes. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing this page with non-western sexuality... this is about heterosexualization... Western spaces were heterosexualized in the last 50 years, while non-westernized societies are being heterosexualized right now.(Masculinity (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oh please. Read your own article. Read the first sentence. The feelings of young Torben are in modern Denmark, not the Denmark of more than 50 years ago, and the meaning of the term "heterosexualized spaces" in the article is almost totally unrelated to your definition. It has nothing whatever to do with a process happening in "non-westernized societies", and I suspect you know it.Paul B (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. I have deleted the word "non-western" from the first sentence and included the sentence, "most parts of the west are already heterosexualized" in the paragraph. The focus here is heterosexualization, and while Denmark is a heterosexualized society, the non-west is going through heterosexualization. The text for which the reference has been given, talks about the characteristics of a heterosexualized society.(Masculinity (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. And a warning to the deliberately misleading pseudo-footnote stuffer. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Heteronormativity and be done with it. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightworker[edit]

Non-notable New Age concept, no assertion of notability in reliable sources - sources are to personal web pages. Google search turns up the nonreliable webpages and wikipedia as the third result. At best redirect to therapeutic touch. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no reliable sources CTJF83Talk 06:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Cruz, California. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Avenue[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, California, then Merge and redirect to Santa Cruz, California - or it may be easier to just delete it. Pacific Avenue isn't notable unto itself. It already has sufficient mention in the Santa Cruz, California article. — X S G 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Santa Cruz, California post haste. Non-notable city street. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are tons of Pacific Avenues, so a redirect would cause trouble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Santa Cruz, California article. This would be a really nice addition to that article that has so much potential. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 04:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If directed to anything it should be to Monopoly. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Santa Cruz, California, then delete. WP does not need articles on individualk street unless exceptionally notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable street...per Ten Pound Hammer there are tons of Pacific Avenues. CTJF83Talk 06:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calaveras Road[edit]

Article describes a non-notable road. Also contains no references to verify accuracy or notability and has been a stub for 2 years with no improvement. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned above. Non-notable road that has no encyclopedic importance. Also article is completely original research. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable road CTJF83Talk 06:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. verging on snowfall Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disorder (band)[edit]

Unsourced, promotional band article. Generally non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Definitely notable - had several big independent chart hits (which is sourced, despite the above claim). Ian Glasper's Burning Britain: The History of UK Punk has 4 pages devoted to the band. If the article appears "promotional", that can be fixed. I'm not sure what "generally non-notable" means. Try Googling "Disorder punk Bristol" and you'll get plenty back. Try running the same search through Google Books and you'll get even more. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs some cleanup. The refs show notability in my mind, and 2 top-10 hits on the UK Indie chart should pass WP:BAND. Arakunem^Talk 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done some work tidying up the article and adding references. I think a speedy closure is in order, as this passes WP:BAND on several counts. Note that Disorder have had 6 albums released by Anagram Records, which is a subsidiary of Cherry Red, who have also issued a live DVD by the band. The references should be good enough for anyone.--Michig (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced, no longer a stub, the subject is definitely notable. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 15:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Boulevard (East Bay, California)[edit]

Duplicated information from the 2 number routes that cover 90% of Mission Blvd, California State Route 262 and California State Route 238. The rest of the road is a non-notable city street. Also the page lacks references to verify accuracy and notability. Also has been a stub for several years now. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I mention above. Non-notable city street, no refs, and long time stub. Also duplicate info contained in other articles.Gateman1997 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN city street. Nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable road. Possibly make it a disambig page, with both CA highways listed on the page. CTJF83Talk 06:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brently Heilbron. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaudeville Heartthrob Recordings[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Brently Heilbron - Subject isn't notable on its own. — X S G 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No identifiable, stand-alone content worth speaking of. No merging, because the potential target doesn't really qualify for an article, either. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if at all possible, and redirect. Some info is useful. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable and sourced content, i.e. delete. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Student Housing Co-ops[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed a ton of WP:OR from the article but never found anything that made the subject notable. — X S G 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of actual material indicating notability beyond the college, such student houses are not notable. DGG (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...if it does get deleted, I encourage the creators of the article to create a similar article at WikiSCUM. Kingturtle (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:00, 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 to merge or not can be hashed out on the article talkpage. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoanut Grove, Santa Cruz, California[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk - The subject isn't notable enough for its own article, but it might warrant a section on the Boardwalk page. — X S G 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability derived from the Alumni that has played at the location. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you can provide reliable second-party references that document the alumni visiting the location, maybe. Even then, notability is not inherent. — X S G 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it does count towards WP:N, in such as it is the only location to have this particular lineup of notable persons perform, memorable performances. And the Ref does substantiate the Alumni. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator seems to want a merge, an AfD isn't needed for that. RMHED (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator would prefer deletion to keeping this non-notable article around. The desires of the nominator apparently aren't so easy to predict. Maybe decisions shouldn't be made based on them. — X S G 07:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk. The Cocoanut Grove isn't notable enough for its own page, but it could have a mention, or its own section on the Boardwalk page. CTJF83Talk 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Field State Beach[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to California State Beaches - This beach doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines on its own. — X S G 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There will always be material on state parks & state beaches. A simple google search on the phrase finds [2], [3], [4] and a list of local newspaper articles: [5]; this is without even looking for printed travel guides and similar sources, or other dbases. DGG (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - state beaches are notable. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State beaches are government operated recreational facilities, like public parks. They are almost guaranteed to be verifiable in official publications. And like villages and other geographic names that have always been considered inherently notable, they should be. There may be some degree of granularity beyond which it might be undesirable to pass - small municipal playgrounds, for instance, may not make the cut. A state-run park doesn't require any decision as to where that line might run, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State beaches such as this are notable. rootology (C)(T) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator seems to want a merge, an AfD isn't needed. RMHED (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Bridges State Beach[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. — X S G 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to California State Beaches - This beach doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines on its own. — X S G 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like state parks, all state beaches should be considered be notable; any problem with sourcing probably reflects inadequate searching--as it did here, where there are 4 relevant hits among the first 30 of the 12,600 on Google for the phrase parks.ca.gov KQED, NOAA,UC SC, -- and 12 photos on [Commons]; GS has 22, etc etc.. DGG (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can concede that with proper sourcing, the subject would be clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but... as its own article? If State Parks or State Beaches are notable for being what they are, then they should be notable on the California State Parks or California State Beaches page, not necessarily on their own, no? — X S G 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect pending being expanded to Santa Cruz, California. I believe that since State Beaches are State Parks they meed notability and Natural bridges could be fleshed out more if someone took the time and properly referenced. But lacking any expansion or references this article would eventually earn a delete from me. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - state beaches are notable. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you find a guideline stating as much? Otherwise, I'll suggest that no subject is inherently notable. — X S G 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any state park is quite notable: plenty of reliable sources exist to document them. The only way we could reasonably delete a state park article on notability-related grounds is if it were proven to be a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State beaches are government operated recreational facilities, like public parks. They are almost guaranteed to be verifiable in official publications. And like villages and other geographic names that have always been considered inherently notable, they should be. There may be some degree of granularity beyond which it might be undesirable to pass - small municipal playgrounds, for instance, may not make the cut. A state-run park doesn't require any decision as to where that line might run, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State beaches such as this are notable. rootology (C)(T) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator seems to want a merge, an AfD isn't needed. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delphinium Blue[edit]

Unsourced, barely notable band, highly self-promotional. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in searvhing, I am unable to uncover any reliable sources writing about this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Become Death[edit]

This is probably going to fail fairly quickly, but I may as well try. These are recently aired and unaired episodes of Heroes that do not establish independent notability. Some reviews do exist, but they would better serve in a section or season article talking about how the current season has been received overall compared to the other two. There is no need to have separate articles just to list large plot summaries and a few reviews that only show that the episodes exist. TTN (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It has long been held that episodes of notable shows are notable RogueNinja_talk 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, episodes have always had to establish their own notability. It just has not been enforced very well in the past. The most obvious thing you're probably thinking of is The Simpsons, which has all of its episode articles because they're being worked on at a very fast rate (something like 10 FAs and over 100 GAs). TTN (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline. It began as a centralized discussion. The reason your notability requirement "has not been enforced very well in the past" is because you made it up. Read Wikipedia is not paper: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was WP:EPISODE brought up? This is centered around WP:N, which completely goes against that type of thought. I believe Wales also stated that he would want to delete most of The Simpons episodes if possible. TTN (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were talking about WP:EPISODE when you said "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" because you repeatedly referred to WP:EPISODE when you repeatedly posted to talk pages last October that "All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability." WP:N doesn't say "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" at all. It says topics should be notable. Heroes is a notable TV show. And if you can provide a link to where Jimbo Wales said he wanted to delete most of the Simpsons episode articles, go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's when most people accepted it as a notability guideline built off of N. Now that it is not the case, I instead refer back to the main guideline instead. The comment from Wales can be found here. I think there is another follow up comment somewhere else, though I forget what it says. TTN (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline. That appears to be your opinion alone. And when you say "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" did you also mean before WP:N was created in September 2006? I assume you'll be nominating the Simpsons episode articles for deletion next? Thank you for linking to that comment by Wales. I find it interesting that he'd vote to delete them from Wikipedia now that he has a for-profit wiki for fiction content. How about that. Wales also says "notability" is problematic and editors should be more concerned with verifiability. Do you think these articles are not verifiable? --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ until so much real-world information has been added to justify a WP:SPINOUT. At the moment, these articles violate WP:NOT#PLOT (or don't say anything that isn't already covered in the LoE), and I can't find evidence that the Heroes editors are improving their episode articles to fix that (despite previous ep AfDs and a notification at their wikiproject). The episodes also don't assert WP:NOTABILITY (awards, controversies etc.). Redirection is the least lethal solution to the problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to Redirect all except The Second Coming (Heroes) because that article now justifies a SPINOUT. The rationale above stays for the other episode articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge properly looking at List of Heroes episodes, the amount of information there is usually about 50 words and is essentially a program teaser, not encyclopedic, often giving the situation at the beginning of the episode and only hinting at what happens. However, the amount on the individual articles like these tends to be 1000 words, equally bad in the other direction, as an equally non encyclopedic accounts in chronological order of everything that happens. There may have been some preliminary agreement of a guideline or 200-300 words per half hour episode, though to me it would seem best to have this depend on the importance and the complexity. (I assume these are half-hour--the entire set of Wikipedia articles does not seem to actually say). Until we can reach some agreement for how to handle these, the content should not be merged. I will support a merge keeping a suitable amount of content, but experience shows that this median path in this is hard to accomplish. DGG (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are 1 hour episodes, if that affects a proposed word count restriction. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then delete and redirect. In the future, should enough secondary sources become available, they can be forked off into independent articles. But after a merge content that is purely plot summary should be deleted per WP:NOT#PLOT in order to prevent a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of merged information should not be deleted because that means the 'paper' trail for information would get lost. Merge and redirect should happen without deletion as per the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.210.177 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Yet again, a mass-nomination of articles, half of which are future episodes which are already redirected (by nominator), the other half being in full flux due to having only just been aired. It is too soon to establish (non-)notability, and bad timing as notability guidelines are currently under discussion. Each article has to be assessed seperately; for that reason alone, mass-nominations are generally speedy closed. And as the nominator correctly expects, it should be no different in this case. I would close it myself if I weren't involved. — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed The person that nominated states that "This is probably going to fail fairly quickly, but I may as well try.", then why did they nominate in the first place? Doesn't seem well thought out. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete all or make a simple list of the episodes. Edokter "too soon to establish non-notability" is not how we work, in fact it's the exact opposite; we don't ideally create articles, or keep them, until notability is established, similar to WP:CRYSTAL or to when young people who have some achievements (but not quite enough to have been noted widely and be independently notable in the press) write their articles here- we don't wait until they have achieved or not achieved something, we go based on what they've achieved in the way of notability at the time of the AfD. Sticky Parkin 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming non-notability on episoes of a well-known TV series in the first place is rather self-contradictory, and not particularly showing good faith in the editors trying to build on that, especially with the guidelines under discussion. But that is not the main issue; Mass-nomination are routinely speedy closed, for the mere fact they the are mass-nominations. That alone is sufficient reason to close it. — Edokter • Talk • 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge all (w/redirect) to the LOE. Agree completely with TTN regarding the lack of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per above support. This proposal does not benefit the project in any way. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I agree that the articles need more information other than plot, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. U-Mos (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although episodes that have not been aired should not have articles yet. I believe that applies to some of these. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and add some summary information in List of Heroes episodes. I strongly disagree by creating articles for unaired articles, expect exceptional cases. This is WP:RECENTISM. Many Heroes episodes are good, have production notes and many other things but these fail any notability and consist only of plot. New pages should created only if an episode attracts that publicity that it is referenced in reliable third party media. Ratings should be added in the List of Heroes episodes. They will improve it as article, enforce its real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: As I noticed someone created pages for all episodes till end of this years using unreliable sources. Last year, in both Heroes and Prison Break, we were in the unpleasant position to reproduce inaccurate and false information about air dates, episode names and summaries. We have to be more strict with articles created with this ways. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Merge all but "Second Coming to an episode list, until more information is available. It is generally WP:CRYSTAL here presuming sources will exist. If this was like the Simpsons or the new Doctor Who, where a large majority of past articles showed improved towards notability immediately after airing with further improvements once the media was on home video, I can presume that notability would be demonstrated. However, spot checking other Heroes episodes, it's hit or miss as to when notability is shown (most have viewing numbers but this is a fact for any TV show, not sufficient by itself), and thus I'd rather see these placed as redirects to list, having them expanded when the sources are there. Plots in the episode lists can be expanded to help create a storyline if needed per season. --MASEM 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to redirect can be a solution to episodes that have been aired but not for episodes that are scheduled for November and December. I think we have to work to the List of episodes more, improve it, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I don't see this as an issue. Yes, it will lack plot and maybe other details in the episode list for aired shows, but redirects are perfectly fine here; the future episode articles titles are valid search terms. (Obviously, you need to watch for people speculating wildly on unpublished facts like when Sylar will have Hiro's child...)--MASEM 20:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote on "Second Coming" per added references, but not convinced they can be duplicated in the same way for the other articles. (as an aside, the added info to Second Coming seems to fit better on a Heroes (season 3) page rather than the first episode of the season (since it's describing why this storyline is happening now and the overall concepts of the season), and maybe in the future it can be this way, but I don't want to convolute this AFD with that approach. --MASEM 10:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N met for those that already have been shown (as the nom acknowledges in part). Others shouldn't have been created yet (fish slap), but have such a high probability of being notable shortly that deleting them now is just process for the sake of process. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. For the reasons explained before. And for longstanding practice in this series and many others. GhePeU (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia is not a TV guide... This "longstanding practice" is completely wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:NOTPAPER and this. Do you see any airtimes in these aricles? Then they're not a "TV Guide." --Pixelface (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to read this discussion about WP:EPISODE. Are, for example, all episodes of a soap opera notable? Is each of the 10,000 episodes of the Bold and the Beautiful notable? They are tenths of magazines writing the summary of the 5 episodes of this week of the new B&B episodes. Does that make them notable? TTN made a very good comment and I think DDG didn't understand it correctly. That magazines, blogs and sites are referring to the summary of an episode that doesn't mean the episode is notable! It may sound funny but I think you really have to think about it. An episode is notable, IMO, when, as a piece of art is discussed more than just its plot summary. Plot summaries are there because the TV series is notable. Nobody claimed that Heroes is a notable TV series. The first episode of each series gains notability as well because they are special shows for it, actors talk about it, things about the filming come out BUT after that NOT EVERY episode that an individual notability. I am not planning to bring here things for a mig discussion that was done about the subject. I was very upset some, time ago, when someone, maybe TTN or maybe someone else, redirected my favorite episodes of a TV series to a List of episodes. After reading around I changed my mind about what makes an episode notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read alot of WT:EPISODE. To me there seems to be a general agreement that individual articles for episodes of soap operas and talk shows are not wanted. But I've seen plenty of articles about soap opera storylines and soap opera characters. And I've seen plenty of support for articles of episodes of comedies, dramas, science-fiction, etc. That's because of what WP:NOTPAPER says. Having articles about individual television episodes does not make Wikipedia a TV Guide. And if a magazine is writing about an episode, they are referring to the episode, not the summary of the episode. A magazine would give a summary of an episode. Are you saying that just because a reliable source reviews something, that doesn't mean it's notable? You say an episode is notable when "as a piece of art is discussed more than just its plot summary." Can you give me an example of an episode like that? --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion is out of the limits of the particular AfD. It's a more general discussion. Some short comments: As I am writing later, Powerless is a very good article. The same holds for the fist episode of Heroes. Check Lost (TV series) for good episode articles. There is a practice there that I like very much. No new episodes are added unless there is an official press release of the channel broadcasting it. About the second things now. Many sites found in google that have reviewed an episode they do nothing more than reproducing the episode's plot. The discussion about Soap Opera/Talk show episodes just shows that we have to be careful in the criteria we form. The first episode of Heroes is notable. The press was interested to interview the producer and some actors and discuss about it. About the ideas behind it, the symbolism, etc. In the second episode of Heroes I see no press reaction. I think Unexpected (Heroes) is notable, despite of the tag that I just noticed. The cameo appearance of Stan Lee, as far as I remember (I may have to add some references and remove the notability tag bit I don't keep magazines 2 years old), it was commended by the media. This kind of things make episodes notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - There all notable. Here's the first page of a google news search.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Please do a quick google news search before nominating things for deletion. This one doesn't require any fancy searching, just type in the name of the episode and hit the button. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of reviews does mean that these are instantly notable. Most recent prime-time episodes are reviewed by a number of sources. The reviews and other sources have to actually be put together in a way to establish that the episode has something more than that. That is not likely in this case, especially when a season overview discussing any overall changes from the past seasons is a much better idea. TTN (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a second the problems with WP:CRYSTAL here (which clearly is a problem here), are you arguing that reviews aren't enough for WP:N, or that reviews might not let us satisfy some other policy while using them as RS? 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews only establish that the episodes exist. They do not actually show why the episodes are actually notable, instead just providing an unnecessary list of "guy A and guy B like this, while guy X and guy Y dislike this" quotes. Instead, such reviews can be used to say something like "reviewers thought the season opened *quality*, the premiere episodes having been received *quality* reception, while the later episodes were..." TTN (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying reviews don't count as coverage? --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage, yes. Enough to establish independent notability, no. TTN (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So will your next purging mission be Category:2008 films? --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reviews, as long as they provide critical commentary from reliable sources, have long been considered sufficient for notability; the article may not be completely cohesive without things like development information and the like, but having reviews is exactly the type of information we want for a notable article. The only caveat is that these have to be reliable sources; it can't be the local college newspaper, it can't be a blog-type site. --MASEM 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all We've been over all this before. --Piemanmoo (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, episodes of notable shows are notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, wether or not episodes from notable shows are notable also doesn't seem to matter when I look at EVERY single episodes of ALL Star Trek series having their own articles. Star Trek might be notable, but can we agree that some episodes from all 726 are really down the drain in notability? I believe Heroes episodes (or television series episodes) can have their own articles.--Smumdax (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, The series is definitely notable, I believe the episodes are notable, we don't have an issue with space - seems like a no brainer to me. --WORM | MЯOW 08:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all aired articles, and the next to broadcast - there's tons of stuff on Google News. The articles are fairly new, and there is sufficient stuff out there to establish independent notability. If there is not in six months or so, then by all means revisit this AFD then, but articles should be given a chance to bloom. Articles that are still a goodly amount of time from broadcast should probably be redirected for now and spun out when there is more information available. fish&karate 11:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the chance that Truth & Consequences and Better Halves got nine months ago, and which have not been improved one iota since their AfD? (Oh, and I notice that one of them went from the AfD redirect result to being restored by a fan without DVR). And I see notability tags since "November 2007". Hmmmm. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on these ones. I have no idea about other articles; if they have been around for nine months and still have not been improved then yeah, maybe they should be redirected. These may be improved, they may not be. But they should be given the chance to improve prior to erasure. You quoted two of the crappier articles; you could just as equally use .07% or Five Years Gone as examples of good season 1 articles. fish&karate 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those 1st season episode articles are in good shape; there's minimal information to support their notability, but given the fact both lead to award nominations, there's likely notability information to be included. These episodes should be looking more like Powerless (Heroes), which has a reduced plot, a development section, and a reception section. Now, I'm not saying the ones in this AFD have to be like that now, since likely development info won't be assured until the DVD release, but if there are reviews out there, they need to be added to show that these are notable episodes (as I understand it, Heroes as a series has significantly fallen from may a reviewers eyes, and the show may no longer be as relevant as it was in S1, thus further episodes likely not to catch attention and therefore notability). --MASEM 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the last batch of (speedy) keeps provide any other rationales than WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:INHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am all for allowing an article to prove its potential (as Fish and karate notes), but hammering on potential forever doesn't get the job done at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all aired articles, and the next to broadcast - I totally agree with User:Fish and karate. I myself will try to establish notability for several episodes. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second Coming episode is on right now here in Australia, I'd actually come here to find out about it and hence hit the AfD. I don't see any strong case for deletion on a policy basis. Orderinchaos 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All. If we're going to merge all the episodes of a relevant TV show, why not merge all of the episodes of, for example, the Doctor Who seasons? 128.198.20.26 (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that that's out of the picture? (And no, I don't know what will happen to them in the future.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes TV series contains some very good and notable episodes. Check Genesis (Heroes) and Powerless (Heroes) (my favorite). -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have established notability for "The Second Coming (Heroes)". Good luck deleting it now. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to keep the Second Coming. It has many real world elements. Please Cornucopia assume good faith. Nobody wants to delete something just for fun. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that has established any sort of notability. It contains production details for the third season, not the episode, and it two single reviews that do not establish how the episode is special. It should certainly be merged instead of being redirected or deleted, though. TTN (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article may gain notability. We don't have to be that hasty. There are tenths of articles in worse condition and with less hope to improve. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no! u MUST keep these!!!!if u do....."...i'll hunt you down and destroy you"...go tracy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin cullen sanders (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - All highly notable episodes of a popular primetime television show on a major network that's also in syndication on two other major networks (G4 and the SciFi channel). All they need is a little bit of attention by editors to add additional infomation (reception, ratings, ect) with reliable sources. dposse (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf elected officials[edit]

Unsourced list of original research on deaf public officials. No indication of outside references or basis of inclusion in list. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I left the sole contributor three messages on the need to cite references for the officials he'd been adding one at a time, leading me to figure he must have been doing research and therefore should surely be able to cite sources. But I got no response.—Largo Plazo (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious in the extreme given the lack of sources. rootology (C)(T) 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list of deaf people, there already is a Category:Deaf people. It isn't really notable that they are deaf and elected. CTJF83Talk 07:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Harold...and the Boys (2010 film)[edit]

Anothe unreferenced film with no confirmed production date. Fails WP:NFF. Ros0709 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: fails WP:NFF. And according to IMDb, pre-production begins this month. Cliff smith ^talk 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no information on the film, and imdb.com isn't the most reliable source CTJF83Talk 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see why there needs to be this disambiguation page. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Business (song)[edit]

A disambiguation page with only 1 article. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rendering (2009)[edit]

Clear failure of WP:NFF Ros0709 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per WP:NFF BigDunc^Talk 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of reliable sources is another obvious problem here. Cliff smith ^talk 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, WP:NFF -- Matthew Glennon^{(Talk to me)} 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Delete per above. Might as well add to the pile. In my opinion, if an article about a future film is to be here, it had better be well referenced, which this aticle certainly is not. -Brougham96 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Premature. rootology (C)(T) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quibbler (Website)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no reliable sources writing about this web site that I can find -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GaGa Forever (Lady GaGa album)[edit]

This appears to be pure speculation: nothing in the article is sourced, and searches for Lady GaGa's second album only point to the Wikipedia page, or webpages that happen to have the words "GaGa" and "Forever" next to each other in them, but have nothing to do with a second album from Lady GaGa. Until anything is confirmed (which I would be surprised by if that happened, as Lady GaGa's first album, The Fame, was only released in August), this is nothing more than a rumor. Acalamari 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this two-sentence speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 21:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane insects[edit]

A list of the stick insects (as that is all this page is, and, judging from its maintainer, will ever be) found in one city is completely inappropriate. There is simply no need for this level of detail- as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a single parent article on the fauna (or perhaps just insects) of Australia would be fine. Note that the article is also orphaned. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. The external link given is perhaps the only possible source of information, leading one to think this article exists merely to promote said website. - Longhair\^talk 06:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- new improved article with a new focus. - Longhair\^talk 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stick it somewhere other than Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, on the one hand, I think a list of species that inhabit a particular habitat or place would have encyclopædic merit, on the other hand, I agree totally with Longhait above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dont Delete i will change the name to Australian mantids and stick insects

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasmidsmantids (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixation complete The changes have been made to brisbane insects and it is now been calle Australian mantids and stick insects P.A.M.S-Phasmids And Mantids Studies (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I added a link, in a ref section, that establishes the notability of this topic. While this verification was absent from the article when listed here, it is a legitimate article. The name has now has now been changed, thus the goal posts are changed, and I have demonstrated referencing to the new user. The consensus for pages of this type is established by notability guidelines, there are many similar examples of regional discussion of biota. Antipodean creatures are especially noteworthy, their isolation has produced unique ecologies and species. Peruse this search to see how it may be expanded and , I must say loudly, ENCOURAGED. cygnis insignis 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me neutral after the improvements, I'll leave others to determine the consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under its new title it appears encyclopedic enough and needs expansion--Takver (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what a strange journey for an article - as long as it does not morph again - current title and progress would have no reason for the afd and weak jokes - such articles (current form) still need work Satu Suro 23:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie[edit]

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 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 keep, nomination by banned User:JarlaxleArtemis. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen Groenendijk[edit]

No indication that he meets WP:PROF; just seems like a run-of-the-mill academic to me. Mattyb420 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator has been indefinitely blocked. See this and this. Acalamari 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike, CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Industry Research, Training and Development Organisation[edit]

Non-notable organisation or project. Reads like a copyvio although Google doesn't find anything. I declined the nomination for speedy deletion and am bringing it here for further review. Sandstein 20:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio see this HTMLized version of the PDF. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 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. Wizardman 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of pastors at St. Simon & St. Jude Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of pastors at St. Simon & St. Jude Church

A list of people, only one of them notable for another reason, none of them notable for the defining characteristic of this list. The church has some (not a lot) notability, but not for its pastors. WP:LISTS can be used for information (then it has to be a notable subject, which this isn't), navigation (not the case, with only one bluelink) or development (unlikely in this case). Fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many red links to justify its inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article Since the church is in fact notable, a list of pastors is appropriate. I do not see why it needs to be a separate article, though. DGG (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the pastors a part of why the church is notable? We don't regularly include lists of directors for companies. It's just a list of names which doesn't give any interezting information to a reader. The info may be correct, but what is the point of it? It doesn't help exlpaining why a church is notable, it doesn't provide an interesting background (of course the church has pastors, what do the names and dates add to that?). We should not include information just because it is correct, we should have a good reason for it. Fram (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the creator of this article, I agree to its deletion. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC, items 2, 3, 5 and 8. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mimic (film). Stifle (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Breed[edit]

This fictional species 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) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mimic (film) as likely search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with a sentence or two of information, showing the role in the film. Has the nom even considered that before bringing it here? DGG (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mimic (film). Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mimic (film). Any usable information could be merged after redirection. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've read the novel, and didn't even realise the character was from that novel. If kept this should be moved to something like Septimus (Stardust) and the page turned in to a disambiguation page for people with the name Septimus, I can think of at least two other fictional characters it can be applied to, at least one of which is more notable. NullofWest Fill the Void 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or put a dab page in place, we've got the very real Septimius Severus as well as Septimus Heap. Hiding T 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article in suitable detail. The suitable detail would depend on the importance, and the plot description in the main article is too brief to tell that./ DGG (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no independent notability asserted. Eusebeus (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know a thing about this character, but I echo T's comment: if it's deleted, it would make a good disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify this is not likely the relevant target, probably one of the Romans instead. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, with no notability asserted and no real-world context. I'd say merge, but I don't see any suitable content for merging. Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforced concrete biaxial bending with axial force[edit]

I had originally put a prod here, but an IP removed it. OR, notability concerns. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. Seems to be about some kind of stress testing for concrete building materials. The title is awful. So is the formatting and the prose. Paragraphs usually consist of more than one sentence, unless you're USA Today. But the article is referenced, and convinces me that it's about something real and important. There may be a good place to merge this to, but I don't know enough about concrete stress testing to suggest where. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the existence of the better written and orphan article, Three point flexural test; and the existence of Concrete#Testing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is intended to explain a stress state that concerns to reinforced concrete columns. What do you think to change the subject to reinforced concrete columns and explain that biaxial bending is a stress state that allows the study of reinforced concrete columns?--89.180.150.13 (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. There may be a valid article at this title, but this isn't it and would be better to restart from scratch. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a set of classroom notes, rather than an actual Wikipedia article. I believe this is covered by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, either as classroom notes or academic research (which would be covered by WP:NOR. B.Wind (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markus king[edit]

I declined speedy deletion because the article asserts that his work is "well known". Still a non-notable artist for our purposes, though. Sandstein 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fathers work has been notable in our family unit for th past 40 years. He is very well known in our community. I feel the article is still premature though, but I will be working on it daily. Please reply asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusKingJR (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a particular notability according to our guidelines is provided - being an artist for 40 years is not enough to gain inclusion into Wikipedia - think of the millions of similar articles that could be started. I also note some conflict of interest in the reply by Markus Jnr - probably well meaning but not good enough here I'm sorry.--VS ^talk 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are these notable guideliness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusKingJR (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marcus - please click on this link (also given to you above) to see how we determine notability - and whilst you are checking check out our guide to Conflict of Interest. Best wishes--VS ^talk 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability has not been established through reliable sources, and in searching, I was unable to find any coverage about this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article on notability and understand what you all mean. Could he not be considered for future notability? I strongly feel he will within the next 5months. --MarkusKingJR (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have spoken with my father and we have agreed to delete the article for a further date tbc if he qualifies for notability. Is that ok? and how do I do it?--MarkusKingJR (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fast Show. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hunt[edit]

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) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fast Show as a plausible search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fast Show. Current article violates WP:NOT#Plot and WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. (Commenting admin closure) Hiding T 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sissy and Ada[edit]

This character article does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have added sources and expanded article somewhat. Hiding T 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known characters, that meet the notability guidelines. A book ref was easily found [15], [16]. RMHED (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. This can be closed. TTN (talk) 22:10, 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 redirect to Full Frontal (TV series)#Famous characters. Also delete first. Sandstein 11:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobby Doldrums[edit]

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) 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability independent of its series. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Full Frontal (TV series)#Famous characters - this article is completely unsourced (no footnotes) and written more like that from a fanzine. The character is mentioned in the proposed target article. Should some be something from reliable sources indicating the significance, importance, and popularity of the character, I would not be opposed to a new standalone article demonstrating these necessary characteristics for clearing the notability bar. B.Wind (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters in Phoenix Nights#Den Perry. Sandstein 11:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Den Perry[edit]

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) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phoenix Nights as plausible search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage independent of its series. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights#Characters - this article is completely unsourced and written more like that from a fanzine. The character is mentioned in the proposed target article. Should there some be something from reliable sources indicating the significance, importance, and popularity of the character, I would not be opposed to a new standalone article demonstrating these necessary characteristics for clearing the notability bar. B.Wind (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucaneer Knife[edit]

This very short article fails notability guidelines. A Google search came up with 75 instances of "buccaneer knife", none of which indicates that there is a separate type of "buccaneer knife" as opposed to other kinds of knifes. The article itself does not contain anything worth mentioning either, or establish the subject's notability. Constantine ✍ 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks about exactly definition of bucaneer knife. Sounds like original research. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Horrible Histories are a series of children's books, but they're written in such a way as to make things more accessible for kids. I think the creator is well-intentioned but has perhaps not understood that a 'Buccaneers' knife' and a 'knife used by buccaneers' are the same thing in this context. There's no need for an article on something that doesn't exist. Benea (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have prod-ed another of the articles pirate articles for inadequate sourcing. Horrible Histories are amusing, but they are not serious enough for sourcing an encyclopedia article. Nothing to distinguish knives used by buccaneers from knives otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator appears to have misunderstood the source was not refering to a individual type of knife. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utility theory of value[edit]

“Original research”, and otherwise redundant. When turned by an admin into a redirect to “Utility” (in response to a call for speedy deletion), the article's creator reverted it to the “original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in accordance with the sources, I'll grant you. But some quick research reveals that the utility theory of value is a documented economic theory, alongside the labour theory of value. ISBN 0765606070 page 54 tells me that it was an idea discussed by Adam Smith, for example. ISBN 0521594421 pages 180–181 tell me that William Stanley Jevons sought to replace the labour theory of value with the utility theory of value, and that the theory is quite distinct from the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. ISBN 0306451603 has some useful stuff, too. And that's just 10 minutes' work. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have “Marginal utility” and “Marginalism”, which cover the utility theory of value of marginalists such as Jevons, and a general article on Utility which should be the starting point for those looking for utility theories in general. The nominated article is a WP:OR-fork. —SlamDiego_←T 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or develop but at the present state it does not justify and article. DGG (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys, the reason I created this stub is that I found it too hard to find the information it contains anywhere else. The last time I looked at the article of which this one is supposed to be redundant, it did not contain this information. Moreover, I personally would not want to wade through all of the more complex and detailed information it contains in order to find this information. On the other hand, if you are bound and determined to make it hard for folks like me, have it your way. I will post the information elsewhere on the Web where it can easily be Googled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ambur (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: First, you need to put your comments in proper order, instead of just placing them at the top of discussion. Second, you need to sign your comments.
  Third, while the article “Utility” is indeed deficient, that is reason to improve that article, not to create a fork.
  Fourth, the article that you created is “original research” — essentially something that you've concocted yourself. Wikipedia is not the place for that. You're free to do as Gene Ray has, and create such a page elsewhere. However, let me, as an economist, recommend that you run your ideas past someone kind with expertise in decision theory first. —SlamDiego_←T 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete(updated per Slamdiego Sentriclecub (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)) I'm unable to imagine what the article is aiming to become. Could you briefly describe what exactly is the utility theory of value? maybe a link or write a brief 5 minute outline? Could you google it and give me the best place where I can read about the theory? I favor keeping articles like these if they can grow and have future value. Or take an hour, and write a more detailed article, and resubmit the article again if it fails this particular AfD. Don't give up on the article. Wikipedia needs more economics editors. I fully disagree with the theory based on its sentence, and that is why I'm eager to learn more about. Good luck, and maybe if you can first deal with the notability concerns, I'll help you with a few paragraphs. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I've said above, the article is a WP:OR-fork.
  Historically, utility theories of value seek to explain the price of a good or service in terms of its usefulness (with some notion of pleasure often taken as a relevant measure of usefulness), as opposed to cost-based theories, which explain price in terms of costs of production (eg labor input). The modern utility theory of value specifically looks at the marginal utility to explain price; you can find this discussed in “Marginalism” (with fuller explication of the concept of marginal utility at “Marginal utility”).
  The creator of the article in question has evidently decided that he's developed some special insight, which involves decomposing “utility” into four parts — “temporal utility”, “geospatial utility”, “form utility”, and “cost utility”. This division involves some wholesale, idiosyncratic redefinition of “utility”, as for example it isn't normally meaningful to speak of the usefulness of when something is delivered without otherwise explaining what the ____ the something is. (Does a camel in the Sahara at noon next Tuesday have the same time-usefulness as a pickle in Antarctica?)
  There is no “notable” contemporary utility of value other than the marginal utility theory; it would be good to flesh-out the historical section of “Marginal utility” with more discussion of the proto-marginalists — utility theorists who didn't quite make it to marginalism — and they might even merit an joint article of their own (some of them already have individual articles). But someone seeking to learn about utility theories of value can be best served by an improved version of “Utility”. —SlamDiego_←T 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a version of this article that's keepable, but this isn't it and there's pretty much nothing to build on. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd Tabs[edit]

Contested prod. This article is clearly a violation of what wikipedia is not. An article on tablature already exists, it would be absurd to have a page dedicated to each musical group, obviously. I just discovered this article Pink floyd tabulature by the same author that I am nominating as well. Woland (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons given above.[reply]

Careful With That Axe, Eugene, when you Delete Problems with WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an intersection of two notable topics (Pink Floyd; Tabs) with no evidence of individual notability in itself. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pink Floyd tablature is, in fact, tablature of Pink Floyd music - but there's nothing in here which isn't obvious from the title and from reading the article on tablature. I strongly suspect that the article's purpose at this point is to promote an external link (which I've removed). Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Note that this deletion discussion covers 2 versions of the same article: Pink Floyd Tabs, and Pink floyd tabulature. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Set The Delete To The Heart Of The Sun per nom and WP:OR. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Division Bell is ringing for this article. Oh, and WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send this article to the Great Gig in the Sky. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, among other considerations. If this was free, maybe go to Wikisource or something like that, but not here. rootology (C)(T) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as per CSD#A7 So Why 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanuzsh[edit]

Article about a young poet and small business owner(website design), with a lot of bold claims but no sources, and a clear COI Jac16888 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Tagged as such. -Brougham96 (talk) 06:04, 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. Sandstein 11:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Social Planning Council[edit]

Very spammish article about a charity organistion which, although long-running, doesn't appear to have achieved much beyond regularly refocusing its goal, and one survery of renters The article's main contributor also appears to have a COI. Jac16888 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple references, which should be enough to pass the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't say I'm strongly convinced of notability here; these things are really just the non-university version of a PIRG. I once worked for the equivalent organization in another city, so I know that the primary role of an SPC is to help other NPOs as a liaison and logistical support office (i.e. research support, helping groups connect with project funders, etc.) in their work, more than actually being the lead organization in their own right. Not that I'd say notability is out of the question here, but I'd like to see more sources than are currently present. In truth, I suspect that a single article about the general concept of social planning councils would probably pass the bar more easily than articles about specific SPCs. But maybe that's just me. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up to be less of an advert and with more and better references. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is much more a promotional advertisement than an objective, encyclopedic article. This comes more actoss as a PowerPoint presentation at an organization convention, as a sales pitch instead of a prospectus. The organization seems worthy of a NPOV article, but this isn't even close to one. B.Wind (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Run Ronnie Run. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Dobbs[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its show. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A character with his own spin-off film (Run Ronnie Run) would seem far more notable than the vast majority of characters, and certainly establishes notability beyond the show. the skomorokh 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be leagues beyond the other characters, but being part of a film, which is still part of the show, doesn't really change anything. TTN (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the discussion on the film, which could use some more content, with a mention on the article on the show. An additional one for the character seems redundant.DGG (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Run Ronnie Run. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Run Ronnie Run. Then do something with the navigation template there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Sword. Sandstein 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Shutt[edit]

Hardly any information, none of which is available from verifiable sources anyway. The person in question is not entirely notable anyway. Andre666 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information into The Sword, otherwise Delete. Article is basically a enumeration of the persons gig setup. Arakunem^Talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sword as he has no notability on his own. There is nothing in the article itself to be preserved for a possible merge (his setup is not supported by citations, and would be unimportant anyway for merge considerations). B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nn-club.. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innosia[edit]

Article about a 3 year old group which helps people "seek for the path of spiritual journey and influence mass to begin waking up upon the faulty life they have led since beginning" Quick google search gives only the groups webpage Article also focuses a lot on the leader, who is apparently "physic", [17] Jac16888 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7. --Woland (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with that, as a matter of fact Innosia is a community I joined and quite well known in my circle. As you know, due to the slow growth of internet in this country (Indonesia) we all know that it is hard to internetly well known for Sora Innosia. But, the development of Sora Innosia is done on the real life and on the net not just recently, it just being modified recently to be more legal, and if you do a search in Google you can see innosia.com is already registered long time ago and you can view the cache page of google about it. The foundation name Innosia can be searched through Yahoogroups which mentioned in the articles (join the group so you can know), the discussion involve many development of Innosia. As long ago, Innosia is considered a game development circle, you can easily found Sora Innosia Maze if you do a search before, but due to some reason this group has stopped developing game but instead concentrating on spiritual development, and the fund is gathered from member and through various trading. If you can download the game, you will know, or I could send one to you if you insist so, the game itself has been publicly publish in internet, you can use "Sora Innosia Maze" to search in google, and you can come up with pages about that in many other sites like (http://www.gamedev.net) then play this game and you will know that the game is built by the foundation, also the Sora Innosia's teachings is put inside this game. If you open the page of Sora Innosia Maze in http://www.innosia.com it has been stripped down because of the development is stopped and focus is moved from spreading teachings through community instead of using game, though so you can still see various websites promoting this maze game long ago. Recent development of Sora Innosia group has changed it to be more legal (registered to government) and the site is changed to suit the current vision and mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innosia (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sources are self referencing, no reliable sources. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you say that, then we can also assume that wikipedia is the encyclopedia of cyber, even articles like the name of a character in a series of cartoon animation exist in wikipedia, it is surely that this encyclopedia is not for real life. For your information, the author's work is done in many area, search for John Kenedy binus in google and you can see that he is always bringing innosia with him, and the nick refer from the search in google all to him and his work in various community. The real life reference might be needed for wikipedia, if wikipedia is only looking for information in the net then this encyclopedia must sure be corrupted by information manipulation of the net. The source itself is already reliable, you can see how long the site is built in google cache, in old pages, and his community consist of his classmates and friends before, his work is done in real life and no much spread in the net, this maybe true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innosia (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We believe you that your group exists, thats not the issue here, the problem is that your group does not appear to demonstrate any real notability, simply being registered with the government and helping out some people in your community is not enough, you need reliable, independent 3rd party sources that show how your group is notable. Also, it doesn't help that your article is extremely biased, it reads like an advertisement, which it clearly is. Sorry but you're going to have overhaul the article completely to even stand a chance of staying on wikipedia--Jac16888 (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising for a non-notable group. No independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can you define me how an article is not an advertisement? From what point of view the article should be written? So i may change the content of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innosia (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, tell me what exactly the article is about, because it is not at all clear beyond that its a group of some sort--Jac16888 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a community built by a founder name John Kenedy, he is a psychic and social worker, he had built a community that helps his members to grow both in spiritual and mundane life. He works people and merchant to help his community. Though the community is in business, but their real vision of life is the spiritual motivation which is to clean to seek the truth upon their existence. They should strive for current life and also the life after death. The meaning of life is pursued not only in material things but also the love and compassion. Thus he teaches people how to understand themselves by meditating, using his psychic abilities, he can see through people's past life, their karma problems, which hinders most people to be able to understand themselves. While people is helped by him, they often sincerely help Sora Innosia community to grow, some offer donation and some physically helps his work. His teaching is about life, what life is, and why today, people is often stress and depress? What are they lacking in their life? How to once again own the lost happiness? What kind of happiness do we really need? He answered all those by his teachings materials. Every day people he had a class teaches his disciples, some are his closed friends before, and his community is growing helping each other and growing helping people outside of this community by donating helps and also hopes to encourage people to live a meaningful life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innosia (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeovestism[edit]

Two-year-old article that still lacks an assertion of notability. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty well sourced in peer-reviewed journals. Topic could use expansion, but it appears notability is shown by references. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This notion seems to have been a hobby horse of one researcher 30 to 40 years ago, then briefly mentioned in a foot-note in a work which was not peer-reviewed. It might be a clever insight; but it isn't “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am retreating to agnosticism on this issue, in light of the evidence noted by Itub. —SlamDiego_←T 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are primary ones from the terms inventor. No proof that this term or concept ever caught on, so it is a non-notable old neologism (just a logism then?). If sources don't exist after 40 years, it seems certain that the psychological community did not embrace this term, and that it is a failed neologism.Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 44 google scholar hits, not all from the same author. The term did attract some notice from third parties. Another option would be to merge into a larger topic and redirect. --Itub (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published sources cannot prove the notability of a subject. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete per WP:NOTE, but this article has growth potential and might be notable in a few months. Striked, did anyone check the citations? The sources are from 1967, 1971, 1972, and 1977. This fails WP:Notability, and this article has only 12 times more search hits than homovestism (which isn't even a word) and many[18] are simply mirroring this article. I say its pretty clear delete, the scholar hits were convincing, until one considers we're talking about spanning 40 years. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Age is a very poor determination factor for notability. We'vegot articles on small towns that haven't existed for the past 400 years, nevermind 40. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age is different than notability rate. If all the citations were compact to just a few years, lets say all the research happened between 1966 and 1976 and then none since, that is fine, but we're talking about a flat distribution. Plus, I like to view the citations before I vote, and this one requires membership. When I don't have the information, I have to err on the side of skepticism. I'll change my vote if you can add another source or two, and I'll return to review them. Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have quite a bit of citations and would pass WP:GNG. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per all the snow on the ground. It seems to me to be quite clear the consensus will be to delete. I will relist if there are serious objections. Hiding T 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Dark Knight sequel[edit]

Previously prodded by another user. Unsourced article about an upcoming film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Brougham96 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even the title is known. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FUTFILMS, content already covered in Batman (film series)#Future. Nolan's return is pure speculation. Alientraveller (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands any article would be based on the limited amount of speculation there has been about any future project; currently the article would be a magnet for original research and unsubstantiated rumour. With no solid reliably sourced information about this (or any other) future project information on any future Batman film may be appropriate in the main Batman (film series) article but not as an independent piece. Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no verifiable project on the way. All relevant information exists at Batman (film series)#Future and will continue to do so until production actually begins on this film. There is nothing set in stone for this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as even the article calls itself a rumour. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: total speculation. I also concur with Alientraveller, Guest, and Erik in regards to where info on such a project belongs until shooting starts. Looks like it's snowing. Cliff smith ^talk 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of spherical objects in the Solar System. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of planetary bodies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of planetary bodies

This article's information has been merged with List of spherical objects in the Solar System. The merge has however been contested by User:Dojarca‎ Serendi ^pod ous 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repurpose as a list of all objects classed as planets or dwarf planets by the appropriate body, regardless of whether or not they are in the solar system. This would mean deleting most of the moons from the current article. NullofWest Fill the Void 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a List of extrasolar planets. Serendi ^pod ous 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case please read my !vote as being for a reverse merge from that list to this one NullofWest Fill the Void 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the merge transferred the content of this article into another then it can't be deleted per the terms of the GFDL licence under which the content was released. This seems to be more of an editorial dispute rather than something that requires a deletion discussion, has a clear consensus on how the information should be presented been established? Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this article has received thumbs up from pretty much everyone involved except Dajorca. I started this AfD at Dajorca's insistence, because I didn't want get sucked into an edit war. Serendi ^pod ous 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of spherical objects in the Solar System. The latter article contains the same information and the existence of a duplicate is not justified. It is better to have one good (or probably featured) list, than several substandard ones. Ruslik (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, hence finishing the consensus merge. (GDFL means pages cannot be deleted? Surely that is not true, merged pages are deleted all the time.)Yobmod (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains information not present in the other articles, such as internal structure of the bodies and surface area not only for the bodies but also for planet-sattelite system. There is also groupping by region of Solar System. The article is a former featured list candidate and has a good potential after some minor corrections. It also rated mid-important in the astronomy project. I think there is no need for merge but in any case, merge does not mean article deletion. User Serendi ^pod ous initially proposed merge with his article that would keep the structure of the List of planetary bodies. Now we see that he only wants to delete this one. He also claims he has a consensus for merge, but at the discussion page only one editor supported this move (Ruslik) and the other objected. --Dojarca (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the proposed new article is supposed to be an improvement of the previous one. surface area is irrelevant since these bodies are spherical, and therefore the radius gives the same information; grouping by region is obvious in the color legend. it is a FFLC because it did not pass, while the replacement is aimed at doing that. also, the mid imp thing is irrelevant if it is a redundant article. Also, "planetary bodies" is extremely vague. one more note, the Sun is spherical too. Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it gives the information, but we discuss here how the information presented, not only is it enough to calculate some other values. For example, combined area by region is not presented in that other article. Also note that the other article is not a list by itself, but a combination of different tables.--Dojarca (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Sun, though it looks a bit odd up there by itself. Serendi ^pod ous 09:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment An exclusively colour-based legend is of no use to someone who is colour-blind; using a monochrome monitor; viewing a monochrome print-put; or using a non-visual device such as a text reader or Braille device. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way We have this list: List of Solar System objects. Do you think it is better than that you're going to delete?--Dojarca (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That list is in our sights too. I plan to merge it with four other lists after I'm done with this one. Serendi ^pod ous 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The horizontal layout in List of planetary bodies has some advantages over the vertical layout used by List of spherical objects in the Solar System. First it's easier for screen readers and those that are colour-bind. Second with a little bit of changes the table could be made sortable. My other concern is that the List of spherical objects in the Solar System is that precision seems to be too high. Are the values really accurate to 8 digits? Compare with the fact sheets at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html for example http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html. That said a name for the merged article with "in the Solar System" seems more reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The horizontal layout doesn't really work when there are so many different characteristics to list. I've trimmed some of the numbers down, but many (such as eccentricity and orbital period) are taken from infoboxes, and I will need to verify the sourcing before I make any changes. Serendi ^pod ous 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R# List of spherical objects in the Solar System per Ruslik.--Freeway 9 1 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimona Radar Facility[edit]

Was a prod by me, but an anon removed the prod. I'm concerned about the notability here. rootology (C)(T) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling this afd, since it turns out this is notable. rootology (C)(T) 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete article of "Dimona Radar Facility"? The article is short. However, it is a military facility in a conflict area, so not much information is available. But the facility itsself is very remarkable, as its towers are with a height of 400 metres the tallest towers of Israel and taller than every man-made structure in the European Union. Further, they are probably the tallest towers used for radar purpose in the world. As radar facilities are usually installed in domes and not on supertall towers the radar is also very remarkale. So no reason for deletion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.207.28 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't really have the ability to judge the notability of this facility so I'm going to refrain from doing so. However, if the result of this conversation is delete, I would suggest we instead merge with Dimona. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure about military notability, but they are certainly notable as the tallest towers of this kind in the world, as well as the tallest structures in Israel (at completion - beating Orot Rabin). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on several grounds--as structures, and expand as in fact of major international news interest as a military base unless they have an article in Wikipedia under another name. -- see the 627 Google news articles listed at [19] ( the whole phrase doesn't work--I used just Dinona, and then selected the relevant cluster. ) DGG (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy radar installation; for news sources see [20], [21], [22]. Jfire (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Widely-published sources support notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Koboi[edit]

This article consistes entirely of plot summary and original research. It completely fails NOT#PLOT and WAF. It fails to establish notability of its subject because it has no references of any kind, thus verifiability cannot be established either. Reliable secondary sources would be required to justify a stand-alone article for this character, and none appear to be available. The plot summary is already present in the individual articles about the books and is merely re-presented here under the guise of "Fictional character history". For original research, see in particular the second paragraph under "Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception". IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main antagonist of bestselling book series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which does not de facto or in an and of itself warrant an encyclopedia article. There are no references in the article to establish notability. Your argument does not address any of the concerns raised in the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try a google search then. I'm not sure where you're looking, but I see a number of News articles and at least one Book discussing this character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you mind providing some links to those that you feel are good sources? I've just looked through 10 pages of google hits and only found fan forums, wikis, fan fiction sites, social networking sites, etc...nothing that would remotely qualify as a reliable secondary source. If the book you are referring to is Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception, that is actually the fourth book in the Artemis Fowl series from which the character originates, not an independent book discussing the character. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The book I'm referring to is Fantasy Fiction, by Frances Sinclair, ISBN 1903446465. You must be using a computer that blocks Google News for some reason, because This Toronto Sun article is the very first thing that comes up for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That might be. I'm editing from work so I'm not sure if it blocks GN hits. The first hit I get is the Wikipedia article, followed by some fan art commmunities and fansites. A separate search under Google News got me only 1 hit [23] which appears to be a review of the book (it's not in English, so I'm not certain). The Toronto Sun article requires registration to view...could you maybe provide some quotes or something from it that would help establish notability for this character? On the face it looks like a review of the book as a whole, so I doubt it'd demonstrate independent notability for the character apart from the book itself, but I'll leave it to you. Sinclair's book Riveting Reads Plus Fantasy Fiction only gives a 1-paragraph plot overview of the entire series. Its only mention of the character is "In the fourth book Artemis Fowl and the Opal Deception evil Opal Koboi captures Holly and Artemis and leaves them to die in a troll-infested amusement park." (p. 36). Clearly this doesn't discuss the character in any manner of detail and doesn't demonstrate independent notability, even by the widest interpretation of "significant coverage" as called for by the general notability guideline. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it's worth, it's a little-discussed problem with Google that people in one part of the world will see results that simply don't appear to people in other parts of the world. I experienced this myself at AFD some years ago. On the other hand, it does appear that you've forgotten to de-restrict the search so that it covers all dates, not just this month. ☺
        It's the Toronto Star, not the Toronto Sun, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops :P Well, a de-restricted search doesn't turn up anything that gives the character more than a passing or trivial mention either; mainly reviews of the book as a whole. Of course I'm still open to anyone presenting a secondary source the gives significant coverage to this specific character, which would help prove notability, but after multiple searches coming up dry I doubt that such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Main antagonist of a well-known and bestselling bookseries. If we delete Opal Koboi, we might as well delete Lord Voldemort. Why do we have to delete an article with a few problems instead of trying to work out those problems. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the comments above, a primary problem is WP:V because there do not appear to be any secondary sources available to support this article. We cannot fix a lack of sources if no sources even exist. Lord Voldemort, on the other hand, is very well sourced including numerous reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to the character. That's simply not the case with this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a convincing argument at all in this case. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are some things, thankfully. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as no reliable sources giving significant coverage seem to be available - unless the Toronto Star article proves to be significant. Anyone got access to that? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to redirect to Artemis Fowl series per Hiding below. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. In the time this article has been discussed, I've rewritten Cissie and Ada to comply with policy and rescue from deletion. If the sources exist, fix the article. (no objection to a redirect to Artemis Fowl series as redirects are free. But my main point stands. Fix the problems.) Hiding T 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a delete and redirect too, similar to this closure. The character name is a potential search term, and would be appropriate to exist as a redirect to the series article, but the content as it stands should be deleted to avoid a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what Illazilla says himself--since he could fix the other articles, this one is fixable too. I do not try to delete everything i would like to work on that I do not finish. DGG (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything to that effect. Could you please point to where? I've explicitly said that I can't fix the article because I can't find any sources. I think you have me confused with Hiding. In either case, the ability to "fix" other articles does not mean that this one can be fixed as well, as demonstrated by our inability to find any reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't hold up when no sources can be found. (It doesn't hold up ever, really) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comments are at Andrew Lenahan, but mostly born of frustration. Let's just improve these articles if we can rather than have the debate. Hiding T 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. The Toronto Star article makes an explicit mention of the character. Google-searching for sources on characters is difficult because there are so many unreliable fansites, so finding a reliable source this early is a good start. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither redirection nor deletion are exceptable. The fact that people will probably type her name into the search engine, proves that she is notable. All the article needs is a bit of sourcing a few citations here and there. The text needs to be trimmed a bit too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point here. There don't appear to be any reliable sources available. Both Starblind and I have conducted searches, and the only possible source that has come up is the Toronto Star article. We have no idea what that article even says about the character; since it's a pay-per-view website we can't read more than the opening sentence. On the basis of that opening sentence it appears that the article is a review of the book as a whole, not a source specifically discussing this individual character. The fact that it came up in a search for "Opal Koboi" only indicates that the character's name appears somewhere in the article, not that there is any significant coverage from which to source the Wikipedia article about the character. In fact, it appears that the reason it comes up as a hit is because the article has a quote from the book which contains the character's name. It could very well be the same kind of coverage as the Riveting Reads Plus Fantasy Fiction source discussed above, which only mentions the character in passing in a single sentence synopsis. Bottom line: a source that we can't view isn't a source at all if there are no quotes or citations from it in the article. I've asked Starblind to provide some quotes from it. If he does, great. If he can't, then obviously this source gives us nothing. Thus far we have found zero reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to this character, and one source we can't even view which has a slim possibility of providing significant coverage. We can't run off of the presumption that other sources may exist out there in the ether...that violates WP:V (and, by some extension, WP:CRYSTAL. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "The fact that people will probably type her name into the search engine, proves that she is notable" is entirely your opinion and impossible to prove. There is no objective way to show whether readers type the character's name into the search box or not. There are ways to show the number of page views, but these do not indicate how the reader arrived at the article, as there are numerous other ways to arrive at the article other than typing "Opal Koboi" in to the Wikipedia search box. As I've said, a redirect page is actually perfectly acceptable because we can assume that some people will probably do a Wikipedia search for the character, and I don't object to the page existing solely as a redirect. However the current content, which is 100% plot summary and original research, should be deleted to avoid a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are cunning like that aren't you IllaZilla. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, or how to take it, so I'll just say let's stay civil and stick to discussing the article's problems. I am referring to a delete/redirect like this, which I've seen done before and seems to be the appropriate action here. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One extra point in addition to what IllaZilla says above: even if we did know for certain that lots of people were searching for the term, that might demonstrate 'notability' by some reasonable definitions of the word but not by Wikipedia's technical definition, which is what we need to think about here. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone provide a link to a website that doesn't require you to enter some massive, Faustian free-trial to view a simple book review? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I admit the article needs work but the character is too notable to be deleted outright. If we delete Opal Koboi we might as well delete Artemis Fowl II and Holly Short. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments again, neither of which address the actual concerns brought up in the nomination (verifiability, original research, unavailability of sources. Merely repeating the same arguments you've already made doesn't give them any added weight. In my honest opinion, if no secondary sources exist for those other articles, then they should actually be brought here for a deletion discussion (I won't bother with that right now. I pick my battles and this one was a pretty obvious candidate). Deleting the article does not mean we are deleting the character; we are not banishing any mention of these characters from Wikipedia or the face of the Earth. They can be (and are) discussed in the main articles on the series, the individual books, and character list articles. There are simply not enough (nay, any) third-party sources around which to build independent articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You pick your battles and this was an obvious candidate? Are you implying IllaZilla that you go around looking for articles to delete and pick off the fledgeling articles that won't put up a fight? Are you like some sort of predatory fish that picks off the smaller weaker fish rather going in for the big ones? Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, are you going to go along with a man who deletes things simply for the fun of it? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the presidential debates...you don't need to make negative insinuations about my intentions or character. I came across this article rather randomly, and it struck me as having a number of problems (verifiability, notability, excessive plot summary, and original research). Since it did not appear that those problems could be fixed without removing at least 95% of the article's content, I believed deletion was a valid option. Hence this discussion. I did not even look at the other Artemis Fowl characters, and that's not particularly relevant. This discussion is about this article, on it own merits and irrespective of OTHERSTUFF. By "pick my battles" I specifically mean that I don't go around hunting for articles to delete; I only nominate those I happen to encounter that are obvious candidates because they have unsolveable problems. I also don't troll AfD !voting in every deletion discussion; I "pick my battles" by only joining those in which I feel I have a valid viewpoint to offer and can make a good argument either for or against. Drop the incivility and the personal attacks and focus on this article's problems, which you have yet to offer any solutions for. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sorry, I overreacted. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG, Starblind. Major character in notable series. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:ITSNOTABLE argument does not address any of the concerns expressed in the nomination. I suggest you take a look at the article's verifiability and other issues and base an opinion on that, since that is the root problem. Notability is shown through third-party sources (per WP:V), which for this character don't appear to exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'd better find some then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so that Illazilla can improve it.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excellant suggestion. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of this discussion? I can't improve it because I can't find a single reliable source. If you want it improved, you fix it. I'm not going to waste any more time on an article for which zero good sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I suggest to continue the discussion about a new name on the talk page. Sandstein 11:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure[edit]

This is an unsourced list. It is also a breach of WP:PLACE ("We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries".), by way of asserting Yorkshire exists in 1984 and beyond. --Jza84 | Talk 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Jza84 | Talk 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as "List of collieries in West and South Yorkshire 1984 to present with dates of closure". The list contains information which is useful to family, local, social and industrial historians and could be sourced retrospectively, as are many articles.--Harkey (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would there be sources provided though? I'm sure it'd be helpful, but its not verifiable currently. --Jza84 | Talk 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been asking for sources since August. Did you not look for sources yourself in all that time? I found this within 10 minutes, most of which was spent looking at ISBN 0415111145, which I've just used to improve British Coal. Problems with the word "Yorkshire" in the title can be fixed by use of the "move" button, and don't require anyone to delete anything. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'm an unpaid volunteer, with little interest in this field, so no I didn't look (instead I helped get an FA to the main page in that time), and have no intention of looking for such an arbitrarily policy breaching named-article. Asking for sources in August was a courtesy. Who on earth is going to look for a list of colleries in West and South Yorkshire in 1984 anyway? Why not Lancashire and Oxfordshire in 1985? --Jza84 | Talk 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're all unpaid volunteers. It's not something that is special to you alone. And yet many of us look for sources not only in fields that we have no interest in, but in fields that we even consider distasteful. It's part of collaboratively building an encyclopaedia. Asking for sources isn't a courtesy. It's a standard part of Wikipedia triage.
    Your first question is a loaded question based upon the false premise that this is a list of collieries in 1984, and is thus unanswerable. As for your second, see list of collieries in Lancashire 1854-present. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Asking for sources is a courtesy - I could've just removed all unsourced material blind (per policy), then speedy-deleted this myself. Also, the Lancashire list does not include Oxfordshire - you're missing my point that combining two counties is arbitary, and doesn't reflect real world practice (WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM?). And I do not believe I said being unpaid is special (that's your inference), but the burden of sourcing is on the person who adds content, not those who challenge it (see WP:V). This is pretty basic editorial stuff; I appreciate your citing your own lengthy self-written pages here, but I'm working within the bounds of real, codified, consensual policy. If many of you want to find sources in your spare time, then now is the time to do it - I'm challenging you here (isn't that the point of AFD?)... --Jza84 | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually its the "Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield" ("Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield". www.countryside.gov.uk.) which adjective would we have to remove? The word Yorkshire is being used as an adjective as it often is, not a proper noun.--Harkey (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jza84 is incorrect when he says that it does reflect real world practice to link West and South Yorkshire together; the two are constantly linked. The phrase Yorkshire is far more common that saying W.Yorks, S.Yorks., etc. (By the way, 6 of the pits were in North Yorkshire.) I was unaware of the Lancs list beforehand, but it is interesting to note that this does not abide by the policy interpretation that Jza84 is invoking: many of the pits listed are now in Greater Manchester. Why has that page not been tagged? I feel that Jza84's application of Wikipedia policy is rather disproportionate to such a small issue, especially when he admits that he knows little of the subject matter that the article was written for. If all else fails, we can settle for calling it "... in Yorkshire and the Humber", which is a government region. Nothing in Wikipedia policy can challenge that. Epa101 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The linking of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire collieries is not artificial - when people talked of "Yorkshire miners" they did not distinguish between the two counties. To compare this pair of adjacent counties to a combination like "Lancashire and Oxfordshire" is not appropriate. PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll attempt to obtain the following publication to verify the information. "IngentaConnect Colliery Closures and the Decline of the UK Coal Industry". www.ingentaconnect.com. Retrieved 2008-10-07.--Harkey (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just Googled "colliery closure dates" and the article in question came up on the first page. It's a search term that I might have used when compiling local or family histories.--Harkey (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe just change to "List of collieries in the Yorkshire coalfield 1984-present with dates of closure".--Harkey (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page a very long time ago. My main resources were Colin Jackson's A to Z of Colliery Names, Pre-1947 Owners, Areas & Dates and the Northern Mining Research Network. I shall go onto the page now and add these are references. On the subject of historical counties, I did not intend the article as some sort of political statement in support of Yorkshire's boundaries, and I think that anyone who does is rather sensationalist. The suggestion by Hackney Lodger might be a good compromise here. I grouped the collieries in terms of district as this seemed more useful than doing it by West, South, North. For example, it seemed misleading to say that there were 20 collieries in West Yorkshire when 15 of those were in just one small distict. Epa101 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Attempted to add before above statement but got edit conflict, so added any way,)Keep - Dont think its the neccesarily the best Name for an article, but to claim it breaches WP naming convention when the whole area in terms of Coal mining was refered to in general terms as the Yorkshire Coal Field, it a bit of thin reason to delete it. (Should WP:Yorkshire be broken up into the administrative areas then ? under said naming convention). Agree its un sourced but as the list links to multiple articles are they all not relavent. Do we deleted every article with no refs ? because a large number of what are now decent articles started with vauge references or no refs. As a stand alone article it has more use than a lot of the Bulk greated Stubs for places and streams and creeeks etc that can be found. Agree you did put a note on the talk page asking for refs. So I'd say keep & rename or merge, into an article on the coal fields of ? (Northern England as Yorkshire not allowed apparently) If we found it others will. (Note have no association with mining other than Tagging for Project Yorkshire, Sheffield and Derbyshire aricles that fall under there areas) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added now.

P.S. I would rather have this article expanded to include all 1984 collieries rather than see its deletion. Yes, I shall try to do the work myself if need be. I can understand why someone from anywhere else in the country might wonder why Wikipedia did not cater to their area, so it might be advisable. However, that should not be an excuse for deleting the valuable information that is already assembled on Yorkshire. Epa101 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename- (a) drop the "with dates of closure" - lists often contain useful information, and it needn't be specified in the article title(eg Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom isn't Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom with length and location); (b) consider changing to List of collieries in Yorkshire and the Humber 1984-present to use a current region name. It seems a useful compilation of information which has a place in WP. PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and rescue I disagree a little with Pam about how to do it: I'd keep the closing dates, but add the date of starting, at least approximately, and make stub articles on every one of them. DGG (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to list of collieries in Yorkshire, then add other colleries in Yorkshire and other notable information, such as date they opened, and possibly location, maximum workforce or output. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion. I was thinking that a table would be a better way of representing everything. I can categorise them by district easily enough once I get some time. My only reservation would be over other collieries in Yorkshire, seeing as there used to hundreds. My home town of Ossett had 8 pits at the time of the 1926 strike yet its population back then was around 10,000. I doubt that any Wiki user is sufficiently committed to list them all, although I might yet be surprised on this issue. Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of collieries in Yorkshire operating since 1984. This is a legitimate subject. Such lists are a useful means of identifying missing articles (by redlinking). Such articles are frequently wholy unreferenced, becasue the references are better placed in the articles on items listed. I would oppose the conversion into an article on all collieries in Yorkshire, since the list would be almost endless. It was formerly common to talk of the Derbyshire coalfield as distinct from the Yorkshire one; no doubt that is semantics, since they are continuous. If a separate article is wanted on the Debyshire/Nottinghamshire coalfield (or others), it can no dount be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked a lot of the names to "Missing articles" or the Village if it talks about the mine, as a expanded section in that articles better than loads of stubs. (note several of the formmer pits still have Football teams named after them with Wiki article, that have not been linked to but a short pargraf in the article and a back link would be useful.

If it was renamed to a general collierires list it can be split when it gets too big (if ever). Lists are usefull as it stops articles filling up and links related items Categories do not always work for sorting - BulldozerD11 (talk) 18:39, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie_Zaa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddavey (talk • contribs) 18:12, October 7, 2008

Keep if referenced. Passes WP:MUSIC easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of the references are in Spanish, but I did find the following in the book World Music (ISBN 1858286360), in the chapter on Columbia: "Boleros... of which the most capable and interesting exponent is the sentimental Charlie Zaa." In other words, he's a central figure in his particular genre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was nominated for a Latin Grammy (page 5), which should be enough to satisfy point 8 of WP:MUSIC. There are plenty of newspaper and magazine articles about him at Google News. Most are in Spanish, but here are a couple in English: [24], [25]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the article should be sourced and referenced properly. Then keeping it would make sense. Until then it doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC guidelines at all. --Daviddavey (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I've added one ref to the article about the Grammy nomination. I'll add some more references if you promise to help me out. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you add references I'll write "Keep" myself. The problem is that the article had none and read as promotional. He is not super famous and little more comes up about him in a google search than would for an amateur band. Reference it to demonstrate notability. If he has established notability the page (as is) doesn't do him justice. --Daviddavey (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: He is super famous in Latin America, or at least he once was. -- Antonio El Latino Oscuro Martin 5:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- can that be sourced?--Daviddavey (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly: [26]-[27]--Antonio Apple of Desire Martin, 10:38, 10 October, 2008 (UTC)
    - Do I really have to spell this out? Then do so. As it stands the page should be speedily deleted if anything. If he's notable then make it look like a wiki article. This is my last comment on this page. If you source it, great. If not it hurts the credibility of Wiki (jmo, admin may disagree) and doesn't serve the artist very well either. --Daviddavey (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if anyone else is trying to fix the article, please note that it needs reclassification. The stub lists the artist's birth year as 1974, but it's classified under 1978 Births.--Daviddavey (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of that myself - assuming 1974 is correct, not 1978. If not, change both. Article is still thinly sourced and fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria as is--Daviddavey (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1974 is correct, according to his bio in Gale's Contemporary Musicians. (That source will help confirm other details, as well.) What criteria of WP:MUSIC does the article fail? It's gotten better, and it should be clear that the topic is clearly notable. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battledawn[edit]

Per WP:WEB - G.S.K.Lee (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:WEB. Reads like a very poor joke, particularly the "Community" section: "The single Jewish Admin. Nuff Said" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Judaism aside, there are no verifiable, third-parlty sources establishing notability of thes game. MuZemike 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This game is real and bring fun to many peoples lives. It does not deserve to be deleted over a comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.85.248 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — 81.77.85.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No indication of notability even if we ignore the obvious joke parts. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery[edit]

Lack of notability Yumegusa (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability is an undertsatement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked prizes (Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry) give the illusion of notability but both the prizes are of dubious notability themselves. Of course, Slattery is no less notable than half the musical groups that somehow manage to be included here, but that's not saying much! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistent with WP:BIO, "the person has received a notable award" (AWGIE Awards) [28]. WWGB (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an "additional criterion", which counts for little if WP:BIO#Basic_criteria fail to be met. Moreover, the subject fails utterly to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria specific to his field.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC reference (reliable and independent enough for most) attests to four of his awards and states His poems have appeared in literary journals, newspapers, magazines and on radio throughout Australia, Europe, North America and Asia. That's approaching notability for mine. Murtoa (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has clearly sustained a level of significant publishing and prizewon achievements. User:Words Australia 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having your work published in national newspapers and literary journals is a noteworthy benchmark in my books. User:Australian Reviewer 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Australian Reviewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've won a few awards and had poetry published frequently in anthologies and journals, but I'm modest enough to realise I'm not notable in the overall scheme of things. If winning a few obscure awards and having writings published in poetry mags was really a valid criterion for having an article in WP, there'd be room for little else here. Is anyone seriously claiming that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE (criteria for authors, filmmakers and other creative practitioners)? Because if an author doesn't meet these criteria s/he's not notable; that's what WP:CREATIVE is there for.
  --Yumegusa (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's not what WP:CREATIVE is there for. You'll note that regarding additional notability criteria such as WP:CREATIVE, two things apply - Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included and Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. I revert to the overriding consideration - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - which I think Slattery meets. Murtoa (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not 'famous,' certainly a "noteable" enough name around the European literary magazine scene. And perhaps, given that Slattery lives in Australia, is of note in itself! The Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry are not Nobels or Bookers, right, though popularity doesn't equate with notability. And saying that the sentence "Lack of notability is an undertsatement" is not useful criticism is an understatement. User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Rachael Dept Engliska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ Yumegusa, upon a brief check of both the WP:Creative page and a random list of poets from the UK, what percentage of those 312+ poets do you think adhere to the criteria? User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly he has published wider than other ‘minor’ poets (eg. Jaya Savige, David Musgrave, Samuel Wagan Watson, Bronwyn Lea and B. R. Dionysius) with pages here on Wikipedia. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — MassachusettsPoets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Pointing out the there are other pages which fail to meet the necessary criteria is a very weak argument for keeping one.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep§~~ Slattery’s page could be effortlessly enhanced – a quick G shows 30+ references that could make the page more encyclopaedic. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An admin might investigate the apparent sockpuppets dominating this discussion. WWGB (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ A daily growing web-base means a daily growing Wiki-base and Slattery's noteworthy poetry clearly meets the criteria. User:MassachusettsPoets talk (talk) 9:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Googlecheck = published widely. User:Words Australia 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits)", "When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links."--Yumegusa (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've picked up on WWGB and opened a SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Words Australia with User:Words Australia temporarily blocked.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO and has provoked a sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Boone[edit]

non-notable FinFangFoom (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Boone's claim(s) to fame are 1) she is the daughter of singer Pat Boone and sang backup at some of his 1970s concerts and 2) she was a friend of Karen Carpenter and interviewed after Carpenter's death. Non-notable. FinFangFoom (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows 50+ media mentions from 1972-2002, including a good bit about her own struggle with Anorexia Nervosa. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of The Boones, which recorded several albums in the mid-70s. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, not limited to Chicago Tribune, St. Petersberg Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, Kingman Daily Miner, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. There are five more pages of Google News results, if you want me to continue. I question whether the nominator did any research before initiating this discussion. the skomorokh 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your wikiconcern. I question whether a family member of an entertainer (which is in and of itself non-notable per wikipedia guidelines) whose sole claim to fame is the fact that she suffered from anorexia at one time is worthy of an article (per WP:ONEEVENT). Feel free to differ. FinFangFoom (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you've confused notability with importance. The former is determined by coverage in reliable sources; the latter is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability. Sincerely, the skomorokh 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Per Jclemens and the skomorokh. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mudik[edit]

This seems to be a candidate for wikitionary. This seems to be a generic term in Indonesia for any home coming holidays.. Anshuk (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a foreign language dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lost Boys: The Tribe. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Boys: The Tribe (soundtrack)[edit]

Non-notable movie soundtrack with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into film article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into film article. No reason to simply delete. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lost Boys: The Tribe. This is as clear-cut a merge candidate as I've ever seen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 greatest Romanians[edit]

Appears to be a pure copyvio at present, lifted from the contents of what the TV show said. That would fail GFDL for their commercial use. Beyond that, I'm not convinced of notability here. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a copyright violation. Results of polls are supposed to be objective facts and, as such, they cannot be copyrighted, per Romanian and US law. bogdan (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the notability of the list itself? Not the people on the list itself, but how is the "100 Greatest Romanians" list by this TV station notable? TV stations do lists like this constantly, for all sorts of things. It's practically the only things that some stations in some countries air these days. rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's been reported by all the Romanian press. I can find a dozen or so articles about it. bogdan (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a list made by a commercial company with a for-profit intent. Our reproduction of it harms their right to profit from the investment in creating the list. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the poll was organized by the state-owned public television in Romania, which is not-for-profit organizatin, but that's irrelevant to the copyright status.

The result of a poll is pure data/facts and according to the copyright law, you can't copyright data and facts. If the list were made up by an employee of the TV station, it would be copyrighted, but the poll simply reflects the public opinion. If I were to make another poll at the same time, I would, under the error margins, get very similar results. bogdan (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Passing over the copyright issue that's been covered above, this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable list - although we appear to have a number of similar articles in the attached nav template. That all being said, someone should probably pass the redlinks (Mădalina Manole, Florin Piersic, Iancsi Korossy, Andreea Marin, Ilie Cleopa, Dumitru Cornilescu, and Sorin Ovidiu Vântu) off to an appropriate WikiProject for potential article creation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's not a copyvio per Bogdangiusca's points above, and if it has significant news coverage as he says. Could the articles in question be added as references? I'd do it myself if I read Romanian. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no copyright violation; major program on a notable subject from a notable TV station must be notable. The "TV stations do lists like this constantly" argument doesn't wash because it appears to be the only notable Romanian list. Lack of English sources is an issue but that doesn't detract from the subject's notability. See also WP:CSB. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not copyrightable. The list (in particular the top 10) has been discussed over and over again by the media in Romania and Moldova, which makes it highly notable. — AdiJapan 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not copyrightable, endlessly mentioned, many equivalents. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep uncopyrighted and notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 07:04, 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. kur ykh 06:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Days of Our Lives characters[edit]

Redundancy. The template already covers the information in this article. Matthew Glennon^(Talk) 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the other references, as summed up by User:Elonka:

Matthew Glennon^(Talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, this is redundant of the template and frought with redundant plot summary. The creator has also stated here that "This article that I CREATED, is meant to be a day by day plot update page because I CREATED IT for that sole purpose." Obviously this violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT: and WP:FICTION and further convinces me of its lack of value. I think it is a simple case of a new editor not understanding policy and that this is an encyclopedia, not Soap Opera Digest. — TAnthony^Talk 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Looking over the various talk pages involved, the creator has some serious WP:OWN issues. Ravenswing 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have other lists and a template which cover this information. --El on ka 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the other pages, I find either bare lists or partial information about some characters only. Here I find, conveniently, some information about both the minor and major current characters, which seems to me a useful arrangement. This grouping seems an appropriate presentation of information. I see only the minimal amount of plot summary to give context. DGG (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we update the character pages with the new information from this page first/ -- Matthew Glennon^{(Talk to me)} 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The individual character pages are chock full of info, as are the family articles, I don't see a need for this slim regurgitation, especially if it only exists to provide the latest plot developments. A one-sentence overview per character would provide context; the entry for Nick Fallon here lets us in on the fascinating and crucial fact that he "Called his job to ask for some time off as he stated that he would be heading off to France." LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 03:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. This isn't daysofourlivespedia.com, and we don't have to have a running commentary of every event that has happened to every character in the course of a show that has run over six thousand hours of screen time. Ravenswing 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page up for discussion lists 41 characters. Template:Days of our Lives lists about 30. One option is to add those other 11 minor characters to the template, and link them to the entries at List of Days of our Lives characters or Minor characters of Days of our Lives. I was actually surprised to see that the "minor" list has more information about characters than the major DOOL list, which just lists the names without any additional information. I prefer the style of List of General Hospital characters, which provides (in my opinion) a more useful resource. --El on ka 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the additional names to the template (except dead Trent, Henderson, etc) for the time being. Short character overviews a la the GH list would be fine and probably helpful in the Days list. I would have been all for doing that here, but it seems that the creator wants it in its current form period, which of course is unacceptable.— TAnthony^Talk 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like List of Days of our Lives characters may need even more cleanup, anyway. I'll post more detailed notes at Talk:List of Days of our Lives characters... --El on ka 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Gangster EP[edit]

Non-notable something. Article doesn't state what it is. If you would like, feel free to place a speedy delete tag up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uncited and fails WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Volk[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Some non-notable G-hits. Unreferenced, and I can find no notable references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No matter one's thoughts on the Gaia hypothesis, the subject's 1989 Nature paper, and the fact that it's been cited 136 times by other refereed journal articles (according to Web of Science) support the assertion of notability. Four books published by mainstream houses (Wiley, MIT Press) and a long publication list offer further support. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another single-authored paper in Nature, (Sensitivity of climate and atmospheric CO2 to deep-ocean and shallow-ocean carbonate burial, Nature, 337, 637-640, 1989.) & others in major journals. Several major books by major scientific publishers, including Wiley Springer, Columbia Univ Press, & MIT Press. Inadequate article, but there's enough info available for it to be expanded. This is by far enough academic work to considered an authority in his field and to be notable.(FWIW, he does not seem to be one of the people who think Gaia is literal, not just a metaphor) DGG (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Agricola, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Prominent enough as a supporter of Gaia that he might pass wp:bio; and good reasons to pass wp:prof.John Z (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per DGG. Nsk92 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Railgan[edit]

The bio is a hoax, google search shows nothing. AdjustShift (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, another obvious hoax. By the 1920s electric railways had already been around for decades. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, None of the references listed mention anything to support the legitimacy of this page. Concur that it is a hoax. Hardnfast (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A train wreck of a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley E. Bogdan[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Only source is an autobiography[29]. There could be an argument that the product he makes is notable but I do not see any supporting sources that the man is notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, no third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlet (West Wing)[edit]

Article is about the last name of a fictional character. All of the information here is available in either the The West Wing article or the Josiah Bartlet article. TN‑X-Man 16:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a stub that is never going to get better and for which all valid information already exists at West Wing, Josiah Bartlet, and other related character pages. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so if you guys can delete just cuz you can, then, ya know- cool. I don't know why the stub would be doomed "never" to "get better". are these types of fict stubs often neglected or orphaned?
there is probly too much fict-cruft on 'paedia on too many different pages. I was just trying to improve on particular page and I needed to link out to some decenet content. could you advise me on how the first sentence @ abu el Banat#Plot could be improved? if that's tackled, we can prob delete this no prob. thx. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On User:Stpuidhead/bartlet ww see also talk:Bartlet (West Wing) for some relevant info. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, at least, the reason I voted for deletion is that this article already exists as Josiah Bartlet. Wikipedia doesn't need another article with the same subject. This article could work as a redirect to the main character article, however (it is a reasonable search term). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What readers will enter in the search box will be "Bartlet", taking them to Bartlet. It is very unlikely that they will be typing "Bartlet (West Wing)" into the search box. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this has notability outside the TV series. The only Bartlet anyone knows or cares about is the presidential character or the first lady (though I don't remember if she used the same last name). I'm generally easy going about fictional character articles, tending to lead towards inclusionism, but even this one I'd say is more appropriate for a West Wing Wikia site than Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd to have an article like this--its not even a redirect or disam until there are more of them. We dont make a new article for every real or fictional characters last name. DGG (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content already exists in other pages, and this is not a common search term. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 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 keep. Wizardman 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit Integrated School[edit]

No third-party references to establish notability for this school. Also spam. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Antipolo City#Private schools. The cut-off for a high school is secondary year 5 so this one just misses out on notability. I will revise this recommendation if evidence can be adduced that the school educates to age 16 but I haven't found any sources on this point, yet. TerriersFan (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable, and if a school offers any grades corresponding to those offered by a North American high school, it should count as a high school. In this case, it offers up to secondary IV, which I think would be the equivalent of a North American grade 10. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent notability is dangerous ground. WP:ORG is clear: "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". That is not the case here, and the burden of proof is on ... someone to demonstrate notability, not to say that all high schools are notable (which is not our policy). Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OTOH sensible encyclopaedia building indicates that more than 4 hours should be given for sources to be found before proposing deletion. It needs to be noted that Filipino schools have a negligible presence on the internet and to avoid systemic bias time should be given for local sources to be identified. TerriersFan (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fair point - I suppose the spam-like quality of the initial article in part drove me to seek deletion, but I did do a Google search and no non-trivial mentions turned up. Fortunately, the AfD runs for a few days and the likely outcome seems keep at this point, so there will (optimistically) be time after that for sources to emerge. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Antipolo City#Private schools unless better sources can be found. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, having re-read Education in the Philippines (accepting that Wikipedia is not a reliable source :-)), it is clear that the four secondary years are immediately followed by tertiary education so they certainly equate to a high school. I'm off to clean the page up ... TerriersFan (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the shaky grounds that all high schools are notable. I do, however, break with Eastman's view that any school that educates to the equivalent of American grade 9 is a high school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:14, 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 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Small of the Bad[edit]

Article is obviously something made up one day, no reliable sources to verify any notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G3 Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete What, you throw batons at people and call it a game...and then write an encyclopedia article about it? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete patent nonsense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:21, 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. Wizardman 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chosin Fires[edit]

I do not believe that the subject of this article has established inherent notability to even warrant an article. Also, the article is primarily used to showcase a copyrighted image which the Fair Use rationale of seems lacking to me. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to get a in person Photo of the painting? Also would like to add more info to the page, and I am working gathering more info. Bossman00 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't affect the fact that any such photograph would be a copy of a copyrighted work.
  As to adding more information: What sources could you use? Please cite some. There doesn't appear to be any secondary source material that discusses this work of art, and so no scope to write a verifiable article free from original research about it. Even the publicity blurbs accompanying the painting, such as this say nothing at all about the painting, but instead provide a non-neutral account of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, about which we already have an article and for which we already have a public domain image. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page exists only to hold a copyvio image. Delete with extreme prejudice. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if at all possible There ought to be a page that can adequately cover the meterial, like the battle of Chosin resovior article. Deleting with extreme prejudice may be justafiable here, but our editer is new, so Assuming Good Faith would help increase the likelyhood of retaining an editer rather than scaring one off. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger - There's no demonstration that the artist or the painting are notable, nor that the copy of the painting is fair use. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am in favour of assuming good faith and not biting new editors, but there is nothing notable here to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 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 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Harris[edit]

article about a subject that blatantly fails the notability, verifiability, and reliable sources criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bongomatic (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I prefer the nom to give some clue as to why he or she thinks a subject is non-notable, there's no evidence the subject clears WP:BIO. RGTraynor 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you'd prefer a list of the individual items under WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:ENTERTAINER that the person fails? Or the specific way in which the sources provided don't meet WP:RS? And how the lack of other sources means the failure of WP:V? Or is there something else? BTW, the questions are just as much about future things I may bring here as they are to this particular case. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot speak for RGTraynor, but User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD might help. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to have spoken for me quite well! That's a nice, concise explanation. RGTraynor 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity piece for insignficant TV shopping presenter. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finds only Wiki, while THIS finds only trivial mentions, many of whom are different Kevin J. Harris'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Cunningham[edit]

article one line about a non-notable actor on a similarly non-notable TV series (he only appears and doesn't star). A7 declined on the grounds that saying he is on a TV series is an assertion of importance/significance and that I should bring here instead. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and the guidelines pertaining to articles of a biographical nature. Jor dan ^Contribs 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Though he IS getting covergae in WP:RS [30], but this coverage seems to be just for the one event.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hayle[edit]

Cable access news anchor. No independent sources to show notability. ProD contested by adding link to TV station. gnfnrf (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIOGRAPHY. Jor dan ^Contribs 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO [31]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This decision took into account the comments made at the other 4 deletion discussions, and not just the comments made below (three of the five were kept, two were merged). Such "bundled" nominations are usually fine, as long as they are on the same page and not on separate pages. The spread-out nature of the discussion did make closing difficult, almost to the point of relisting. This decision does not prejudice further merging if that is deemed necessary by further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five AfDs reviewed to reach this decision were:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (merge)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (merge)

National Payroll Week[edit]

These five articles:

were all created in a short period of time by a single user who has contributed to no other article except for a mention to American Payroll Association in the Accounts payable article.

These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote the umbrella organization and its activities, including its fee-based certification programs. Bongomatic (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This AFD is for the named article only. Each of the five articles above has its own separate AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Google News shows a lot of PR Newswire sources, multiple sources seem to have picked up on it over the years. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and explained that the week is also celebrated in Canada. The subject now passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Certified Payroll Professional as professional (certified) titles are notable & has enough (admittedly low quality) Refs to pass WP:N. Cleanup is recommended. Neutral to all others. This shows why AFD Bundling is a bad idea. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all into American Payroll Association. Make redirects for the others. The event is an advertisement for the association and can best be treated in the main article. DGG (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep based on some of the new sourcing but, definite rewrite to remove the huge advertising nature of the article which seems to exist simply as an excuse to get people to look at the "spam" references and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 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. This decision took into account the comments made at the other 4 deletion discussions, and not just the comments made below (three of the five were kept, two were merged). Such "bundled" nominations are usually fine, as long as they are on the same page and not on separate pages. The spread-out nature of the discussion did make closing difficult, almost to the point of relisting. This decision does not prejudice further merging if that is deemed necessary by further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five AfDs reviewed to reach this decision were:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (merge)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (merge)

Certified Payroll Professional[edit]

These five articles:

were all created in a short period of time by a single user who has contributed to no other article except for a mention to American Payroll Association in the Accounts payable article.

These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote the umbrella organization and its activities, including its fee-based certification programs. Bongomatic (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This AFD is for the named article only. Each of the five articles above has its own separate AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article comes up with 10,100 pages in Google when searched with quotations. Though no verifiable references are used in this article, IMO this article has potential. With a bit of work, as well as assertion of notability, the article may meet the project guidelines. Jordan ^Contribs 15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable topic or not, this particular article is spam. Bongomatic (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles form a big spam circle at the moment and would require a large amount of work to fix (which although sounding a bit weird is in the case of spam and/or copyvio a valid reason to delete). Rebuild articles in userspace if appropriate making sure to avoid the spamminess (although I'm not convinced any of the subjects are particularly notable in accordance with the guidelines and policies of the project). "Certified Payroll Professional" is obviously going to get a lot of google hits but, that doesn't automatically make the "job title",advertising language,group of words notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a job title. It's a professional certification. You can read more about it in Vicki M. Lambert (2005). "Professionalism and the Payroll Department". Payroll. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 271–287. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help), the first section of which is entitled "What is a CPP?". Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google News search. I see a lot of presumably RS in the 173 hits, even if there are a lot which are likely non-independent. There's plenty of sources with which to write a better article. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Certified Payroll Professional as professional (certified) titles are notable & has enough (admittedly low quality) Refs to pass WP:N. Cleanup is recommended. Neutral to all others. This shows why AFD Bundling is a bad idea. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:02, 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 Merge to Certified Payroll Professional. This decision took into account the comments made at the other 4 deletion discussions, and not just the comments made below (three of the five were kept, two were merged). Such "bundled" nominations are usually fine, as long as they are on the same page and not on separate pages. The spread-out nature of the discussion did make closing difficult, almost to the point of relisting. This decision does not prejudice further merging if that is deemed necessary by further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five AfDs reviewed to reach this decision were:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (merge)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (merge)

Fundamental Payroll Certification[edit]

These five articles:

were all created in a short period of time by a single user who has contributed to no other article except for a mention to American Payroll Association in the Accounts payable article.

These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote the umbrella organization and its activities, including its fee-based certification programs. Bongomatic (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This AFD is for the named article only. Each of the five articles above has its own separate AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Wikipedia is not a repository for press releases, nor a place for free advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge per Google News hits including Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Lancaster Online. Seems to be a legit (if somewhat specific and obscure) professional certification. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing my !vote to merge, per DGG--merging to Certified Payroll Professional seems like a very reasonable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Certified Payroll Professional as professional (certified) titles are notable & has enough (admittedly low quality) Refs to pass WP:N. Cleanup is recommended. Neutral to all others. This shows why AFD Bundling is a bad idea. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Certified payroll professional We do not normally have separate articles for all the ranks of a professional certification. This is merely an intermediate step,and not separately notable. DGG (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is part of a big spam circle at the moment and would require a large amount of work to fix (which although sounding a bit weird is in the case of spam and/or copyvio a valid reason to delete). Not every certification ever is actually important/significant in an encyclopedic way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DFenders[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC (unsigned band; no chart success, not notable for their music). Media coverage is strictly WP:ONEEVENT; the only reason they received said coverage was that the main sponsor of the award they were nominated for (a vote-online people's choice award) believed they were guilty of ballot stuffing. As a result, the award sponser will be changing the voting system next year. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here is a perfect example of a band which fails WP:MUSIC but which meets the General notability criteria - the kerfuffle over their award nomination received nont-trivial coverage in multiple national media. Special notability guidelines never override the general notability policy, they only enhance it. A rewrite is still required - I have warned the original author that most of the history material will be removed unless it can be sourced. The AFD nomination above is factually incorrect. The organisers of the awards have stated they are happy with the nomination process, it was the music manager of the principal sponsor who complained publically. dramatic (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The controversy over the ballot-stuffing is somewhat notable, but the band is not. Even the controversy was a passing news item, its notability is very minor. The controversy might be notable enough to be mentioned at New Zealand Music Awards, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral veering towards delete - not notable via WP:MUSIC as a band, and the ballot stuffing would probably count as a WP:BLP1E equivalent. On the other hand, they did reach the final of the awards and were cleared by RIANZ of any misconduct - as such they clearly have some minor notability. (Oh and a further clarifying comment who know about my real-life activities - I am not involved with this band in any way, have not seen them perform, and have never met them). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it scrapes through WP:NOTE. "Significant coverage" is met, the news coverage is beyond trivial and addresses the band directly, one headline includes the band name. Multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. XLerate (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the band was notable in its own right, there would be coverage of the band independently of the awards controversy. The band may yet become independently notable, but right now all we're seeing is a small trickle of articles about the band in the context of the controversy.Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because of the awards and the associated controversy. Needs rewriting, though. --Helenalex (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a band, they are not notable. And the coverage is really WP:ONEEVENT making them a subject for a news article, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can anyone explain why this keeps getting referred to as failing WP:MUSIC? Quoting WP:MUSIC: "A musician or ensemble... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Has won or been nominated for a major music award." The band was nominated for a major award, so meets notability according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. Pretty cut and dried. Chart success, being signed to a label, etc... these are simply other options for notability. Some of you mentioned that the only reason this band got news coverage was because of their nomination and therefore dismiss it as an isolated event, but it is the nomination itself that satisfies the notability criteria, not just the coverage. Dogma inc (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) — Dogma inc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - My reading of it indicates that the nonminations for the People's Choice Award was an open ballot to the public with no oversight which resulted in the ballot stuffing situation. Rather than taking a literal reading of WP:MUSIC and determining that any nomination suffices, we should account for the reason for that criterion for notability in music. A nomination for a major award provides for notability because there is a presumption that in order to get the nomination, the work or body of work for a band has been noted by peers or critics and has undergone some form of critical review or evaluation. In this case, the nomination if for a People's Choice award in which the nomination process was an improperly supervised open ballot. Notability is not the same as popularity, and in this case, notability is not the same as faked popularity through ballot stuffing. There was none of the critical review in the nomination process that would have imparted notability to having the nomination. In combination with the lack of coverage about the band for their music rather than the ballot stuffing incident leaves the band short of clearing the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that User:Dogma inc is most likely a single-purpose account in that he's only edited The Dfenders' pages.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just like to clear up that there was no ballot stuffing, as so many of you keep referring to it as. The band received clearance from all the people in charge of the event and the only person to lodge such a claim was reprimanded for speaking out of turn and for his conflict of interest in the outcome of the award. Watch the TV3 news coverage linked to in the article, where head of RIANZ Campbell Smith states he did not have any problem whatsoever with the outcome of the award. Does anyone actually read the sources themselves or do you just go off what one user says?

And, on that other note, yeah, this is the only article I've edited so far... mostly because it got deleted out of hand and I've been spending all my spare time fighting to keep it up... Would love to edit some more articles, but frankly, I don't really see the point when there doesn't seem to be any adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, and administrators with personal agendas just arbitrarily decide what they'd like to see kept and deleted. P.S. The DFenders also have songs currently on rotation on the nationally broadcast radio station KIWI FM... yet another notability criterion that is just blatantly being ignored. Dogma inc (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just added a citation for a review of The DFenders album that appeared in Real Groove magazine, completely independent of anything to do with the awards. No website link, though... they'd like you to buy the magazine. Dogma inc (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overall seems to fail WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because Wikipedia is all about the references, I just wanted to back up what I said earlier with "the only person to lodge such a claim was reprimanded for speaking out of turn" - Morgan Donoghue is quoted in The Christchurch Press as saying, "It wasn't my place to say that voting rules would change next year. I upset a lot of people with what I said." Article by Vicki Anderson, The Christchurch Press, Mainlander Section, 11/10/08, entitled "Music Voting Vexes Fans." Dogma inc (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't so much about whether it was technically ballot stuffing; the issue is more about the fact that this band isn't notable for anything outside of a single newsworthy event, and that the band isn't notable for their music. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip (YMA6 Single)[edit]

Non notable single from non notable band with non notable album. Fails WP:MUSIC. See also other singles below Nouse4aname (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the band is deemed non-notable (as this was here, it's simple logic that related albums, singles and such should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Jor dan ^Contribs 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia notability guidelines.--Daviddavey (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per WP:MUSIC. Also add the non-album redirect too, Take off your colours. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band have charting singles and have appeared on the cover of a major music magazine (Kerrang!). Therefore I feel they meet the notability requirements. I am currently working on a page for the band here: User:Cabe6403/current2 --Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 10:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Jealous Minds Think Alike" article. Complies with WP:NSONGS per the line "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song has charted in the UK Singles Chart, the most notable chart in the country. I understand probably is the key word there, but I've had articles kept for the same thing.
- Where is the proof that the song charted?? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, primarily per the lead of WP:NSONGS that wasn't quoted by Dykeenies: Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. We have far too many articles about singles, and nothing about these particular songs makes it appear that these articles will grow beyond a stub-with-an-infobox. The infoboxes can fit quite nicely into the parent album, and the result will be one manageable article.—Kww(talk) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The consensus is clear, and the nominator (Aderksen) gave no specific reasons, upon which the article can be deleted. They seems not to know about this discussion. Ruslik (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of parasitic organisms[edit]

Note: This article was tagged for AfD but nothing more was done. However, a discussion was underway over several months on the talk page. That text is copied below. This may cause this discussion to look different to our normal discussions. I am not expressing an opinion either way on this discussion; I am merely completing the listing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list seriely going to conain all the the parisitic organisms in the world, and in fiction? This is unrealistic, and will become far to long. This should instead be split into seperate articles such as "Parasitic Fungi", "Parasitic Protists", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.147.150 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second your suggestion, and nominate this article for deletion as soon as I figure out how to do it appropriately. This would be an almost endless list of prominent creatures in both life-sciences and fiction, and many of the creatures discussed are already described as parasites on their own pages or on the parasite page itself. Listing them all here is redundant and fairly pointless. Aderksen (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I think I've successfully marked this page for termination, and good riddance. I don't think we need an endless list when most of the things on it are already part of other substantial articles on wikipedia. Worse still, a number of the creatures listed could probably be moved to a discussion of parasitoids instead of parasites, or even that of endosymbionts. This is not a terribly useful article. Aderksen (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - can be expanded, then split when long enough. cygnis insignis 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would the nominator care to proffer some policy grounds upon which to delete? "Not a terribly useful article" doesn't qualify; tens of thousands of perfectly legal Wikipedia articles wouldn't be "terribly useful." RGTraynor 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems useful in navigating the Wikipedia world. WP:CLN explains why it should be kept. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming "parasitic" is defined and the list is supplied with sources (plus the fictional part excised, preferably), it's a perfectly reasonable and quite useful topic. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I could complain about the absence of my brother-in-law from the article, I have to agree with the previous comments about its worthiness. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all keeps above. This is a typical WP list that is very useful for navigation and orientation to its subject matter.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but split off or delete the fiction element. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split as necessary. This seems to be a perfectly good list subject per WP:LIST. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, no Paparazzi? ;-) —RJH (talk) 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue West Cobb[edit]

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

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

Neither of these seem to be notable shopping malls. The only sources I found were press releases on the opening of new stores at each strip. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Press releases only. Richard Pinch (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a number of on-topic sources are available, including [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]. (There were more at Google News but I'm on deadline for a project so my time here is short.) Yes, sources should be integrated into the article but they are available so the notability threshold can be crossed. - Dravecky (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I dislike seeing articles about shoping malls, as I feel that simply being a set of shops is not notable... but these sources seem have it to pass WP:GNG: [37][38][39][40][41]. Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't seem to be notable. And in part due to no reliable refs. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The reliable refs are available, see my and Schmidt's comments above, and availability is all that is required for AfD. Yes, they should be integrated and used to expand the article and that will happen as soon as I can complete another project but notability and verifiability are easily established here. - Dravecky (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The AJC covers pretty much all commercial developments in Atlanta, and several of the others seem to be poor attempts at journalism that are basically regurgitated press releases, if not simply actual press releases; I'm not convinced that these satisfy WP:GNG. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Dust Town[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. Interesting history, but I'm finding no real sources to back it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

306 news articles and 29 book mentions. It's a lot of coverage but it's all kind of tourist-oriented ("After dinner, walk around Trail Dust Town and enjoy the shops")... as you might expect of a touristy place. I added a source... but I'm not sure it it's enough to keep the article. It needs to go beyond sources that just say "When in Tuscon, be sure to visit Trail Dust Town..." but it does seem to be a theme park with 40 years of history. --Rividian (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep fairly notable as a local/regional tourist attraction (as opposed to just another mall). Needs expansion, but I think the core notabiity is there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Trail Dust Town was once a movie set and is now a bonafide tourist attraction in Southern Arizona. It points to the many westerns that were made during that genre's heyday and also acts as an outlet for locally-grown beef, which is a rarity in this country. On top of that, the museum that exists on the grounds would, by itself, be a notable inclusion beause it concentrates on local settlers and forts.[reply]
Keep I hate seeing articles on shoping malls. What is so notable about being a collection of shops? However, it is getting coverage per WP:GNG. [42][43][44][45][46]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G3 - Vandalism. Hoax article. Concur with Uncle G that we don't speedy delete hoaxes at first sight but this has had sufficent review by experienced Wikipedians to knock the debate and article on the head.Pedro : Chat 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rizviville, Ohio[edit]

Suspected hoax. Not a trace of this community is found on non-wiki sources. The article's numerous references appear to be bogus. I'm bringing this to AfD for review by more editors. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no trace of this on Google Books, News or Scholar. The "Rizviville Record" does not seem to exist, either, and it's the main reference of the article. Another fake town article. --Rividian (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article. I'll never get why people take the time to spend hours writimg in-depth hoaxes that can be disproved in seconds and inevitably deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism. I concur with Starblind: what possesses people to devise such lengthy, detailed and transparent hoaxes? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find anything at all, either. I looked for people, lakes, and possible spelling mistakes. But letting multiple editors, who have access to different resources and who may catch things that others miss (per the Swiss Cheese model), look for sources and check cited sources is exactly why we do not speedily delete hoax articles. Having multiple independent checks is a good thing. This article failed mine. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no prejudice to a redirect MBisanz ^talk 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIDB[edit]

Unreferenced article on an unlicensed college radio station with over the air coverage limited to a college campus. No indication of why this station is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Delete student-run campus radio station. Most colleges and even some high schools have these, and they're never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability (media), campus radio stations are judged for notability or non-notability by the same standards as commercial radio outlets; they're not non-notable just because they're run by students. That said, unlicensed carrier current stations do fall below the waterline, but the operative word here is unlicensed, not "campus". However, the station can perfectly legitimately be mentioned in our article on Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Merge and redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to me it is similar to KVCO. I don't like the content, I think it's poorly written and overly-detailed for the subject matter--but that's a content issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that KVCO holds an FCC license and transmits over the air like a conventional radio station. The one in question has never held an FCC license and ~~I'm not sure it's sanctioned by the University~~. SIU's equivalent of KVCO is WSIU. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of above comment, apparently sanctioned by SIUC and part of the broadcasting program. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has a 40 year history of broadcasting locally originated programming to residence halls housing many thousands of students, exceeding the listening areas of many low power licensed stations which have been kept in AFDs. If it had an FCC license, I would call it a clear "keep." A Google News search [47] turned up substantial coverage in the campus newspaper and other campus media,[48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , which some at AFD deprecate as a reliable and independent source for showing the notability of campus organizations, but which are at least not directly sourced to the station. In off-campus media, a Google News search showed fairly incidental mentions of WIDB, such as members being involved in crimes not related to the station, or the station sponsoring a cardboard boat in a campus event. The occasionally promotion tone of the article can be corrected by the normal editing process. The case for notability would be vastly improved by off-campus books, magazines, or newspapers having substantial coverage beyond the aforementioned brief mentions. Edison (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is poorly written, has no sourcing, and could stand to be broken up in sections for easier reading. That said, it seems to have a notable history to a signifigant university and once proper editing to the article is complete, it should be a certain keep. I for one enjoyed reading through the information there and am willing to begin working on it's structure over the next few days, however, sourcing may take longer. In the mean time, the station is notable enough, IMO, and for the purposes of this AfD should be a keep. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being non-notable for a long time does not mean it gets some kind of age-related notability liscence. Which along with this radio station's lack of other licences makes it non-notable. Even keep !voters say it fails verifiability. Without sourcing there is no way to prove any of it is even true, and certainly not that iti is notable.Yobmod (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jason De Carteret[edit]

The result was Keep Abhishek ^Talk 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Jason De Carteret, created by User:Jason De Carteret

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Abhishek ^Talk 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, that was naughty of Jason to write about himself. However, a Google search confirms his notability: [52]. The article needs a rewrite and proper referencing, not deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - COI issues perhaps, but clearly notable as a Guinness World Record holder: [53] Arakunem^Talk 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: COI is a contributory ground, but it cannot be a stand-alone ground for deletion when the subject is otherwise notable. RGTraynor 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to American Payroll Association. This decision took into account the comments made at the other 4 deletion discussions, and not just the comments made below (three of the five were kept, two were merged). Such "bundled" nominations are usually fine, as long as they are on the same page and not on separate pages. The spread-out nature of the discussion did make closing difficult, almost to the point of relisting. This decision does not prejudice further merging if that is deemed necessary by further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five AfDs reviewed to reach this decision were:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (merge)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (merge)

American Accounts Payable Association[edit]

These five articles:

were all created in a short period of time by a single user who has contributed to no other article except for a mention to American Payroll Association in the Accounts payable article.

These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote the umbrella organization and its activities, including its fee-based certification programs. Bongomatic (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This AFD is for the named article only. Each of the five articles above has its own separate AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News just shows two press releases from 6 months ago announcing the creation of this entity. Seems to fail WP:ORG to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Certified Payroll Professional as professional (certified) titles are notable & has enough (admittedly low quality) Refs to pass WP:N. Cleanup is recommended. Neutral to all others. This shows why AFD Bundling is a bad idea. If this is not a "bundled" AFD, please clearly state such on ALL the Related AFD's. Its tiresome applying an answer to all the AFD's that each seem to be a bundle of the Same Articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing Admin please be aware of All Related AFD's that seem to be bundles of the Same Articles. as with Schmidt's vote there seems to be a Multiple bites at the Apple happening in the process. see
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (a seemingly bundled nom)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (a seemingly bundled nom)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (a seemingly bundled nom)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (a seemingly bundled nom)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (a seemingly bundled nom)

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main organization. DGG (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main organisation when that article is sufficiently rebuilt in userspace using reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 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 Turnstiles. MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer, Highland Falls[edit]

I believe the wholesale transcription of text from An Evening of Questions & Answers and Perhaps a Few Songs constitutes a copyright violation. Without this text, the page has no meaningful content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify this. I recognise that the article contains a large blockquote, but is that actually a copyright violation? This came from a live interview and was transcribed and tweaked by hand. I understand that lyrics may be copyright and the same with the audio from the interview, but is what someone said actually copyright? The best person to comment on the history and meaning of a song is the person who wrote it. Is the quote (so often asked for on the rest of Wikipedia) really aginst policy? BennieAndTheJets (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote had been lifted from a newpaper article in an independent interview, this use would be considered "fair use", but as the quote was part of the copyrighted content of the recording, I don't think this use is "fair use". I.e., I think the authors want the purchasers of that copyrighted material to have an extra insight not generally available, and by publishing that information in a free source (Wikipedia) you have usurped the authors' rights to be paid for that extra insight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will cut down the length of the quote and fill out the article with additional material. 60.242.42.27 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is almost entirely a direct quote from another source. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turnstiles per WP:BEFORE and WP:NSONGS. Neier (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTAForums[edit]

contested PROD. I don't think this website passes WP:WEB. The only event related to it is a low profile hoax that EA might have been willing to buy them at one moment. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete failure of WP:WEB, WP:N, etc. I would have speedy-deleted it myself, but no harm getting consensus to make it stick better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hoax part isn't even sourced reliably. Beyond that I see nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable aspect may be that there was reliable source coverage of the April Fool's joke about the EA takeover - this may be better (if such a page exists) of notable April Fool's jokes in the Video Game industry, but as for the website, definitely not. --MASEM 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Doesn't the largest GTA fanbase on the internet deserve an article? GTAForums has been home to many GTA game modifications, many of which are highly useful and well-known to the GTA gaming community. It should, at least, have an article. Radicell (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "deserves" an article, and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline enshrining GTA fandom as having any importance beyond, well, GTA fandom. There's no reason to presume this website isn't important to that community, but what part of WP:WEB does this site fulfill? Make mine Delete. RGTraynor 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but GTA itself is a huge milestone in the gaming industry; a forum dedicated to these games should at least be made a stub. There's four sources and could be more by referencing the site itself and sites that provide website information. Don't DeleteRadicell (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying GTA isn't notable, but notability is not inherited. For example, Sonic the Hedgehog is indisputably notable, but that doesn't make fan fiction and fan art about Sonic notable, nor those who create them, related forums, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — It's not that it doesn't deserve one, it's just that there isn't enough significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish notability. MuZemike 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable gamer forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gamer forum which doesn't meet WP:WEB -- probably not a speedy candidate but either way. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Note: I declined a speedy on grounds of CSD#G11 of this article and tagged it for PROD. I suggest to pseudo-transwiki this to the related Wikia wiki instead. So Why 09:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vote wouldn't really matter anyway, but there is some truth to the delete comments, and I am a moderator on that forum, I am not sure what we have accomplished either! Dunno if that tells something about the forums or me. The only thing somewhat considerable would be SA-MP, which was also deleted thrice for lack of notability. As it is now, GTAForums does not deserve an article. Maybe later. --Svip^pong 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being objective about this. Forum articles on AFD often attract all sorts of bad behaviour, from nonsensical arguments to outright disruption. It's refreshing to see a completely different perspective. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by TexasAndroid. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carroll (musician)[edit]

Not a notable musician. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willkommen Collective[edit]

Walled garden of articles about a "Brighton-based pool of friends and musicians" and its various members and bands and record labels, all created the same day by the same author, Marcushamblett (talk · contribs). The articles cross-refer to each other a lot, but the only sources are Myspace and their own web-sites - nothing from any independent reliable source to indicate notability to anything like the standard of WP:MUSIC; nor have I been able to find any. Probable self-promotion, from the way they all appeared at once, and in any case non-notable. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Auf wiedersehen, au revoir, see you! WP:NOT myspace. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, could also be Speedy deleted. Next time you feel like making a web page for yourself and your pals, try a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete as you said above, it was me who made all these pages, please indicate what kind of independent reliable sources I could reference to prove that these bands are notable. They all tour the UK, have albums available in record shops worldwide and are featured in magazines, I don't see how they can be condemned as non-notable so easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.13.67 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of a chain of record shops - even in the UK - who stock these bands' music? A cursory Google search suggests they're unsigned. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Alex. Here's the Sons of Noel and Adrian album at HMV:

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/simpleSearch.do?searchUID=&pGroupID=-1&adultFlag=false&primaryID=-1&simpleSearchString=sons+of+noel+and+adrian&btnSubmitSearch.x=0&btnSubmitSearch.y=0 and here it is at Zavvi: http://www.zavvi.co.uk/sons+of+noel+and+adrian-Sons-Of-Noel-And-Adrian-Sons-Of-Noel-And-Adrian/852073/q.r10.1/p.jsf Here's the Shoreline album at Zavvi: http://www.zavvi.co.uk/shoreline-music-Shoreline-Time-Well-Spent/881718/qc.r10.1/p.jsf

- The other bands mentioned - Hope of the States, Lightspeed Champion, The Accidental, David Thomas Broughton, She Talks To Angels etc. all also have albums in all majour chain stores. I can provide Amazon links if needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.13.67 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Note to the articles' author: you may want to read WP:N and WP:BAND for more information. ~~SIS~~ 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say all the bands mentioned at least qualify for points 1, 6 and 11 in WP:BAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.13.67 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's examine it, then. #1 is "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." What articles in magazines, newspapers, broadcast radio stations or TV shows have featured this band? (Webpages, blogs, Myspace or Youtube don't count.) Or #6: "Contains at least one notable musician." This means someone who in his own right fulfills the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Whom would that be? #11 is works in rotation on a national radio network; are there links proving this? Delete all. RGTraynor 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1: Sons of Noel and Adrian have been featured in several print magazines including Blues Matters, Acoustic Magazine, Dazed and Congfused Rock Sound (including a track on the cover CD). 6: At least two members of the bands/collective fulfill WP:MUSIC in their own right, Nick Hemming (whose page is not disputed) and Mike Siddell, who is in the NME-cover-stars Lightspeed Champion. 11: Yes, http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/tom_robinson/tracklisting.shtml?y=2008&d=20080212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.13.67 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not totally unheard of it appears, although I'm not very familiar with the requirements for music on WP. Dazed Digital has a brief interview. There is a review at Line of Best Fit. I can't vouch for the websites, though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another review, from DrownedinSound.com, Europe's largest music website (second in the world only to PitchforkMedia.com): http://drownedinsound.com/releases/13181, surely this proves notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcushamblett (talk • contribs) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per all of the above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say Delete all, as per all of the above, but above I believe I've shown that the bands meet three of the critera required by WP:MUSIC when they need only meet one to qualify for notability? --Marcushamblett (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each, unless, sources mentioned are found and added to the articles. Having an album in large chain stores is not sufficient to pass even the less stringent requirments of WP:Music. With only one album, they still each need reliable independant sources with non-trivial coverage to confirm any notability, which they don't have. I've seen Lightspeed Champion at a festival, but never heard of the others, and the bands notability is not inherited by it's members and then transmitted to his friends.. Non-trivial coverage != mention of releases, it needs in depth reviews, articles, or interviews for each of them. Note, while the bands may be notable enough, the "collective" needs to prove notability independantly, it is not enough to assume it is notable enough just because some of it's members are.Yobmod (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - so should I add external links in the articles to reviews, radio playlists and interviews, even if they're not references backing up points in the articles, just to show notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.13.67 (talk) 09:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huffle[edit]

Non-notable drug neologism. Google comes up with nada, and I strongly suspect it is a hoax. Ironho lds 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed all unsourced material. What's left is a stub with no context. Hiding T 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smacks of WP:MADEUP. Even urbandictionary has no mention of it as a drug. Arakunem^Talk 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, WP:DICDEF, and WP:BOLLOCKS AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nonsense page. -Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing. JuJube (talk) 05:50, 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 06:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 72[edit]

It seems that whenever Qantas has an incident it must have a Wikipedia article. At this stage, according to the media reports, the aircraft descended because of turbulence and made an emergency landing. There doesn't seem to be any severe damage to the aircraft let alone a hull loss. There was no fatalities. It is possible that in the future more information will come out that does make this incident notable or more information about the actual incident that makes it notable, but at this point does not meet Wikipedia and WikiProject Airport's notability criteria. We could list every incident that Qantas has had but we don't. There have been many incidents, including Qantas incidents that are more severe than this and they don't have and shouldn't have an article in an encyclopaedia. Mvjs (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why is this incident less notable than the Flight 30 incident? Although there was extensive damage on Flight 30, this incident involved an emergency landing and 40 injuries; Flight 30 involved none. Given the recent Qantas incidents that have occured, this is likely to receive alot of media attention in the coming days. Davido321 (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In QF30, an oxygen bottle exploded making a two metre hole in the fuselage and causing a rapid decompression and an emergency landing of the plane. In QF72, from what has come out so far, the plane experienced turbulence, descended and made an emergency landing. Seem like pretty different incidents to me. Yes, the incident will receive a lot of grossly exaggerated and intense media coverage in the coming days. Mvjs (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am confused, because for the QF30 article, you were the one who actually put it up for deletion!?! but now you are saying why that one is notable but this one is not? (Actually for that article you said it was all media hype, and also I see you put this article up for deletion. Perhaps we should give articles some time, rather than doing AfD right at the start? Buckethed (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The difference is in the incidents is that the arguments for the keep of flight 30 incident were due to the cause of the incident in that it was unsual, both in what it was and the fact no-one was injured where similar such events had caused loss of life. Turbulence isnt unusual nor is injury to people hence the recommendation that passengers keep their seat belts on. Gnan garra 11:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Airlines and aircraft doesn't create it's own clear air turbulence (Caused by weather nothing else) which causes it to drop altitude and again the media will just use this when it's not even the fault of the airline. QF30 is different to this incident and should be used to compere as QF30 was caused by a fault and will always have a significant lasting impact unlike QF72 which will be short lived and will not have an impact on the airline industry. Wikipedia is clearly not news. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Whatever the cause of this, it is still notable. If it was clear air turbulence, then it is *not* Qantas' fault (even if it is mechanical failure, even then it may well not be any fault of Qantas or their engineers!). The unfair media coverage shouldn't lead to this article being deleted; in fact, the Wikipedia page would actually serve as a fair, non-biased summary of what actually occured. Whatever the cause, this is still notable. Also note that the Jakarta BA incident was atmospheric, and extremely notable, and no one died or was injured! Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article has been moved, which broke the AfD links. I fixed the links here, if I've forgotten any, apologies and please fix them. Ariel♥Gold 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unnotable incident. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please supply reasoning behind this :) Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Minor CAT incidents are not notable enough to have their own article. This has mainly received the coverage it has due to QF30, which was an entirely different incident. Unless the ATSB upgrade their classification of this or it turns out to be anything out of the ordinary, it doesn't meet the notability requirements. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any further comment given the ATSB has classified the occurance as an Accident? -- Rob.au (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, only to say that there are guns being jumped here. Also, chaps, I'm not wildly impressed by your actions questioning all the other editors here. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies. We have an accident in which up to 74 people have been injured, up to 44 of those needing a hospital visit, with 14 of those needing airlifting to a major hospital at the flight's intended destination. This is a highly abnormal event in the context of the Airbus A330, in the context of Qantas and in the context of Australian civil aviation. Just because there is media hype around doesn't automatically mean the underlying accident isn't notable, not does it automatically mean it satisfies WP:NOT#NEWS. Regardless of cause, this is clearly an event of enduring notability in at least three contexts. In regards to your other comment, I haven't queried any editor other than yourself and it was a genuine question. Not that I see what the issue is - this is a discussion, not a vote and there's nothing wrong with querying the arguments. The queries that have been made are trying to encourage the fleshing out of arguments and reasonings, which is part of a healthy AfD process. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rob, I think it's a case of waiting until all the facts are in, to be honest. Breaking news events do not good articles make. I'm sorry I picked your comment to reply to, as my response wasn't specifically aimed at yourself; your question was a good one but I'd wait until we get into "Serious Incident" territory before claiming notability. The fact that Airbus are sending people over is a sign that it could be heading that way but, as I'd said, I think it's a bit early to tell (or write an article about). Anyway, my original concern was that I don't think it really helps the AFD discussion to fight each and every opinion. Give your opinion and move on, unless greater clarification is needed... but asking for clarification on every point is a bit much, I think. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree but I'm confused by your reference to "Serious Incident" - the ATSB has already rated this as an "Accident" per their media release on Wednesday. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Minor CAT incidents are not notable enough to have an article, but very serious incidents like this which might be either CAT or mechanical / electronic failure *speculation as no-one knows what caused it yet* are definitely notable.Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in this case as it is notable independent of its current place in the news. Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ atm its just a news story, maybe in the future if it causes changes to airline practices, or some as yet unknown event was the cause it can be restored. It already has more information in the RAAF Learmonth article otherwise I'd suggest a merge to that. Gnangarra 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep updated to keep, media reports(radio) today speculate that the incident was mechanical in the tail section o fthe plane and that the emergency landing was to seek urgent medical treatment for a number of the passengers. Still difficult to assess notability for news stories, and it could change again as more info is released, it'll be worth revisiting this again to re-assess notability once the official investigations are published. Gnan garra 14:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although in answer in Davido321, it isn't any less notable than Flight 30 but that wasn't notable either. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The AfD for Flight 30 stated it was notable, and if it isn't any less notable than that, then you are really saying Keep?.Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turbulence is a fairly routine event isn't it? It's like having a page on a go-around. \ / (⁂) 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Turbulence is a fairly routine event (still not nice though!) but note that we both don't know the cause of this incident yet (anything else is speculation), and, even if turbulence, it was still a rare, notable, serious incident.Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davido321 and it's an encyclopaedia- having one more article on a airline incident which in Australia is pretty important won't kill anybody... --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it pretty important? Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine occurrence, and nothing which put the plane in jeopardy. News stories need some lasting impact to be encyclopedic, and this one isn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is Routine, that means it was CAT, but that is speculation. Also the plane (probably) wasn't put in jeopardy, but the passengers were, and many of them. This is serious, notable, and will change airline practices to a degree, even if it is just an increased emphasis on keeping seatbelts on! (but note that the unlucky people in the loo / going to the loo etc are still at risk) Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a case of very severe clear air turbulence that happens very rarely. It deserves mention on Wikipedia. Renegade Lisp (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest this incident is in any way notable compared to the many non-injury turbulance and even emergency landing events that occur virtually every single day. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2008(UTC) Additional comment: I retract the "non-injury" part of my comment owing that a few people were injured. But otherwise it stands; systems failures are also a dime a dozen. Even if this were part of an epidemic, it would be more appropriate to discuss this within the main article on Qantas or an overview article on the problems. 23skidoo (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Turbulence is a dime-a-dozen, system failures are probably a few hundred dollars to a dozen. However, either of those causing 14 people to have *serious* injuries are pretty rare, and notable (even if it does happen to Qantas) If it is CAT (or if it is a system failure), it may well not be Qantas' *fault*, but that doesn't reduce the notability. Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now}. This may be more than turbulence. WA Police have described the incident as "some sort of systems failure" [54]. Could be related to recent Qantas problems. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs in Wikinews for now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten people getting injured in a transportation incident is not the stuff encyclopedia articles are made of. Wikipedia is not a "news of the week" site. I agree with the essay WP:NOTNEWS and would delete this on the basis that news organizations have different criteria for what they put on the air or in the paper from what belongs in an encyclopedia, which may be tittiliating or may recall some recent more serious incident, but which lacks any real historical interest or impact. The policy WP:NOT#NEWS similarly says not all news events warrant their own encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was 14 people, but the point is, this is notable both on it's own, but most definitely in the context of current Qantas problems. Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a list of air disasters that didn't happen. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not wikipedia policy; many articles including the Jakarta incident should be deleted according to this rationale. Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--This was not an inconsequential emergency landing with no injuries. People had broken bones and had to be rushed to the hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.37.172 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMore people get hurt worse than that in multi-vehicle car accidents and structure fires every day, and those incidents do not get encyclopedia articles. I do not see where WP:N says that every airline incident requires an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more people drive everyday, and almost everyone is in a structure every day. not many people fly as frequently as they drive or stay in a structure. motor vehicle operators are also relatively unskilled, requiring only an easy licensing test usually just once in life, at least in north america. airplane operators operate much more advanced equipment and require much more training than an average car driver. there are also many more controls on a plane's movements than for a car, so it is much more restricted. therefore, when something does happen, it is more significant. if we've kept Qantas Flight 30, then we must keep Flight 72. Also, once we learn more, the article will be helpful to those who are trying to learn about turbulence and rapid in-flight descents on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.37.172 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Occurance has been rated as an Accident by the ATSB with 14 people having injuries serious enough to require transport by air ambulance to Perth, up to 30 others attending hospital and up to another 30 with injuries that did not warrant a hospital visit. This is clearly a notable event in its own right. ATSB Media Release -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this accident also satisfies WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE, even though that's just a project page style guide and not a formal guideline or policy. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It seems that all Qantas articles have to go through an automatic AfD, but as Wikipedia is Not Censored : The majority of the 'deletes' above are either stating no reason, or stating that no-one died, or that it was based on the weather. The *cause* is currently *speculation* only. 14 people were seriously injured. This is a significant incident which is also notable, and receiving worldwide coverage. Many people were injured. Whether the cause is atmospheric or mechanical (and which of these it is, is simply *speculation* at present), this is a significant notable incident and should remain in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct you there - 14 people were injured so seriously that they were taken by air ambulance to Perth. Up to 30 further people also attended hospital (it's not currently clear if this was local to Learmonth or not), with up to another 30 further people having injuries not serious enough to need a trip to hospital. These are the numbers given by the ATSB in their media release. So this only strengthens the point - this event is notable regardless of cause. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most deletes are citing WP:NOTNEWS and it clearly fails criteria number 2 on that page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few similarities to Air Canada Flight 190. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It's an accident per the ATSB if only because of multiple serious injuries. Clear air turbulence should be entirely avoidable in a modern airliner and in any case turbulence should not cause control systems failures. The views expressed by some above that this is in some sense a normal occurence is simply wrong. Keep until officia investigation is done. If the finding is mundane, then consider deletion.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear air turbulence cannot be detected and isn't avoidable and control systems failures can happen if the turbulence is severe (In the area of the incident was a Heat low (which is a low pressure system with high temperatures on the ground) and a strong jet stream (BTW I'm not saying it's the cause but it's been discussed by some media outlets). This article can be recreated after the official investigation if it's found to be the aircraft and not the "weather". Bidgee (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are saying that, whatever happened (people were injured!), if it was the weather, then it is NOT NOTABLE, then three points would be (1) We don't know the cause, but the incident was notable, we can only *speculate* as the cause anyway (2) If the plane broke up and everyone died due to [Clear Air Turbulence], should we still delete the article? Because it wasn't Qantas' 'fault'? If so we should delete BA001 / Jakarta Incident too - noone was even injured in that little incident. (3) This article is not about Qantas' 'fault' or 'non-fault', it is not meant to be a forum for aviation enthusiasts vs Qantas haters vs Qantas apologists!. This is a notable incident, and would be if it was British Airways, or any other airline! Buckethed (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Bidgee's statement, I was astonished to learn that in fact decades after doi:10.1038/227260a0 CAT detection was possible by doppler radar lidar, or FLIR, it may in fact still not have been implemented as standard in-flight equipment and is still under discussion and development. In any case, CAT forecasts are routinely made and promulgated. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-flight radar as you say is still in development. (RE: promulgated) Australia doesn't have a doppler network like the US so CAT forecating is hard to do. The above you have used are based on the US not Australia. Also there is no doppler radars in NW WA[55] which is where the incident happened. Bidgee (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per NOTNEWS/recentism, non-notable minor incident other than injuries. Not opposed to restoring it in the future if it proves to have lasting effects, but through deletion review. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is a notable incident (actually 'Accident' according to the ATSB!), and had 14 serious injuries + many more less serious injuries requiring hospital treatment, and more still that didn't need hospital treatment. If we say 'non notable other than injuries', we surely mean 'notable with the injuries added', meaning it is 'notable'. The Jakarta incident, for example, is non-notable, except for the volcanic plume and the minor engine glitch Buckethed (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By "minor incident other than injuries", I meant that some of the injuries to individuals were not minor. Sorry I wasn't clear. ALso, I used to respond to every post I disagreed with in AFDs, until I realized it didn't help my cause to be so argumentative. About the only time responses are needed is for clarification. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it hurts me to say this, I must say delete per WP:N. A Ryanair article similar to this was deleted a few weeks ago. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was difficult to find anything on Google for the incident you refer to, but I managed to eventually find an incident in August 2008. This is where 16 people were assessed after getting earache following an in-flight non-explosive depressurisation. This is quite different from the article we discuss today! I wouldn't call an assessment for earache a serious injury, and also, that incident is unlikely to make much difference to Ryanair as they are known to be a budget airline who keeps having problems, unlike Qantas who used to have a brilliant safety record! Buckethed (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page qantas Flight 72, it is been all over asia and perth. News has reported and this should not be deleted!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBSinTransit (talk • contribs) - transferred from article page by WWGB (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment headline news: 10 killed, 38 injured in crash. Why don't we have an article for this?
- Wikipedia is not a news site
- It has not changed buses or road travel in any way.

Back to QF72:

- It's sensational news today, but will anyone care next year? (Wikipedia is not a news site)
- No-one dead, some injured, aircraft did not crash, suffered no hull damaged and will not be written off (lack of notability)
- No changes to air corridors, aircraft design, training, operating procedures or industry regulations (lack of notability) - maybe that will eventually change after the investigation is concluded, but we can't predict the future; if/when that happens, we can look back with the benefit of hindsight and write about how the world of aviation changed forever because of QF72.

An approach that might work here is to create a list of these less noteworthy aviation incidents like this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bus crash with injuries is many orders of magnitude more common (and also many orders of magnitude more likely to occur on a per distance travelled basis) than an aircraft incident involving injuries. By definition bus crashes are therefore many orders of magnitude less notable than aircraft incidents, everything else being the same. I understand (but obviously disagree with) the point you are making, but the example you have given here really doesn't support your argument. Having said all this - I think a list for less notable incidents is a good idea, but I would still maintain the view that Qantas Flight 72 already satisfies notability criteria for its own article (including with respect to WP:NOT#NEWS). I also suspect you would still see squabbles over notability for inclusion in such a list - just as occured regarding this accident's inclusion on the Airbus A330 article (which I'm still struggling to understand given an injury event on this aircraft type is so rare). -- Rob.au (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Why do we have an article for this?? Only 7 people died, and no-one was injured. The reason we have an article for this is it is more noteworthy / notable than a bus crash. As is the incident we are discussing here. Other than being notable in its own right, it is notable in that it will be one of the incidents resulting in falling passenger number in Qantas! Buckethed (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Because that disaster had a profound impact on America's space programme for many years afterward. (Shuttles grounded, resdesign required). QF72 has had no such impact on its industry. That may change if something substantial comes out of the investigation, but any such prediction would premature - we don't keep articles because of future significance that they may have. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + WP:POINTy argument == You're not helping your cause. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - lolComment If you read a (little) more thoroughly, you would see this is a reply to the comment above, who is using this kind of argument to argue for deletion. Also I am not using the example as 'other stuff exists' - it is the Challenger Disaster! Of course it is notable. Just making a comment that numbers of injuries etc are not the variable we use to determine inclusion in Wikipedia or not, as Socrates2008 seems to suggest. Edit : WP:POINT does not apply either, unless it is considered to disruptive to try to prevent censorship of Qantas articles. :) Buckethed (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Ah, I missed the subtlety of your humor. Tsk, shame on me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though I want all airline incidents to have an article, it can't be done as the rules work against it. According to WP:N, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." There are other accidents like this who don't have any article, so why does this one get one. It does not get one!! -Marcusmax (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's a big difference between an incident and an accident. In an accident there is always an official investigation, at least in the industrialised world. It may take some time, but once started, an analysis will be done at a far better standard of fact-checking than our usual WP:RS. If an article remains just a stub for two or three years during the investigation, where's the harm?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After an incident occurs, it may not be immediately perceived as notable, but as time passes, this incident may very well prove that it is in fact notable. I also realize that there are other incidents without articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Arguably, the article does not meet notability guidelines. But, instead of deletion (a drastic measure), I believe that the article should be improved; it could add more information about the impact of the incident on Australian aviation and cite more independently verifiable sources. VashiDonsk^(T) 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good thing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy or else by me stating this I would break the rules. Here's the thing if we kept this article then we would have to recreate all the other similar ones, and more. I have been crying keep on past afds like this one but the rules are rules and they must be followed. If this article does indeed stay then expect me to re-create others similar to this as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. I suggest maybe we move on with deletion and in a few weeks or two see if this article meets WP:N in which case an admin can easily bring it back. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth mentioning the current focus on Qantas - it may be worth starting a "Criticisms of Qantas" article that documents the airline's maintenance record there, rather than starting a new stub article every time one of its aircraft is in the news. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Assume good faith~~ comment withdrawn after edit. WWGB (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't the news. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Harendorf[edit]

Only claim to fame is she was on a short lived show that followed her and her dog around, not notable IMO.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, since it improves the encyclopedia to have this information than to delete it. Hiding T 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source but IMDb, not notable by the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to keeping information that improves the encyclopedia? Hiding T 11:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; what part of WP:BIO does she fulfill? And as far as "keeping information that improves the encyclopedia" goes, what evidence exists that this does? RGTraynor 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence exists that it doesn't. Burden of proof is not mine. Hiding T 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, it is. ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged ... In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." RGTraynor 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact it isn't. The action is not on my part, it is on that of the deletioner, since keeping is the status quo, not a change. But, my reason for keeping is that this article provides information for those people who are looking for it on this particular person. Consensus will dictate the outcome. Hiding T 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I must pipe in here, burden of proof is on the creator of the article or the supports to prove its worthy of an article. I could find the relevant link if you actually need me too. You have to prove they are notable, we don't have to prove they are not notable. -Djsasso (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is presumed not proven. I can quote you if you desire? Hiding T 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to presume notability you need to back it up with WP:RS. That is how you prove your case. Burden of proof is on the article creator to prove it should remain on wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ignoring all rules is a poor substitite for doing a bit of searching. The subject is notable because she is covered in multiple reliable sources. It's apparent that she's known for dog yoga with these strings of articles [56], [57], and [58] aongst many more that turn up in a google news search. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first link is a trivial mention four sentences long in an article of capsule descriptions. The second link quotes Harendorf (among a few others) but is not about her, as WP:GNG requires. The third (short) link is about her show. Do you have any substantial, non-trivial sources? RGTraynor 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the ones listed were the ones that weren't behind pay-walls. This, based on the sumary, would be about her and her show. Taken in combination with other shorter articles is enough for me to say keep , as the notability bar is set rather low. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't not meet WP:RS or WP:Notability. -Djsasso (talk) 21:06, 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) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Lynch[edit]

No significant coverage in reliable sources located despite attempts. No claim of notability (such as hits or opening for extremely notable acts). Bongomatic (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I will leave it to others to decide if this makes them notable, the duo were part of undeniably notable girl group B*Witched. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to B*Witched. There's no need for this to be at afd, there's verifiable information here that has relevance to another article. Hiding T 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should delete the article? They were notable back when they were famous. No sign of notability. 121.96.116.183 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of music related discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group Same Difference have their own Wikipedia page. They are notable due to their involvement with X Factor, however, they ahve not released any material as of yet either. I think being one half of a Girl Band that holds the record for four consecutive Number One records inclusive of their debut, is just as worthy a claim to fame as being a competing act on The X Factor. -- Daibh\^talk 19:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have they released any singles or are planning to? With regard to the vote to delete, I would strongly disgree as there is no reason just to delete it. The content is certainly notable even if only with it being merged into the [B*Witched]] article and redirected. Maybe then if/when they become notable in their own right the article can then be started again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep An article that is being vandalized shouldn't necessarily be deleted. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Alford[edit]

This has been requested by the Head Teacher of Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Alford, to be removed due to vandalism. Rcm1105 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EH?. Keep, semi-protect if vandalism is an issue. One wonders if this is a school boy prank. Hiding T 10:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vandalism is no reason to delete an article and no other reason is given. 'High' schools are nearly always deemed notable and this one seems like it might be more notable than most so wikipedia should have an article on it. Speedy close as no valid reason for deletion is given? Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is a significant problem with the article I'd suggest the concerned party contact Wikipedia as the article talk page appears to be inactive, Wikipedia generally does not delete articles because they have been vandalised if they are otherwise "worthy" of inclusion (which this 450+ year old school almost certainly is). If necessary the article can be semi or fully protected. Guest9999 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatorisk Tortyr (album)[edit]

Prod contested. Artist page has been previously deleted. Searching on Google comes up with band-related info and the existence of the album, but nothing to assert its notability Wolfer68 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the British press in the last ten years. Hiding T 10:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Also get rid of Återförödelse (album) for same reasons. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Gurny[edit]

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 16, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 106 unique G-hits [59], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment. RGTraynor 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RG. Fails WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has competed on the ISU Junior Grand Prix, which are ISU competitions for Junior skaters, and will compete at Senior nationals this season. Kolindigo (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep articles on something that might happen. Even if she is at the Junior Grand Prix, that is not the highest level of amateur competition and still wouldn't meet the expectations of WP:ATHLETE. As far as figure skating goes, the highest level of competition would be competitors in the Olympics or the World Championships. Also in general "junior" anything is not considered notable because the competition is not the highest level available, the highest level available always has no restrictions on age beyond a minimum age.-Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Yeah, I know... Crystal Ball... but to me, she's close enough and the specialists of the topic view her as a significant up-and-comer... I'm willing to give a little latitude on this one and see what collaboration comes up with.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:CRYSTAL isn't optional; that's like saying "well, they say Soandso, who's been redshirted, is going to play quarterback for Notre Dame Real Soon Now, so he should have an article even if he hasn't actually appeared and there's no guarantee he ever will." That is exactly the situation WP:CRYSTAL is about. Until she's done it, she hasn't done it. When she's done it, if she does it, then an article is appropriate. RGTraynor 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, WP:CRYSTAL states that wikipeida is not a "collection of unverifiable speculation" -- this is verifiable speculation and I see that as different enough.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "verifiable" about it. Nothing catastrophic actually needs to happen; all she does is pull a groin in the wrong week and poof! no senior nationals. No senior nationals, no senior international competition ... and poof! there's another year flushed at an age in the career of a figure skater where those who haven't proven themselves among the elite drop by the wayside. You're not unfamiliar with sports; that sort of thing happens all the time. For every Michelle Kwan and Sasha Cohen out there, there are a half dozen kids who looked like cocks of the walk in the junior ranks and never actually made it out of them. RGTraynor 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable that she's a competior, that she's good at what she does, and is expected to compete well at the upcoming level. It's unverifiable that she'll "pull a groin in the wrong week" -- Crystal Ball goes both ways. Anyway, I'm still good with it. There's no harm, there's no violation of any policy that I can see, true it's borderline at the moment but that's where I'm at.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation? Interestingly enough, WP:CRYSTAL touches on this very point: "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." RGTraynor 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no violation. The only "prediction" in the entire article is "She is due to make her Senior debut at the 2009 German Figure Skating Championships in Oberstdorf." That is actually a true statement that is verifiable. The rest of the article highlights her numerous and impressive international competition achievments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except she hasn't made that appearance yet, which is what violates WP:CRYSTAL. Those impressive achievements as you put them unfortunately are not impressive enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, without meeting WP:ATHLETE it doesn't matter if she is or isn't going to be at those championships because she needs to meet WP:ATHLETE now not sometime next year. Trying to keep the article based on what she might be doing in 2009 is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If she had other things to make her meet WP:ATHLETE this would be a non-issue but she does not. -Djsasso (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The local T-ball league highlights the equally impressive (by comparison) achievements of its players, and as far as WP:ATHLETE is concerned, a kiddie T-ball league and novice and junior figure skating competitions have the exact same non-notable import when it comes to qualifying their competitors for articles. Until she competes in senior nationals, and only if she competes in senior nationals, she does not qualify for an article barring passing the general notability criterion of WP:BIO. RGTraynor 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree. If this were a local t-ball league (or equivalent) that would end it. But I don't see it that way--this would compare to be more of the world t-ball champion (or perhaps Little League World Series). But beyond that, there's plenty of news and media coverage outside WP:ATHLETE that she, in my opinion, meets WP:BIO general qualifications.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Little League World Series players are just as non-notable. That being said, if you've found substantial articles about her from sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, feel free to post the links. RGTraynor 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G12 - Copyright infringement. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBDA F.C.[edit]

Non-notable club of non-notable football league. No internal links or inline citations. Google results don't fare much better. 2 external links are to to the official website(s). The other links up to an architecture company - unnecessary and incongruous to topic. Flewis^(talk) 08:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Flewis^(talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the entire article (complete with spelling and grammar errors) is a copyvio from here but no point rewriting it as the team is totally non-notable - delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover You[edit]

Future album. As per WP:NALBUMS, Articles and information about albums or singles with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources Anshuk (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add sources, cause I have them. hippoharry07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Let me help you. Can you list down the sources here?--Anshuk (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sites that I have. Will they work??

http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/release/d/791242/1/

http://www.helloproject.com/newslist/musume_0809081000.html hippoharry07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Check this out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites. You can also consider putting this site on this particular language's wiki.--Anshuk (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: With the current state of the article, I would like to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. --Anshuk (talk) 01:44, 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. Wizardman 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO TO YOU ~Hello! Project 10 Shuunen Kinen Theme~[edit]

doesn't add anything extra information other than what is already present at Morning Musume All Singles Complete ~10th Anniversary~ Anshuk (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAI2U. Delete per nom, article provides very little context and the same in the way of substance. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can delete it then. hippoharry07 (talk)

Delete. Per nom. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the general weight of comments. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of traps in the Saw film series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While this is fascinating stuff, it has become more of a massive plot hide-out than an informative article. It seems that all the text that can't go in the film articles gets dumped in here; I don't see why every single trap featured has to be explained in vivid detail. We're running an encyclopedia, not converting movies to novels. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopeless fancruft. Belongs on its own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it may be spoiler material, and who likes spoilers anyway?! --Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless gorecruft. No independent notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The traps are a very significant part of a notable series, which as of now is soon to be five films and later six films. This article was nominated for deletion once, and as you can see, was kept. If it was "gorecruft" (which shows obvious bias in of itself) it probably would have been deleted. "Spoiler" material, obviously, is also hardly a valid reason for deletion, for reasons I shouldn't have to be stating. I really don't see how this has any less validity than something like Magical objects in Harry Potter besides "I like Harry Potter and don't like Saw". I do think a lot of the plot summary could be removed and be replaced with other information, such as the concept and creation of the traps, as well as maybe critical reception. The article does need work, I just don't think that makes it suitable deletion fodder.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a reason to keep articles. We're not discussing whether the Saw series is better than whatever J.K. Rowling is doing nowadays. Also, we're not discussing the previous AFD result because it doesn't affect this one bit. Like I said in my summary, the problem doesn't lie in this being a spoiler, but rather just a long plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't referring to you when I talked about spoilers, I was referring to User:Weasel5i2 whose sole argument was "this article contains spoilers, who likes spoilers?" Regarding plot summaries...the article does need to be trimmed. But it's certainly not impossible for real world information to be added, such as critical reception and behind the scenes info. The whole notion of the Saw traps have, while not as iconic as say Freddy or Jason, have become ingrained into popular culture and have been the focus of a couple of parodies in television. This is in addition to drawing comparisions with real life torture devices that the filmmakers have drawn comparision to when making them. I think deletion should only be used when it is a lost case, and I don't think this fits the criteria. My hands are pretty full at the moment, but once my plate clears up, I would be able to work on it on the future. I wouldn't have time, however, to do all this work in the span of the one week that this is up for deletion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How are they culturally significant? There's no notability to them (note: notability is not inherited. Just because my Uncle Bob is featured in Titanic doesn't mean he needs an article). As for your "filmmakers have drawn comparisons to real torture devices" claim, how is that related? Watching Minority Report and thinking that the jetpacks used remind me of jetpacks doesn't warrant a "List of gadgets in Minority Report" article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability isn't inherited, true, but your comparision to your Uncle Bob is hardly a fair comparision. The traps themselves have become one of the icons of the series, I can think of quite a few outside media that have played upon the traps. And when I say "drawn comparisions", I don't mean I'm going "Duhhh...they look similar to the iron maiden" (again, your comparision is unfair) I meant the directors themselves and the reviewers have all commented on the inspirations used in constructing them and critics have also drawn comparisions with real life events...although this reviewer was in the minority, one made comparisions to the interrogation tactics being used on terrorists. (BTW, by bringing up the "We don't have an article about Minority Report gadgets", you're doing WP:WAX)--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How do these comparisons show any notability? That people can connect dots? Can you source these? Also, you misunderstood my Minority Report example; I'm saying that there's a reason why we don't create articles similar to that, not that we should create that article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It was in a documentary about horror films on Bravo or Starz. Either way, it's featuring legitimate coverage outside of primary sources and people outside the film and not some teenagers' geocities page. And as for the "Minority Report", it's still in the vein of "We don't have articles on X, therefore we shouldn't on Y".--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still misunderstanding; I'm not saying that we can't have this article because the Minority Report one doesn't exist. I'm saying that they shouldn't exist in general, hence the "there's a reason why we don't have a "List of gadgets in Minority Report" article" statement. In terms of these legitimate third-party sources, any examples? And how prominently were the traps featured? How are they notable? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One of them is "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film" which has a scene discussing the Saw films and their traps in comparision to other works of ficton.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I mean an actual source you can link to... Or should I look on the article page? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Documentaries don't count as sources?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fancruft, plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (From Saw V) "Hello, inclusionists... I want to play a game. Your article survived deletion a year ago because there was no consensus, but it has remained unchanged... where are your friends now? By the time this tape is finished, you will have just a few more days to find a way out. At the end of those few days... you should know better than anyone, what happens then. There is an obscure Wikipedia policy that will unlock the support you need to stop the deletion process... choose the wrong policy, however, and your article will even be barred from Deletionpedia.... make your choice." Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the list could be modified to remove the plot information and keep only descriptions of the traps themselves. Alternatively, they could be merged into Saw (film series) or the individual film articles. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose merging would be better than just deleting them outright if that's what I came down to..--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep Or, at the very least, Merge into Saw (film series), as per AdamBMorgan's suggestion. I also agree with CyberGhostface's observation -- deletion should only be used when an article cannot be salvaged, and that is clearly not the case here. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this be salvaged, though? It doesn't contribute anything but needless trivia to the films. Again, the purpose of the articles is to inform readers of the premise of the Saw films, not walk them through every scene in the movie. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back The answer: Editing 101. It can actually be salvaged rather easily -- all it takes is time, focus and the ability to chop a glob of data into a streamlined work of information. Ultimately, the content would probably be better served in merging with the existing "Saw"-related articles. I would be happy to work with the article's creator in saving the article if this AfD was withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Like I stated earlier...behind the scenes information, critical reception, impact, etc.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Wikipedia isn't a repository for "behind the scenes information". Critical reception is already covered in the film articles, and I don't even see how the traps are related to reception (the fact that reviewers mention them doesn't really do much). In terms of impact, unless you can source the significant cultural impact of the Saw traps. I think that's the very least that has to be done for this to not be a complete delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the same way that Wikipedia is not a game guide, we're also not a trivia guide for films, either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The main focus of the series is the traps and their intricacies. To delete this article would mean a need to include information on each trap for each movie in their respective movie section, making the articles long and inwieldy. 71.162.238.108 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have to include them in their movie sections? "Shotgun trap" does not need a complete backstory and description of how it works; I could file patents with the level of detail present in some of these trap descriptions (that's not a good thing). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is, as mentioned, unwieldy, and needs to be changed quite heavily. However, the concept of the article in itself should remain - perhaps an article on the major traps from each film, and short summaries of the actual design and implementation of these? Comments from Production Designer(s) (David Hackl) or directors (James Wan or Darren Lynn Bousman) from each respective film's behind-the-scenes trap creation featurette may add more light to this. In the end, it needs to be more a design article rather than a storyline article, and this seems to be what the fans are forgetting. Shape it up, or get rid of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieMayona (talk • contribs)
Weak keep - The article did serve a purpose originally, and I feel that it can be brought back to that. Eliminate the useless plot and 'cruft' floating about, and I think it will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. ≈ The Haunted Angel 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What purpose did it serve? I don't think every trap needs an explanation aside from a sentence or so, and that could easily fit in the articles. Again, the plot doesn't have to be so comprehensive as to cause the reader to experience images of what's being described... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of the traps, especially in the later films, become more complex in nature and scope. Maybe not paragraphs long in terms of content, but more than one sentence.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if those in favour of Keeping the article could make their statements without being grilled. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone has the right to question the judgment of others. That's the beauty of a democratic process (I'm betting $50 that someone will throw a policy back in my face). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no beauty in badgering those who disagree with you. I am switching my !vote to Strong Keep based on this constant needling. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The article covers information that would be deemed off-topic on a film article itself.: ViperBlade ^Talk!! 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article has been nominated twice for deletion, why?. Why is this page standing up against fucking wikipedia rules, it's like they are playing this little game to give people like me the freak. Which initially they have been given the will they wanted. I strongly recommend that this article must stay because of the content of it is valuable to the Saw Faschise, cut this article will decrease the level that it is now on top of it to fall drastically. This article must stay at all cost since this is a valuavble piece to a great movie franschise. Amen !!!--MKV2 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does this discussion have to do with your crudely expressed opinion of the quality of the series? The matter at hand is whether the traps specifically have sufficient significance that they need their own article. I think not. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent summary of physical plot devices, that should be in any article on a book or movie that relies on physical objects as plot devices, as per Harry Potter and LOTR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This provides an excellent summary for those people who are interested or want to know more about what happens in this series. This is one of the few places that they can find all of this information. User:Jigsaw23 20:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first contribution by Jigsaw23. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ecoleetage (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere plot detail. Plot detail is supposed to complement a topic per WP:PLOT, not serve as the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An incredible amount of time and effort went into collecting this wonderful collection of movie trivia. Lets get it Merged to Saw (film series) where it has context and notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems Saw fans are going to resist any delete, then i'm fine with this being cut down and mergeed to into the film article. Wikipedia reflecting a poor film with a poor article is not ideal, but is better than 2 poor articles :-/. Of course, without sources, even the merge is unfair on the parent article, and would prevent it ever reaching GA or Fa status, so better to delete. I never understand fans who want to showcase their interests by creating crappy articles, instead of improving the core articles on the subject.... Are all the trap titles also OR?Yobmod (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uselessness and trivialness of this article is scarier than any of the films. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plot detail and pure fancruft. McWomble (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft or cut back severely. Tim Bennett (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was under the impression that using "cruft" for deletion arguments wasn't recommended.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Cruft' isn't an argument in and of itself, but in this case, and in some others at least, it's a good shorthand for 'An indiscriminate collection of primarily in-world information without proper evidence of external notability, collated in a non-encyclopedic way, presenting material better suited to an episode guide, etc'. I think it's unfair to argue against your opponents simply on the basis that they're using an informal term which you feel should be discouraged. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was hardly my sole argument on this discussion if you were to look above. I'm just seeing a lot of "Delete. Cruft", with little to nothing else, which is listed in the "arguments to avoid" section. Also there is saying that the films are poor and not deserving of an article, which is just as bad as saying the films are great and thus deserving of one because of that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I didn't say that that was your only argument. My objection to this article is not aesthetic at all; my objection remains that the entire thing is a big block of poorly-sourced in-world material - see WP:PLOT and the paragraph about fictional element lists in WP:FICT - and that it thus gives undue weight to specific aspects of this series without justifying it. Most of the forty-odd cited sources are simply images from the films. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you when I said that about the "films being poor" thing but someone above you. (I'm sorry if I came off like that). --CyberGhostface (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cruft. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic cruft and excessive plot detail. Good films, though. Cosmomancer (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Don't see why it shouldn't be kept. Deon555 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Not covered in reliable sources. Just because it can't be merged into the film or the fim series doesn't mean we need an article on it. The article consists of WP:OR and WP:PLOT information almost entirely. Links to photos on EBAY as sources??? Links to Photobucket shots of the script as sources???? How did this survive AfD before? I strongly suggest that the closing admin look at the article prior to closing this if there is even a hint that it might be closed as "no consensus, default to keep". There isn't a single reliable source posted. Not even to reviews of the movie. Doesn't belong on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No one's said it doesn't need work or cleanup.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. On top of those needs, it needs reliable sources that cover the subject. without those it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, other users and I are going to work on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to publish reliable sources that cover the topic? Protonk (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to publish anything, obviously. I was going to see if I could find any. I know for starters that the horror movie documentary on Starz last year (which wasn't made by anyone working on the films) discussed the usage of the traps in comparision to other films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article as useful, encyclopedic, and notable unoriginal research easily verified in reliable sources that belongs on Wikipedia. If anything delete this discussion as afdcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs major cleanup. Change from list to article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natureceuticals[edit]

seems to be some kind of industry catch word. Wikipedia:MADEUPINONEDAY Anshuk (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism AlexTiefling (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced (refs don't mention the word), and fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this apparent neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tōru Furuya[edit]

The article is not supported by reliable third party sources, amongst many other serious content issues. There should be a standard, even within an on-line encyclopedia, to be able to support content being written about living people. Danielsagayama (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The star of one of the most iconic anime series of all time is obviously notable, and lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources is a perfectly valid reason for deletion when dealing with WP:BLP articles. Secondly, this article is one gigantic trainwreck piled into another gigantic trainwreck. JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gigantic trainwrecks are generally notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep this nom is absolutely ridiculous. As Redxiv said, this is one of the most popular Japanese voice actors of all time. AfD is not cleanup. JuJube (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid speedy keep, would you like to cite some sources or are you going to continue to stammer as well? JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would advise you to redact that comment since it's obviously snarky on its face. In either case, a lack of knowledge on the subject on your part does not constitute non-notability. Links are not hard to find with Google, but the fact that the subject in question has voiced multiple extremely notable anime characters speaks for itself. The fact that the article is in garbage condition doesn't mean anything. Unless you'd nominate Mel Blanc for deletion if his article was full of unreferenced statements, too? JuJube (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article has references, but they are not inline references. I've modified the cleanup tag on the article t reflect this. This is an absurd nomination given the obvious amount of work this actor has done. This nomination is the equivalent of nominating Tom Cruise if there were no inline refs in that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add fact tags, remove uncited material after a month or thereabouts, edit in line with policies, clean the article up and see where we are then. Hiding T 10:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable Seiyū, as a main character in a very notable series and other significant roles as well. I'm not sure I'd say this is like trying to delete Tom Cruise, but it's pretty close to trying to delete Ted Danson or Jerry Seinfeld. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple lead roles in notable productions = meets ~~WP:CREATIVE~~ WP:ENTERTAINER. References are there, even if they aren't direct footnotes, and the more important roles are trivially easy to find with the searches asked by WP:BEFORE. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to point to the correct notability guideline -- I keep confusing those two. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs much improvement, yes. {{sofixit}} but don't delete it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the star of Mobile Suit Gundam, why would you delete the entry? Many seiyu have 'biographies' that only list their filmography, it is no reason to delete the article. And if you do, someone else will just come along and remake it, and we'll be back to this again. No matter how small or little information there is, a tiny article is better than no article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero no Kamen (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion and other editors have shown sources exist. While others have focused on his role in Gundam he's played multiple highly notable roles in multiple notable series, any one of which would qualify him for an entry on Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 22:27, 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 Speedied as vandalism based on the comments below. Am happy to overturn if it is indeed proved that this place is real. Hiding T 10:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbinsgale[edit]

Blatant hoax. There is no such town as Abbinsgale in New Zealand. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hoaxish hoaxery. JBsupreme (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this doesn't deserve to live 5 days. dramatic (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no evidence the location exists. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pokémon: Advanced Challenge episodes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl (anime)[edit]

multiple redundancies and duplicates some content from Pokémon (anime) along with material that violates WP:NOR; no logical reason to recreate duplicative article here Mhking (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl episodes. JuJube (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I get tired of people adding uncatch pokemon to the trainers.--Wikialexdx (talk) 02:44, 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 List of Pokémon: Advanced Challenge episodes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Advanced Generation[edit]

multiple redundancies and duplicates some content from Pokémon (anime) along with material that violates WP:NOR; no logical reason to recreate duplicative article here Mhking (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon: Advanced Challenge episodes. JuJube (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Oaks Chamber Orchestra[edit]

Seems to be non-notable. No third-party sources. Given site was ranked 6,746,552nd by Alexa. Alexius08 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left in the article, moved here by User:Hiding I find it outrageous to pronounce such a nomination while there are many references to questionable subjects all over Wikipedia (I can provide details in private) The River Oaks Chamber Orchestra is a cultural enhancement in any aspect for the United States and our society. In times were the masses are downgraded by non-sense movies, idiotic books and low level entertainment I believe that anyone who has doubts that an article about a chamber orchestra should not be place here, has no culture at all.(user: tdorsch)
Weak keep, there's reliable secondary sources which will verify the information within the article, and a stub allows Wikipedia to give them their due weight. Hiding T 10:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Marginal, to be certain, but the article would benefit from editing and enhancing. No need to erase it. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references provided to support notability seem to be blogs. It is not clear that they were printed in the paper. If they were, that would help to support notability. As for comparing this organization to the Houston Symphony, note the 4540 Google News results for the Houston Symphony [60] compared to the 11 for this organization, with some of those being passing reference [61] about the spouse of the director going to jail. Many refs are behind paywall and I cannot evaluate them. Edison (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I turned up a couple of newspaper articles which based on what I saw verify the info in a web search, [62], maybe someone with a US library card can add them as appropriate. Hiding T 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of U.S. newspapers have blogs as part of their online editions -- this is done to differentiate the online version from the paper version. The Houston Chronicle's blogs are part of the Chronicle media organisation and, as I understand policy, would meet WP:RS requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep, ArtsHouston, a Houston Magazine about Art and Culture, will feature ROCO in the upcoming issue with a detailed article - I am also collecting other materials in print. (I am not affiliated and I am not a staff member of ROCO) Also, there is no proof that Houston Chronicle published this only as a blog, it was for sure also printed. ArtsHouston e.g., is a printed magazine and uploads most of their articles to an Archive Directory on their website. Again, the ROCO is gaining increasingly local and nationwide recognition, in particular because they have a more educational approach to the public than other orchestras. Will provide more relevant Information once the ArtsHouston article has been published in two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.4.57 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 October 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innvirement[edit]

I tried searching this term in Google. I got only 7 hits. Looks like this is something which was made in a day --Anshuk (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam, company-invented neologism with no use outside the company. Somno (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guerrilla spam really. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and neologism. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, breathless bollocks conconcted of glittering generalities: innvirement is the name for a creative setting in an institution, enterprise or educational facility where people have all tools and abilities to creatively share ideas. We're so creative and full of ideas that we don't even need the Shift key. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal jazz[edit]

Non-notable adjective-noun combination. Hits on the search of "brutal jazz" are typically of this nature: "Brutal Jazz influenced Metal" (from amazon.com, where "brutal" doesn't even necessarily modify the word "jazz"). The article is unreferenced and appears to be spam for a band, also the subject of a (now contested) speedy nomination. Bongomatic (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails notability, though I heartily support local jazz bands in small towns like Sheridan, Wyoming. Edison (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A spam for a band? no not at all an addition, an elaboration on the progress of a band in my local area, information on new sub-genre in it's infancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbjazz7 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are for things that are already notable, not that might be notable in the future. Bongomatic (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP. "Genre" that consists of one non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As it is associated with only one band, it is essentially indistinguishable from the band and therefore qualifies under per WP:BAND. Also, this was speedily deleted once before. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO, WP:BAND. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brutally delete as a pointless neologism invented to publicise a single non-notable band. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this genre preformed by many jazz bands and musicans in Wyoming, it's more of a genre specific to Wyoming that excusive to one band in wyoming Greenthumb134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Could the artical just be edited to remove the band an add a bit about being a genre of wyoming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbjazz7 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there reliable sources which discuss it? If not, the article should be deleted. If there are, add them as references, or at least identify them here. Edison (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming is clearly the worst state to live in. trust me it is terrible to have to visit, let alone live in, and it's residets know it. If Wyoming wants to add "brutal" to their jazz, let them. They have no real impact.Freemerson (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Freemerson's only edits are to this AfD discussion, to make the above comment. As a reminder, this discussion is not about whether or not Wyoming sucks; it's about whether there is a distinct, notable entity called 'brutal jazz', whose existence can be backed up by reliable sources. And I think there isn't. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary comment - User:Greenthumb134's only edit is the one above, too. Fancy that. And User:Tbjazz7's only edits are all closely related to this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutally delete but with a catchy syncopated rhythm. Neologism from an unnotable band. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Baby's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Los Baby's

Contested prod, fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I've outlined above as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for procedural reasons. This is a bad-faith "tit for tat" nomination made in response to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Smallz. I contested the prod for Los Baby's, tagged the page {{underconstruction}} and asked on the talk page for the community's patience as I translate the Spanish article on this phenomenally popular group with a decades-long career. I expect the community will give it to me, though I know from experience that the nominator will not, because he does not assume good faith. Chubbles (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep (see my comment further down) – The evidence, outlined by Chubbles, does indeed suggest that this is a bad-faith nomination. I would close this AfD right now myself, but would request that another admin do it, since I may not be seen as sufficiently neutral given my involvement with the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The speedy keep voters need to assume good faith, or at least provide some better arguments, as this group does not appear to be notable however I have taken note that a major revamp is in the works and will check back later. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be looking in the wrong places. The Spanish article notes that they are internationally famous and released some 50 albums on es:Discos Peerless, a well-known Mexican label. A 1986 greatest hits compilation even hit the Spanish-language charts in America; [63]. The group is a dead ringer for a WP:MUSIC pass. What made anyone think they were non-notable? Chubbles (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a rhetorical question or are you just being difficult? Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. If you have sources which demonstrate the notability of this group please do add them to the English Wikipedia article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, didn't I just demonstrate their notability? I still don't see why this is difficult to understand. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you claimed notability, but did nothing about the failure of verifiability. Adding sources (even if in spanish) would go a long way to making this article a keeper.Yobmod (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. To be honest, I'd like more input on this. This appears to be a prolific musical group, but it is not clear to me what their involvement was on the compilation disc 16 Exitos which charted on the Billboard Regional Mexican chart. RFerreira (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a compilation disc. It was re-released by Fonovisa in 1995. In any case, you can peruse their vast greatest-hits discography, many of which are out on Warner Music International. The key problem I have here is, this group is one of the most important Mexican popular music groups of all time, and we've now deleted their article once and are well on our way to deleting it again. I was hoping that, in writing an article about a group with a 40-year history, who are not English-speaking and were popular before the Internet was invented, that people would be a little more cautious before hitting the delete button. WP:BIAS certainly applies here. I've added more sources which note the group's popularity, though at this point it doesn't look like I'll change any minds. Chubbles (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read Spanish and the article there establishes notability. It needs translation which I could do, but have no time at this moment. Also keep on the grounds that Chubbles does good work with music/band related articles - s/he has a good track record with these articles and I don't believe s/he'd go to trouble of creating an article on a n-n band. TravellingCari 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if some of the sources are added to the article. Even in spanish - i expect the vast majority of US wikipedian's should be able to parse enough spanish to find a band's name in an article. If no sourcing, no notability is shown, so deleteYobmod (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but could you please clarify your thoughts here? It's unclear whether you think the group is notable or not and what you would like done to the article, which already has sources. Chubbles (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since this discussion started, Chubbles has expanded and sourced the article, including providing reliable sources to back the claim that the band was "one of the most popular native pop acts in Mexico in the 1960s." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ergo Proxy terms[edit]

The lead speaks for itself (WP:Plot). There is nothing in this list that is not already on Ergo Proxy that is important in the context of the anime. As such, it goes into insufficient detail, which occasionally steps in the area of fan speculation. « ₣M₣ » 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge or keep a glossary is useful in understanding whatever terms are used in the articles and episode lists. Though, doesn't Wiktionary allow appendices for fictional works? 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to wherever these terms are directly relevant (episode/chapter summaries, character list/pages, etc.) and then redirect to Ergo Proxy. If there is an Ergo Proxy wiki, transwiki there as well if it hasn't been done already. —Dino guy 1000 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing how these terms help enhances the understanding of the main articles. Most of it appears to be an excuses to include plot details and original research. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Nomination withdrawn. Another reason why AfD should be "articles for discussion" and not "deletion." MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Killer7 characters[edit]

TTN (talk · contribs) recently replaced all content on this page with a redirect to Killer7 without anything resembling a discussion prior. I honestly have no opinion on the fate of this content, but replacing a whole page with a redirect is akin to a unilateral deletion. I brought it here for the sake of process and have no opinion myself. JuJube (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Game guide. --Fred McGarry (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect The plot section and the voice actor section of the game article already seem to fullfill the same purpose without giving so much UNDUE weight on GAMEGUIDE information. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki the bulk of the list to a wiki (if not such already); however, there should be a single paragraph that can summarize the main characters in the game quickly (including the 7 personas, as to give a flavor how each appears in game). The list, however, is way too much details for a game with a single release for WP. --MASEM 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory process creep is evil; redirects should be treated like WP:PROD, don't bother bringing it here unless there's an objection. Nifboy (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought other involved editors might object; apparently I was wrong. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence that this list is notable in itself, or that any of the characters in it are notable, jointly or individually. Clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Basically this list is a content fork from the article Killer7, into which plot summary with an over reliance on an in universe persective has been dumped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide, and unsourced. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the major characters. There's plenty of room. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, I've merged what I think is appropriate for the characters into the Killer7 article. --MASEM 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore if needed Its hard to know what to do here, since almost every step has been wrong. The original action or replacing with redirects without prior discussion is an overbold use of BRD. The appropriate course is to discuss first, and then merge/redirect after consensus has been obtained. But, if it should be redirected without consensus, the appropriate step is to revert, per the second part of BRD, and then discuss until consensus has been obtained. If one see it done, and has no opinion t one way or another, there's no basis to assume it's not approved of--at most one might want to place a note on the talk page and move on to things one does care about. But the idea that redirects are prods is absurd; there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline to that effect. How to deal with contested redirects is an open issue--the last week here has not clarified how to deal with them, though it certainly has clarified that there is a problem. Given that we have the situation, what Masem has done is probably reasonable, and if anyone wants to restore further material, they are also welcome, and it can then be discussed on the talk page. Whether this should then be split out again can then be discussed, when we see what the material amounts to. (I would have dealt with this differently than Masem, but I'm not going to disturb what might be an acceptable alternative.) My view is comment that those who take without discussion large scale actions that they must reasonably know are likely to be controversial are not contributing to Wikipedia in a useful way, and this , if tolerated, will continue to lead to situations like the present one. DGG (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, even if this list is kept, per WP:SS a summary of such supporting lists should be kept as part of the main article, enough that the reader doesn't have to refer to it to get the content of the main article but there for those that need it. --MASEM 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character list from award-winning game. Generally that's the right thing to do per WP:SPINOUT and general precedent. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a protest nomination. Redirection isn't deletion. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, redirection is not a reason for deletion. If you brought every article to AFD that TTN has turned into a redirect, you'd have tens of thousands of AFDs. The nominator obviously does not understand "the process" and should read WP:AFD (and WP:BEFORE in particular) before making any more similar nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm going to withdraw this nomination because I really don't care about the fate of this article and am not trying to get it deleted. If TTN wants this article deleted, he should nominate it for deletion and not simply replace it with a redirect without any sort of procedural fair warning. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton-Madison House[edit]

Speedy was declined. An advertisement. If the article is cleaned up so that it's not an advertisement, it will still be in AFD per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only external link doesn't even refer to the subject by name. Also, blatant copyright violation. Bongomatic (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn spam. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is spammy, but i was in the process of working on it & removing t he copyvio. Its a major social service agency and refs are available. DGG (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why don't you prove that refs are available instead of doing a sources are out there keep? Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with DGG. The article should be fixed rather than deleted. andy (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pity the nominator didn't do a Google Books search before nominating. I've added some of the 226 sources found to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Open Season (film). Stifle (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boog[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Season (film) as it is a likely searchable term but the character originated from a comic strip and a sequel is planned so I'm not fully sure where it should redirect to. treelo _radda 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, likely search term. Do you fancy withdrawing the nom so we can wrap it up, TTN? Hiding T 10:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius characters. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Jimmy[edit]

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) 01:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intro (without Nicholson OR) into List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius characters, where he is not listed yet. Reasoning per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sgeureka. JuJube (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect No sources discuss the subject. Very little critical commentary of the show. Third party coverage of the show doesn't magically filter down to characters without...actual coverage. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as G5 - Created by banned user So Why 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing (Yolanda Johnson album)[edit]

Yolanda Johnson and all of her other albums have been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yolanda Johnson). That article was recreated today, and nominated for speedy as a repost. This particular album wasn't around when the previous set was deleted, so this isn't a repost. A prod was contested, but I can't see that anything has changed to make this article pass WP:MUSIC. —Kww(talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AFD was opened, the creator of the article has been blocked as a sock of Soccermeko, a banned user. Nominated for speedy accordingly.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums: a non-notable, unreleased album with little or no media coverage by a non-notable artist. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage (yet) - apparently due for release this month. The artist's article may be worth saving though.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the recreated, unimproved artist page. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, invoking WP:SNOW based on the shape of the debate below. Hiding T 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottlecap shooting[edit]

This is a WP:DICDEF followed by personal observations and then instructions removable under WP:NOTHOWTO. Except that it lacks the tastelessness factor, it reminds me of the Hand fart article that was deleted a few days ago. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:GNG. --Anshuk (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:DICDEF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT (while we're throwing around applicable acronyms) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFT isn't applicable, even if the kid himself was being sincere when he wrote on my talk page that this was some "rare" information he was trying to share with the world. I was amused—I wondered whether he thought his friends had invented it. We were doing this 30 years ago.—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're thinking of Skully, aren't you? Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, never heard of that. I'm just talking about the simple act of snapping a bottle cap!—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide. Looks like snow indeed. Cliff smith ^talk 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW this one already, please. PLEASE. JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Shoot it as a how-to guide. Alexius08 (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, WP:NOTHOWTO. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blast it with a bottlecap in snowy weather. MuZemike 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it It is a how to, the subject is trivial, it is entirely original research (though calling it "research" is stretching the concept beyond breaking point) and the writing style is horrible. The article has absolutely zero merit! Roger (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, article is based on original research, et cetera. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:40, 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) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Rowen[edit]

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) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no sources in article either. VG ☎ 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Main character in a series. its appropriate to have this as separate articles. Some of the content needs to be sourced, tho, at least in the series itself , which is the appropriate place to meet V. DGG (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Zeta Project. The existing article is completely unsourced and original research and fails WP:NOT#Plot. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No gnews hits. Mostly mirrors and fansites in web hits. I'm not sure how "is a main character" makes this an obvious keep in any way. I'm also not sure that it is appropriate to have separate articles for fictional main characters if nothing is said about them independent from the work of fiction. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Batman Beyond. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Tan[edit]

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) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman Beyond. JJL (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This reads like a really minor character. VG ☎ 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman Beyond. The article is made up of primarily OR and when you take that out there's not much left. JuJube (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too minor to merge and redirect in my opinion. Full of original research as well. JBsupreme (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a likely search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 10:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The article could be recreated if appropriate references were added. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: to Batman Beyond#Main Characters. She is one of the main characters, even though the article makes it seem likes she's minor. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sufficient amount of content. the continued nomination for deletion when merging or redirect is appropriate is a poor use of AfD--perhaps the continuing excess may serve as a reason for making it clear that doing so is against policy. DGG (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Gnews. Article is original research and plot summary, despite our familiar friend's claim above. No need to inflate the importance of this character as some hyper-important main character in order to rag on TTN. She is a minor character. The character itself is not covered in reliable sources. wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Doll (Batman: The Animated Series)[edit]

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) 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VG ☎ 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable antagonist in terms of Batman TAS's style of storytelling. JuJube (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot find a suitable character list for merging (if one is created, it will be easier to add two new sentences without merging anyway). She appears in two episodes of an animated series (at least that's what the lead says, the rest is a rambling of plot and OR), so common sense already screams nonnotability. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and use this as the occasion to create a suitable list to merge it to. We should not simply delete information. Appropriate length, that's another matter. DGG (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- wow Jube, that argument is totally consistent with other arguments you've made recently. Quick query. Which has more notability, sales, etc, Batman TAS or Dragonball? Follow up question, which character is more notable to these shows, Baby Doll, who featured in what, 1-3 episodes, or Cell, Tien, Goten, etc, who featured in many, many episodes. Man, it takes some gall to make these sorts of votes, but you do it anyway...JJJ999 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character, no reliable sources, and violates WP:NOT#Plot. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable character. Subsuming all the minor character into a list ais a great idea, but that doesn't meaning merging this 99% uncited cruft.[ Writing a list entry would be easier than the work of a merger, so why bother?[User:Yobmod|Yobmod]] (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete No gnews sources. The three book sources relate to the television credits, not the character. Article itself is a mix of plot summary and editor interpretation. Not a main character or villain, even if that were an appropriate or agreed upon criterion for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashim Ghosh[edit]

Non-notable person with no reliable sources to back up. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ganeshk (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Crazy[edit]

Non-notable single, didn't chart anywhere, article doesn't contain a complete sentence. If deleted, this might make a good dab, as I can think of at least one other song and album with this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VG ☎ 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implement the dab page now. We don't need this debate. Hiding T 10:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the page a dab page of sorts. Hiding T 11:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it since 1.) there was no consensus to do so yet, 2.) I said might make a good dab, and 3.) the point of a dab is to have at least one blue link, whereas that one had none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see we're discussing this in two places. Apologies. Right, to rebut all three of you points: 1.) You don;t need consensus to create a dab page, 2.)It doesn't matter what you said and 3.) every entry had a blue link per MOS:DAB. Best to the otters, Hiding T 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident)[edit]

A reluctant request for deletion on biography of living persons ground. The fact that he confessed to the crime isn't sufficient - some people confess to crimes they didn't commit, and I read in A Mighty Heart that the Pakistani government is willing to "rough up" suspects. While honour killing is a noteworthy phenomenon, and while the killing of four relatives received international media attention, the media attention didn't extend to the outcome of his trial. As such, it looks like the media will never report on whether he was guilty of murder or not. A merge would be suitable if it was only his notability, rather than his guilt, that was in question, but as it is, we probably need to remove him from Wikipedia until he's dead. Andjam (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Move to Death of Muqadas Bibi as we have done with other articles about killings. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is inappropriate, since three other girls were murdered at the same time. Edison (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Gsp (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. does not really establish notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely nn and common occurrence in Pakistan. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Andjam (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the sources are non-trivial and the event in question is notable enough that a song has been written about it by a band notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. However the article must be retitled immediately per WP:BLP because, as noted above, confession is not 100% an indicator of guilt. DAB'ing a living person as a killer who hasn't been found guilty of same in a court of law is extremely hazardous. 23skidoo (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with it being renamed during the AFD. Andjam (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is weird that the article name says "honour" while "honor" is the spelling used exclusively in the article, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. Per WP:BLP it is completely unacceptable to state flatly that he killed 4 daughters, when there is no reference stating that he was found guilty. Even then, it is would be more encyclopedic to state that someone was convicted of a crime than that they committed the crime. Google News archive shows stories in the "western" press only from December 24-25 of 2005, with no followup. Someone with access to and able to read the Pakistan press might be able to confirm followup. There is no evidence that it is common for a man in that country to kill his four daughters, as it asserted above, even if there are reportedly over 200 honor killings a year in Pakistan. If a man killed four daughters who were from the U.S. or the U.K., it would be an article with more refs and edits than Laci Peterson or Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Undecided pending followup as to subsequent press coverage which did not jump from Pakistan's papers to the AP. Edison (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficiently notable, though we do need some followup. I do not see a BLP violation in this particular context. .DGG (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep assuming pakistani sources exist, and this is not a simple one-off news story. But rename is essential - what if he didn't do it? Claiming the husband of the victim was abusive without sources is also a gross BLP violotion.Yobmod (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've renamed the article. Andjam (talk) 11:20, 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. Wizardman 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pied Piper Records[edit]

Non-notable label and non-notable musician:

Label fails WP:CORP with no sources, Musician is full of fail. Both read like PR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Karl Morgan - I prodded this but its bundled into this AfD so the prod was removed. Reason still stands though, "Nothing to indicate WP:MUSIC, written like WP:SPAM, no WP:RS in the article or from google. Most of the article is rewritten from here". As for Pied Piper Records, the article was created by Eager77 who looks connected to the label, and the only other content contributor is User:OnlinePPR which is a company username for Pied Piper Records. Matty (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates label is responsible for any notable releases. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:58, 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic empire[edit]

The unique content of this article boils down to "Nomadic empires were empires created by nomads". Everything else is redundant duplication (most of it copied verbatim) from about half a dozen other articles about individual empires. I don't quite understand the purpose of this duplication, and I see no potential value in the title beyond the self-explanatory dictionary entry. The basics of the nomadic lifestyle are much more suitably (although with potential for improvment) explained in Eurasian nomads. --Latebird (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true, there is currently no better article for the recurring phenomena of conquerors from the Eurasian Steppe. John Keegan has shown this to be of profpund implications on human history.
This article must be thoroughly rewriten, but not deleted. 79.182.137.40 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering? "No better article exists" is no justification for anything. In fact, the current text rather stands in the way of someone writing a better one. --Latebird (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proposed preservation of this article would probably violate WP:SYN. See below. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a novel synthesis. A quick bit of research, before even reading the article, turned up a whole load of sources that talk about the concept of nomadic empires, contrasting them with (variously) "sedentary states" or "settled states", addressing what makes the former different from the latter, the economic, cultural, and governmental mechanisms of nomadic empires, and how it is (in the views of some) incorrect to conflate a nomadic empire and a nomadic tribal confederation. I found four books discussing this in just 5 minutes. Then I looked at the article and found a lengthy bibliography. It appears that historians and others, from Omeljan Pritsak (whose book, The origin of Rus, has an explanation of what a nomadic empire is on page 11) through Richard Nelson Frye (whose discussion of some economic aspects of nomadic empires can be found on page 44 of ISBN 0521522919) to Mark Edward Lewis (who argues, in ISBN 067402477X, that the Xiongnu formed a nomadic empire after Qin unification), have written about this subject.
Not only is there plentious source material for an article on this subject, but we appear to already have a lengthy article on this subject, with an extensive bibliography that isn't even exhaustive. Any problems with verifiability or original research can be fixed by editing the article in the ordinary manner with some of the copious sources that exist in hand. Thinking that we shouldn't have an article on a subject that clearly is discussed, in detail and by this very name, by many experts in the field is completely wrongheaded, and not what Wikipedia is about at all. There's no reason, under any Wikipedia policy, that deletion is the answer to any problem with this article. AFD is not Wikipedia:Cleanup. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... the mind simply boggles. I tend to err on the side of deletionism, but one single look at this article asserts its notability on WP. Perhaps it would benefit from a bit of tending-to, there are many other avenues to go down in this instance, and AFD is not one of them. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That looks better. I concede I was wrong before. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't quite understand why this article has been nominated for deletion! It is notable and it has reliable sources. AdjustShift (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article speaks for itself!--Mike Cline (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did anyone of you guys actually read and understand the rationale given for this deletion request? Notability and sourcing are non-issues here. The problem is a much different one: As it stands there is no unique content in this article. All it contains is duplication from other articles. Actually, in terms of the GDFL, it most likely is just one big copyvio. If someone is interested to write an article about nomadic empires and what makes them different from other empires, and all that without being redundant to other parts of Wikipedia, please be my guest! But that is decidedly not what the current article does. Or can any of the happy keep voters point me to significant content in there that isn't duplicated from elsewhere? --Latebird (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we need to be formal, then the relevant reason for deletion according to the deletion policies would be that it is little more than a content fork. It's a somewhat special case in that it wasn't forked from a single article but combined from half a dozen different ones. But it's still a fork with nothing unique to it. --Latebird (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, it's a content fork. It's a good one. May we have more of them, if they reach this quality, and start accepting that it may be more practical to have more than one article on a subject that to bicker incessantly about content. Given that we don't attempt to reach the Definitive Truth, there can be multiple good ways to write encyclopedia articles. The arrangement of material in the encyclopedia can be guided by being useful. DGG (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "good content fork"? That's a novel concept to me. Thinking about it, I could probably understand a "List of nomadic empires", with the name of each and a sentence or two explaining their respective context. But just duplicating pages over pages of existing text still doesn't seem to make sense (even without the GDFL issues). --Latebird (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is really a Summary Style article (highly desirable IMHO) that was arrived at 180 degrees from the typical approach. Instead of breaking out articles from an overly large article, this editor just compiled the appropriate articles into a very nice summary. Indeed, it might be improved through some parring down of content, but there is absolutely no policy or guideline rationale for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting how everybody here defends an article that theoretically could be there, but in reality isn't. Nothing of the source articles has been "summarized" here. Instead, large parts of them, in some cases the full articles, have simply been cut and pasted. Making the result comply with even the most basic principles of Wikipedia will require a rather massive amount of paring down. The tiny remainder will not look pretty. --Latebird (talk) 00:16, 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunchaser Pictures[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jeremiah (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects, Sunchaser's films win awards. I have just cleaned up the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the non-trivial coverage from reliable and established third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as their films have won multiple awards at multiple festivals/venues. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup, this improves us. Hiding T 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies notability in current version. 23skidoo (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texline Independent School District[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No references and non-notable Whenaxis (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no such thing as a non-notable school district. Like a municipality, school district is a special governmental unit with defined boundaries, and it oversees the education of the children within the district, paid for by taxes levied upon the real estate inside the district, along with state and federal monies; none of this is trivial, and such governmental districts are considered inherently notable. There appear to be two references in the article, the district's website, and the greatschools.net site. Yes, there could be (and there are) more references, but there's enough to build an article upon. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Acntx (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. We generally nominate articles for AFD if we believe there is no potential for an article to become better. Texline ISD is inherently notable and it has the potential to become better. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Texline Independent School District does have 2 references, yes, but if it was a notable article it would be longer than it is now and have more up to date information instead of from 2005. The author(s) have five days to improve the article before this discussion is closed. Whenaxis (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not WP:Cleanup, it is to discuss if a Article could have sufficient WP:Notability to remain. As a School District is a governmental unit, I believe that a Keep is in order. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge either down to the single school or up to the parent body or split and redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15 7 October 2008 (UTC).
- Right now the single school already redirects to Texline Independent School District. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier...The author(s) have five days to improve the article before this discussion is closed. Whenaxis (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add any more discussions, this discussion will close in 5 days unless the article become more notable and has up to the year information

Indeed the discusion will close, almost certainly as keep, whether the article is updated or not.Yobmod (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, needs improving (i added some). As school has no article, no need to merge there. Maybe create a redirect from school to district (essential amerge in the other direction, but with no content :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article needs some more improving and updates to the Student Body section. Whenaxis (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 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) 15:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arwin[edit]

Queried speedy-delete tagging. It has 6 incoming ordinary links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Text of {{hangon}} box added at 02:46, 2 October 2008 by User:Cory Malik: "The refs are very notable and there is tons of info about it on the internet. The pilot is too". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I was the one that nominated for speedy, so I'm not clear whether my voice counts for this consensus. This TV show, from the article, was planned but not made. (Or possibly, not broadcast.) There may be cases where planned-not-made shows are notable, but this one fails to demonstrate notability. The two references are to a Youtube trailer for the show and IMDB, neither of which are notable. The hangon notice says that there is a pilot, but the actual article doesn't say that. This could be rewritten with actual sourcing to prove that it's a notable non-show, but I don't see that here. JRP (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on deletion, but if it's deleted, it should be recreated as a redirect to Arwen. Nyttend (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, TravellingCari 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, redirect to Arwen 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no verifiable sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much inherently unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a mention in a trade publication somewhere, but all I can find is blog-type entries. Clearly was a real show that never made it to production -> no RS wrote about it -> not notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources outweighs WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:BIG arguments. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Saviour (Wayne, Pennsylvania)[edit]

Notability not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphageekpa (talk • contribs) 2008/10/07 09:37:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep attendance in the 1500-2000 range (counting children) puts it in the notable category to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashes to ashes... Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Absent of a substantial rewrite that clearly demonstrates it notability, I believe this article should be deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as any other (non-famous of course) church articles on here. And if it is laking sources that is not really a great criterion for deletion. Easy fix Superbowlbound (talk) 01:38, 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. Wizardman 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fribble[edit]

I first came across this article because it was similar to my username :-) I decided to hold off on AFD for a while to see of it developed. It hasn't. A menu item doesn't warrant an article unless it has become "iconic" in some way (and hence been mentioned in a reliable third party source). Fribbler (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem very spammy but its clearly nonnotable. Themfromspace (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a Friendly's menu. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Milkshake. A rose is a rose is a rose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd prefer no redirect. I don't think Wikipedia needs to endorse the POV of this restaurant chain that 'Fribble' in any way indicates a milkshake. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only sugested a redirect because in my googlesearch for "Fribble", I found in in other places besides connected to "Friendley's" but always referred to as a type of milkshake. I do not know if they invented the word or if they borrowed it from somewhere else and then used better marketing. Redirect or no, the article can go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of private-use airports in California[edit]

This list is about topics which by their nature are almost never notable. (See WP:N and WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability.) The few non-redlinks on the page are mostly namespace collisions with airports outside California. The few that are in California are mostly questionable notability and could be prod/AfD candidates too. The redlinks here encourage creation of non-notable articles which most likely will never be written anyway or would be likely prod/AfD candidates if written. Ikluft (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While small airports such as these are not considered notable enough to warrant separate articles, a list of them may very well be. And this is not a "bad", indiscriminate list, but a list whose members are well-defined. I'd say the subject of general aviation in the state of California is notable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though I would like to get rid of those redlinks and agree they encourage non-notable articles. Do we have a script to scrub these? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that this is a list of private use airports and as such none will ever be notable without extraordinary circumstances. (There is a separate List of airports in California which includes airports that are open to the public and does not have this problem.) The list is unnecessary clutter. Ikluft (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm certainly not an opponent of airports. I'm a commercial pilot and flight instructor. I have authored some articles about public-use airports. But private-use airports are below the importance threshold to the point where AfD's usually succeed, and therefore below the Wikipedia community's consensus level for notability. And for the land owners, inclusion of their private property in Wikipedia has already in some cases become an unnecessary cause for pestering questions - we don't want to encourage Wikipedia editors to become a paparazzi against people who should be left alone. That's my main concern with this. Ikluft (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think everybody voting "Keep" still wants to take out the redlinks. So we wont have articles being created about these airstrips, and we wont have any Wikirazzi traipsing through people's fields trying to get a photo of them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I was the one who created this page almost two years ago, it was only to remove a large list of private airports from List of airports in California. Most of these airports do not have Wikipedia articles and, in my opinion, most do not meet the notability guidelines. The few private-use airports in California which have articles or are otherwise notable can be added to small section in List of airports in California. For an example, see List of airports in Alabama which includes a link to Sharpe Field (IATA: TGE, FAA: AL73), notable for its former use as the Tuskegee Army Airfield. -- Zyxw (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only other U.S. state with a similar list is Oregon (see List of private-use airports in Oregon). In that case there is only one red-link because someone created articles for all the private-use airports and heliports. However, a number of these having started being placed through the AfD process, such as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston-Dillard Fire District Station Number 2 Heliport (already deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reforestation Services Heliport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis Heliport. -- Zyxw (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, and 8. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is an ideal example of a list topic--specific, measureable, concise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this meets the guidelines for a list. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory listing. This list amounts to an arbitrary intersection of criteria (1:private, 2:airport, 3:california) with no encyclopaedic merit, as evidenced by the fact that the list entries are either redlinked or PROD'd for lack of notability. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question technically, aren't all lists an "arbitrary intersection of criteria" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an arbitrary selection of criteria; it's a rather rational set of criteria. Other types of airports are notable enough to have their own articles; this article is essentially a many-to-one merge. And the choice of a US state is a pretty reasonable way to break up such lists. If anything, the fact that a list for such a large and populous state as California is still manageable implies it would be useful to complete similar lists for the entire US. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a reasonable compilation, especially in light of most of the airports mentioned being borderline on notability in the first place. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes I agree that these, which are mostly helipads, aren't notable on their own. But that is the reason for compiling them all into one article. The list is not arbitrary; these airports are obviously recognized by the FAA. As far as redlinks, while a corporate helipad isn't notable, often the place where the helipad is, such as a hospital, major corporation, news outlet, local government, etc, is, and we can wikilink to those. And while a list like this may seem like bottlecap-collecting to some editors, it's obviously useful to those researching everything from medevac systems to disaster relief to drug interdiction, and can be intertwined with WP articles on those topics. I wouldnt mind having these lists for every U.S. state. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the proposed guidelines at WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability - the WikiProject Airports recommendation is that heliports and other private-use airports (not open to the public or marketed in public) are not considered notable on their own. Heliports should rather be included in articles about their host facility, if mentioned at all. Ikluft (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but nobody on this AFD is suggesting we create articles for each individual heliport. In the example of how this list could be referenced by a WP article on, say, a forest fire, it would use redirects/piped links to the list as a whole. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Gateman and Paul McDonald. Ecoleetage (talk)

02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Useful, encyclopedic information. We might remove the links to airports that don't have articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are only 3 airports on the list which are notable: LAPD Hooper Heliport (heliport of the largest city in the state), Torrey Pines Gliderport (national historic landmark) and Monterey Bay Academy Airport (former military base). I added those to List of airports in California in a new sub-section called "notable private-use airports". Also, of the airports on this list, one editor removed two public-use airports which didn't belong here, another editor corrected three links that pointed to the wrong airports in other states, and I also redlinked 3 more namespace collisions. So hopefully that helps illustrate how unnecessary this list is. Ikluft (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is for an article as a whole, not for each line item within an article. It's sensible to create a list to group together things that aren't notable by themselves. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In a list of articles, notability is relevant - all but three articles in this list fail or would fail WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability. As Stifle points out above "WP:LC items 2, 5, and 8" shows guidelines for avoiding unnecessary lists, which this list violates because it is of interest to a very limited number of people, cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms and is unencyclopedic (violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE). In addition, because everything on this list is private property not open to the public, it is WP:OBSCURE. There is no one who can use this list - it does not have an audience. If a licensed pilot flying in California needs to use a private airstrip for a precautionary or forced landing, none would consult Wikipedia under such circumstances - there are printed and digital FAA charts which are appropriate to that task. No one else has access to these private properties without contacting the owner(s) first. Ikluft (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope, notability is only relevant to the entire list taken together. That comes from the notability guideline at WP:NNC: notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. It's not "indiscriminate" either. An example of an indiscriminate list would be something like "List of people who like ice cream". The criteria for inclusion is vague and arbitrary. Our list, on the other hand, has a very rigid inclusion criteria; recognition from the FAA. We do this often with types of articles where the individual elements may lack notability, such as lists of low-power radio stations, lists of schools, and the like. There is use for the list beyond pilots who might need to land in emergency situations; I did a little searching to see if the redlinks can be piped to articles about the entity that owns the airstrip, and quite often we already had an article about the hospital, ranch, power utility, etc, and these are not "obscure". That means it can be woven into the fabric of WP articles and be part and parcel of the writings about those topics. Also it appears that some of these airstrips host charter flights, so yes, it is possible that the general public will be interested in those airstrips. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even the proposed guideline at WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability says Airport lists: A list of airports for a country or region may contain the names of all airports, notable or not.. Couldn't have said it any better myself. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... you're right, it does say that. I don't think anyone was thinking of a list of private-use airports when that was written. (California and Oregon are the only places where such lists were made. Both lists were out of sight and out of mind until recently.) The record of previous AfDs on airport articles shows that consensus has been to keep articles about public-use airports and not to keep articles about private-use airports. That has been a major factor in where to draw a non-arbitrary line for notability of airports in the proposal - consensus could be reasonably expected where it has been found before. So after this AfD is done and closed, I'll bring up your point as feedback for discussion of an update for consistency to the proposal. Ikluft (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyway I believe the difference in our arguments is whether this article is a list of articles about airports, versus simply a list of airports. I think that the article can be "rehabilitated" by turning the redlinks to plain text. And about a third of them can be changed to piped links to articles about the entity that owns the private airport, which means that it's not just an isolated list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I can see this is a subject where you prefer to take the inclusionist view. While I am often on the inclusionist side on other topics, I'm still hoping I can convince you that private-use airports are below the threshold that they provide no audience or purpose for this article. Everything that you're saying, if it were applied to public-use airports (open to the public), I would agree with. But not for private airports. The only reason why private-use airports are part of the FAA's public information at all is for purposes of finding emergency landing sites. Otherwise it's nobody else's business, just like any building with a locked door or property with a locked gate. There is no use for posting such information about private property. The few airports that are exceptions can be (and now are) listed under "Notable Private-use Airports" on List of airports in California. I came to the opinion that we should avoid private-use airports on Wikipedia when another editor asked me what he should do when he visited a private airport looking for info to fill in a redlinked article, and was told to leave the property. I told him to respect the owner's wishes. We really don't want to encourage members of the Wikipedia community to become a paparazzi that harasses private citizens. I know it doesn't and wouldn't happen often - but the same conditions that tempted that editor to do it will happen again to others if we leave it this way. We know it has happened before. So we should try to remove the temptation for WP editors to do the wrong thing on behalf of our community. Ikluft (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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