Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7 October 9 >

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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lewis[edit]

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

There are 1000's of Adam Lewis's in the world, and this Adam Lewis is very insignificant. He was in a band for 18 months, that hardly constitutes having a wikipedia page. Adamwlewis (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Other Adams Lewises including you are even less significant :-). Anyway; entertainment guys by the virtue of their occupation are more notable than an average joe. The notablity criterion is: what are the chances that people would like to read about this person. Answer: those interested of the band in question, which seems moderately notable. A reasonable solution would be merge/redirect into Breed 77, since there seems really nothing much to write. `'Míkka>t 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Well, I actually beg to differ on me being less significant. I own one of the largest online scrapbooking websites in the world, Scrapo.com, and am profiled in 300-400 websites throughout the internet. Which is actually my point, I am quite a bit more well known and I would never consider having my own Wikipedia page. None of the other past members of Breed 77 have their own Wiki's: Lawrence Bautista, Nick Beefly, Charlie Gomez, Dan Wilkinson, Peter Chichone. It would be different if this Adam Lewis had a large profile with lots of information, but it is literally just 3 sentances. I agree with merging and deleting. Adamwlewis (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Merge any info into Breed 77 and either delete or turn into a disambig page, as this individual isn't notable outside the band. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge or redirect should only occur if "Breed 77" is actually shown to be important/significant itself. That article has many unsupported claims but, no reliable sourcing at present. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability in the article, nor any real suggestion of it in Breed 77. Bongomatic (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I looked, it listed him as a member on that page, with a link to this page (the only band member with a wikilink) PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable outside of band. Mentioned in band page, no point in merging uncited "information" to damage that article.Yobmod (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question out of curiosity does anyone know where the redirect that used to be at the page went to? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no clue, never saw it. it's always just been this weak page. (talk) 16:13, 10 Octover 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.250.60 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Santos[edit]

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

Still nn Bat ears (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Check out the logs for this article. It has been created, deleted, created again, deleted again (...on and on), protected, un-protected, and now created for a sixth time. Reid Santos is still a nn minor leaguer. Once Reid Santos is a MLB player, only then should there be a Reid Santos article. Bat ears (talk) 23:39, 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 delete. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Winder[edit]

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

Yet another aspiring actress. The article's only claim of notability is that she will soon be joining the cast of Wizards of Waverly Place; this claim is unsourced and appears to be unverifiable.[1] Prod was removed by the article's creator without comment. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:31, 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. and then redirected to the band as a reasonable search term Black Kite 07:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Ficarro[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. No sources to support notability, ghits do not support notability of this particular person. Not notable outside of a band. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:04, 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 Wikipedia:Hatnote. via soft redirect Black Kite 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

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

Internal wikipedia term, doesn't warrant an article by itself. — neuro(talk) 23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See below. Delete via WP:DICDEF PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have converted it to redirect: as I created the article in its current form (it was previously a redirect to Footnote, not useful). It now redirects to Wikipedia:Hatnote (or will, once the AfD template is removed). This was suggested on talk page, and I think I intended to implement it at the time but forgot to do so. I believe we need to have something at this title, (a) to be helpful to people, perhaps new editors or people baffled by talk-page messages, who look it up, and (b) to reduce the risk of something less useful being created at the title. A redirect straight to WP:HAT seems the most useful thing to have at this WP-specific word, so I ask for it to be allowed to continue to exist - even if we have to invoke WP:IAR for this useful solution! When the dust settles I'll make similar redirects from "Hat-note" and "Hat note" for good measure. PamD (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new cross-namespace redirect will most likely be deleted, for the very reasons that this article was nominated in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It will indeed no doubt be brought to AfD again under this. — neuro(talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Hatnote, as I suggested on Talk:Hatnote. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was of the understanding that changing an article to a redirect during an AFD is a STRONG no-no, and undermines the entire process. If the concensus decides that is what is best, fine, but doing such a drastic measure pre-close is pretty much saying that everyone elses opinion is meaningless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A softredirect may be helpful; a cross-project-space redirect of a likely search term. – sgeureka t•c 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read the text "Feel free to edit the article", but did not interpret "but the article must not be blanked" as forbidding turning it into a redirect - sorry I got that wrong. As I'd created the article in its current form, I felt more free to take liberties with it than I would have done if other editors had worked on it, especially as I was responding to a suggestion from the other editor who had shown interest in it. I'd never read the "Guide to deletion" referenced in the edit summary, but now see that it does indeed forbid conversion to a redirect. PamD (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I wasn't aware of the exact policy that said you couldn't until today, but figured it had to be against some policy, so we both learned something today. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having read definition of a soft redirect at WP:GLOSSARY, I see that this short article fits that description. I reckon it's useful, as explained on talk page. If we delete it, the person who searches for "hatnote" gets nothing but a set of articles on comics (because "hatnote" is in the info box). Does that improve Wikipedia?PamD (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Soft Redirect. What got my attention was PamD's last line: Does that improve Wikipedia? I still feel that as a article it violates WP:DICDEF, and I feel that you can't make it a redirect as that violates the useful essay cross-project-space. A soft redirect may be the right answer since it is a Wikipedia term, and this is what soft redirects were created for. The only other "legal" option is delete, which wouldn't improve Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:10, 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 02:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antivillain[edit]

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

This is a non-notable neologism. The two sources in the article both refer to a single example - an actor who coined the term to refer to another actor's character. The article disagrees with itself as to what the term antivillain means and there are no sources providing a definition for the term. Edward321 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried deleting this in the past, but it was called Anti-villain at the time, so its not showing up on the log. Anyway, the term is valid, but I don't think there's enough solid information to back up an entire article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Over a year has past since this article underwent AFD, and it still does not cite a single source that defines the term anti-villain. The article, as it stands, is original research. I used Google to search Project Muse and JSTOR, and neither database has any hits. There are a few hits on Google Books, but nothing that actually defines the term. Until this term ends up in Webster's or the OED or is written about by a film or literary scholar—it just doesn't pass the test when it comes to sources.Fixer1234 (talk) 01:01, 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 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur School[edit]

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

Not notable outside the fantasy world PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article is about fanfiction based on the game series that on messageboards I don't think that its notiable enough to even mention on the Soulcalibur page. --76.66.190.32 (talk) 03:58, 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 Houston Independent School District. MBisanz talk 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revere Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school with no notability. Per essay wp:schools, and most people's opinions, this doesn't get a pass. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:50, 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 02:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ups and The Downs[edit]

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

Future debut album of Sara Paxton. Last info I found was that she "has not completed work on it" as of March 2007. One single is released, but there is no information if the album is ever going to be released at all.
Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums lacking significant coverage [2]. AmaltheaTalk 22:06, 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, A7; notability not even asserted. Blueboy96 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Jetre[edit]

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

Autobiography and promotional article, written by User:Jetrefilm who has only contributed edits to this article an on a character in one of his movies. Notability is not asserted, much of the article involves his future projects (WP:V), and there are no wikipedia articles created for any of his films implying that they are also not yet notable. Can be recreated when/if his film is released and if it can be done in such a way that does not display autobiographical bias. JRP (talk) 22:04, 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 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in Engineering[edit]

Sustainability in Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The topic as such may be notable, but the present content is rather useless. It's jargon-laden non-contextual word salad, and probably mostly a copyvio of the (indubitably most learned) works of A. M. Hasna (compare e.g. the lead sentence to this abstract).  Sandstein  21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the concept is notable and the content is junk, then you don't AFD it, you change it, tag it, stub it, or something else. If it is a copyvio, then it needs to be tagged as one, with the source listed, where it will be deleted for that. Basically, I am saying the nomination itself is fatally flawed, and would respectfully say that it should be withdrawn. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have speedied it as G11. If the concept is encyclopedic, why is it supported by two recent papers and a master's thesis, all from the same author? And why does it read like a puff piece? Are we now going to have articles that have only a title and no contents at all because the topic just might be encyclopedic, but the contents is unsalvageable and has to be deleted? VG ☎ 10:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A shameless promotion of a book. Most of the text is lifted off the publisher's site as the nom noted, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest is copied from the book itself. But regardless of copyright issues, I see this as blatant advertising. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My brother is majoring in building construction, and he is enrolled in a class called sustainability in construction which is aimed for structural engineers, architects, and building construction students. Given that engineering is so vague, i.e. the application of science to the needs of humanity (my father in law is an engineer btw) that this topic already misunderstands the scope of engineering. There exists medical engineering all the way to aerospace engineering, and this article is mainly about the inadvertent promotion of the book. This article (and the person's book) only helps people's misunderstanding of the scope of engineering. There is no centralized sustainability in engineering, because the field is diverse. Medical engineers would explore the idea of sustainability in medicine and aerospace engineers would explore sustainability in aerospace but engineers branch way before there is some grand all-encompassing sustainability theme that unifies sustainability from all fields of engineering, which is what the article is trying to do, which wouldn't even work if the article passes Afd. Editorially, I believe the topic itself is dubious, and is only piggybacking on the sum of notability of related topics. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Not part of my reason to vote, just clearification) A medical engineer is closer to a doctor or a biochemist, than is a medical engineer to a structural engineer or to a LHC theoretical physics engineer. They don't even take the same type of engineering exam! All doctors (spanning from psychiatrists to dermatologists) in contrast take the USMLE 1, 2, and 3, and they all take the mcat. This would be going a step backwards about believing that engineers can be grouped. They are radically different and this article's first three words are already flawed. The Engineering profession there isn't one.
  • Delete in current state. Topic has some merit but at the moment has no place in an encyclopaedia. MvjsTalking 00:42, 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. with salt. Cirt (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McDonald (Scottish Entrepreneur and Model)[edit]

Charles McDonald (Scottish Entrepreneur and Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles on Charles McDonald and Episode Management have been deleted a number of times for various CSD reasons, mostly advertising and non-notability. Episode Management fails google test[3] as does Charles McDonald[4]. Besides one very fluffy piece in the Bolton Evening News there are no reliable sources. I am taking this to afd rather than nominating for CSD (again) because there are claims of notability, although I'm not convinced that they are especially compelling. Deadly∀ssassin 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It looks like Episode Management has been speedy deleted as I was writing this. If the article is recreated I would like to add it to this AFD nomination. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable self-advertising by the editor concerned, who appears to have that one small mention in the Bolton Evening News, and have the idea that unrelated links somehow justify what looks like a fantasy. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the best press you have is your article on Wikipedia.... PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Snow, and Salt Let me count the ways... no actually ... he fails to meet the notability and verifiability criteria as he hasn't 1) had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. 2) had a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3) made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment 4) received a notable award or honor, or been often nominated for them. 5) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. There's more but, I won't clutter the AfD with them all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well, we can verify quite a bit here. He's "hunky" "5'10" and "makes the ladies swoon" - he's attracted the wrong type of woman in the past, but now he's looking for "a down to earth personality, good looks and intelligence."[5]. So, I'd be tempted to vote keep, except in reality he's not any more notable than me. So delete, just your typical Scotsman.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Celestine[edit]

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

Pure original research and probably promotional in intent—this article about a fictional character in a film (possibly not notable—it hasn't been released yet) was written by the guy who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, under a user name that's the name of his production company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had nominated it for speedy and withdrew it. But, had I of realized it was written by the screenplay writer, I would have listed it as advertising. JRP (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the impulse to speedy it for advertising but really it isn't advertising in form or content, so I figured I'd get consensus on my sense that it's advertising in intent.—Largo Plazo (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a character that isn't notable yet in a movie that isn't notable yet (and as far as I can tell doesn't meet the future film criteria for inclusion), etc. Wikipedia is not for hosting fiction, or "production notes" for creating said fiction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 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. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bézier Games[edit]

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

Delete for non-notability. This is not Maxis. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that a new user gets a whole 15 minutes before their page is put up for deletion... --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that, and how is that constructive to the debate at hand? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New article from a new editor, and kudos to Craw-daddy for digging up some sources. BOZ (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:CHANCE. MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I am still not convinced that we have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that these games appeal to a broad audience, instead of a group of ten in the middle of the Death Valley (figuratively speaking). Also, these games are not Monopoly, and they are not documented anywhere else. In addition, WP:CHANCE is only an essay, and citing that as if it is a rule is invalid. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but isn't what you pointed out WP:ONLYESSAY? Let me clarify the point from that essay in the context of this AfD: the nomination was too hasty in bringing the article to AfD, especially without considering other options as recommended in WP:AFD. I also hate to bring it up as I admittedly have also been guilty of the same such crime rather recently, but the nom seems a trifle WP:BITEy in nature as a result of the short-order AfD. MuZemike (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I admit, this might be borderline bitey. However, I could have simply nominated this page with a CSD procedure. I am taking this to AfD because I want to see what everyone thinks. To be honest, the "sources" cited merely refers to the game, and does not talk about the company (unless I am missing something here). The games themselves are borderline notable (at best, after five bottles of wine), and I am still unconvinced that this company is anywhere near Hasbros or their notable likes.. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as we all know, popularity is not the same thing as notability. What artificial number are you looking to satisfy? (The players of these games play them precisely because they aren't Monopoly (as that's really a terrible game, but this is besides the point)). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't need a number, I need some concrete sources that this company is even worth mentioning here. At the present state, I don't think this company is notable. Pure and simple. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We definitely don't have any guidelines for board games, but given that Age of Steam ranks #11 on boardgamegeek [6], I'd say the publisher is notable. VG ☎ 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets general notability standards, and is well referenced. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient refs on there to meet WP:N, and there's more coverage on BGN every so often. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I request the nominator gives new editors some more time next time. You have every right to nominate things for deletion, but 15 minutes is beyond any standard. User:Krator (t c) 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments- The "references" to this company's notability is non-existent. They attest to the existence of the games they made, but not the company, and whether or not the games themselves are notable are seriously in question here. I don't think the sources here prove that this company is notable at all. It exists, no doubt, but is it notable? I think not. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:56, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Gen (wrestling)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yvoire. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evoir[edit]

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

I can't find a place named "Evoir" in France. It seems that the creator of this article was referring to Yvoire. Korg (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Korg (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yvoire, then. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, should be speedily redirected. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally considered the redirect, but I thought the spelling was rather implausible... Korg (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could be, but I can't find a mention of Evoir in France either (especially so near Geneve). Yvoire is legit. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no redirect then we'd have redirects for every possible typo variant on the whole of Wikipedia. And two short sentences hardly warrants a keep... --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's reasonable to have redirects for mis-spellings that people have been so confident about that they have begun a new article on the subject at them. If one person makes the mistake, others will in the future. Deleting the article just leaves us open to further cycles of mistake→new article→deletion discussion in the future, as this happens all over again. Redirecting the article, on the other hand, takes all future readers to the right place and prevents everyone's time being wasted with any further such cycles. Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama effect[edit]

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

More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For some reason, there's a page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Effect with different content than this one, and that page is linked to from the article. Someone who knows what's going on should fix this, please? --Rividian (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it, and will post what the user said in that AFD below this comment. But review to make sure I did it right is welcome. --Rividian (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfectly valid entry for inclusion on Wikipedia.
The "Obama Effect" is a term that has been used and, though new to the political lexicon, has every right to exist.
There is no justification for deletion, if there improvement in the article is required, then this can be done.
Censorship, however, of a new term, is nonsensical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) — Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note Your summary when creating the article sums it up: A potential difference between the way voters in the 2008 presidential election respond to surveys and polls and the way they might actually vote which screams original research. And censorship??? PaLEESE. Go ahead and call us racists, too, while you are at it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's utterly unreferenced, and purely speculative anyway... it refers to something that might be a term if a certain thing happens. This is not encyclopedic topic, based on facts in evidence. --Rividian (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. And I swear I'll pistol whip the next person who says "shenanigans". MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure wp:neo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unproven speculation. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poitical sh... sh... stuff. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete using the Wikipedia isn't for this kind of stuff effect. Just because a neologism is used doesn't make it notable or inclusion worthy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase. In fact all but one of the articles sourced seem to simply use it as a general descriptor. No prejudice against recreation if time reveals that the term "Obama Effect" actually picks up some equity, and there might be something worth merging with the main Obama article and/or the article on his campaign (I assume there is one), but I don't sense any viability as a separate article at this time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conceeded the the term is not yet well enough established to warrant an entry. I noticed that similar political terms, for example "Reagan Democrat", have come to earn an entry and so we might expect that, in time, "Obama Effect" will likewise have a wikipedia entry that meets the standards. Bscottbscott (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a good point. The fact is, most similar terms never rise to notability beyond the moment. Your conclusion is also correct that the term *might* rise in notability, if he wins, and if the term continues to be used. It just isn't there *yet* (if ever). PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, unlikely to be ever seen again after the election. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The article is not outstanding, but it does not violate WP:NEO, which states, "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). This article, weak as its current draft is, is thoroughly sourced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 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 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Recycling, Reusing, and Repairing will help in Environmental Sustainability[edit]

How Recycling, Reusing, and Repairing will help in Environmental Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a manual/guide/textbook -- Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:57, 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 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe J Thomas (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor (most of his career seems to be fairly minor roles). Article is written by the subject, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps you could all give me a hand with this. I'm the article's author. I would like to be able to provide information on my career to my growing list of fans. I understand that this is an Autobiography, and that COI exists. I have been up front and honest about being the author. I've tried to be as factual as possible in my edits, and have provide some notable roles (ie. Lex Luthor in Mortal Kombat, and Raven in Vesperia - which helped to sell out the Xbox360 in Japan this year, and Sawatari in Bleach is a major supporting character). I have numerous notable stage roles, but have left many of them off to focus this article on Voice Over work.

Sorry to be a bit of a Wiki-Noob, but please let me know what you'd need to see to prevent this article from being deleted. Joeactor (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (be nice to the newbies, everyone!) sadly, joe, we have to go with delete on this one--but here's why: Wikipedia is not a web server, web hosting service, or other place for self-published material. It is instead an encyclopedia -- which means that articles should all have third party sources, verifiability, and notability -- which means that the general practice is that we don't write articles about ourselves -- which means that your page about yourself will likely be deleted, just like my page about myself was deleted when I was new to Wikipedia. And since the article basically already exists at User:Joeactor/Sandbox (which is an appropriate place), then it will probably get deleted. You could also move it to something like User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) if you'd really like to keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. The "User" page is a good second option. One additional question: Can User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) be referenced by other Wiki pages? You see, I originally started my page because my role in Marvel Ultimate Alliance was incorrectly assigned to another Joe Thomas (darn common name!), so I'd like to keep the rest of Wiki accurate by pointing to User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) if that's allowable. Joeactor (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment oh, you bet! Check out User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach to show a directory of articles I'm working on to re-introduce to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Putting aside COI issues, the guidelines for notablity for entertainers are here and the general guidelines are here. What you need is someone not connected to you or your performances publishing something non trivial about you in Reliable sources. Read through these three pages and you will have a good idea how to make a page that lasts. As to your question about refering from the rest of Wiki to an article in your user page the answer is no, the guidelines say One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected Thanks! what I meant was that other users could view the web page, not that they should "link" to it from an article page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Thank you Duffbeerforme - very helpful information. I do have one question, though. I originally created the entry to address an incorrect link to Joe_Thomas_(actor), who was credited with voicing Marvel Ultimate Alliance. How can this correction be made if there is no "Joe J Thomas" entry to refer to? Joeactor (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the link and say "The Joe Thomas that this article links to isn't the one on this game".--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As CyberGhostface says, remove the wiki link. Change it to unlinked text with the name as shown in the games credits. Also the game has a IMBD page. You can add an external link to the game page to provide a link to somewhere that has information about who voiced the role. IMDB is not a reliable source for showing notability or as a good source for verifying information but it can be a good place to link to as outside info. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to imdb on the game article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 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 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plaigarism in the classroom[edit]

Plaigarism in the classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:Original research, not even spelled correctly. PROD removed by the page's creator. Fayenatic (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Marina[edit]

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

Prod was contested by someone who insisted referencing was possible, but didn't bother referencing it....basically, there are probably 1,000 places called "La Marina" Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All towns are notable. The statement that there are many places called "La Marina" is not relevant here. There are also many places named Springfield, but that is not an argument against having articles on each of them. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you verify any of the content?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec) All verifiable places are inherently notable, and there are plenty of sources out there which verify that it exists.[7][8] –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can you now point to one usable source amidst all the mirrors of private coast villas? One verifiable, usable, source and I withdraw this afd.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To disambig what? We have no other articles on any La Marina.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then just move to the proper city name and reserve the article for a disambig. and you don't have to have an article on a topic to have it listed in a disambig page, btw. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:58, 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 meMy work 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zorich[edit]

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

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jeremiah (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A big number of published books and PC games by notable publishers is sufficient evidence of notability. A tag for extra references is a sufficient remedy for such cases. `'Míkka>t 20:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you read Russian well enough to know whether the information found in these sources corresponds to the material in the article? Just curious about the content. Jeremiah (talk) 00:29, 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. MBisanz talk 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed by author, so here we are. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - forthcoming albums are valid, there are thousands of forthcoming album articles at any one time many of them no better than this one. A few reliable references shouldn't be too hard to find. If consensus is keep I'll find them myself. A quick Google search found this this proving this it is a real album. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band. Until it IS released it may not ever be released. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid reason for keeping or deleting and the subject matter is better served by being included in the band's article with reliable sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look at the ref, you'll see it's sourced to the official site, http://www.shonenknife.net/ , which does indeed give the title and tracklisting. No crystal necessary. 86.44.28.125 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also gives the release date (November 7) and shows that P-Vine Records have already assigned it a catalogue number (PCD-25086). 86.44.28.125 (talk) 23:58, 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. recent AfD, no policy based reason for nom. TravellingCari 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific titles in popular music[edit]

Article is just ridiculous. Trivial, unsourced, uncitable, target for idiots, just plain stupid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs)


Strong keep: Actually this article is currently watchlisted and maintained by at least three established editors (including an admin). The article is for ever improving and the majority of the article is well sourced, poor sources need replacing (that is not a criteria for deletion). This has amounted to a pointy, bad faith nomination indeed. — Realist2 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Realist2. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has 146 references. It would take a more thorough nomination statement to convince me that the article should be considered unsourced. Surely there has not been time for very much to have changed since the last AfD. In that case, why are we here? Just plain stupid is not very convincing as a reason for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep on grounds that it passed its previous AFD only a few months ago when the nomination was withdrawn in the face of a WP:SNOW keep scenario. The nomination criteria given this time is completely invalid as it's a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, given that the nomination was not even signed, leads me to question if this was even a good faith nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no interest in this article whatsoever, and was about to speedy close it for the reason 23s gives above. However, the first afd failed to achieve any consensus, and the second was closed early. So we don't have any established consensus that this article should be kept. Given that, I can't see any harm in allowing this debate to run for a while and establish where consensus really lies. The nomination may not be great (and who knows what motivated it) but that's neither here nor there. If there's no strong deletion argument being made in 24/48 hours then we can close early.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Emil Fackenheim#Do not give Hitler posthumous victories. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 614th Commandment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The 614th Commandment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient material for a stand-alone article. The material is already covered in Emil Fackenheim. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Emil Fackenheim#Do not give Hitler posthumous victories. As said in nomination, covered in Fackenheim article. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Bsimmons666. This is a notable concept but not necessarily known by this particular name, and it is sufficiently covered in the Fackenheim article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't make an article; pointless redirect. Only 145 unique google hits for "614th Commandment" and the top one is Emil Fackenheim. Springnuts (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect this six line stub to Emil Fackenheim#Do not give Hitler posthumous victories where it belongs, as correctly pointed out by the nominator and User:Bsimmons666, otherwise put: "The 614th commandment - Thou shalt not give Hitler a posthumous victory" in Wikiquote. The rest of the stub is ridiculous as a stand alone piece because a non-traditional philosopher like Fackenheim cannot "formulate" an addition to the more than 3,300 year old 613 Mitzvot ("commandments") of the Torah that's venerated by religious Jews, so that when this stub claims that: "This was formulated by philosopher Emil Fackenheim. Because Judaism recognizes 613 commandments, not just 10, the expression is equivalent to 'the eleventh commandment' in Christian culture. Rabbi Fackenheim meant not giving up on Judaism, continuing Jewish life, maintaining Jewish traditions" -- then his little fabrication here is a just a tongue-in-cheek way of making a literary point, at the expense of classical Judaism, and have it sound "Jewish" when it is actually not officially anything except Fackenheim's own concoction, which were it not made up by him would be a violation of WP:NEO and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. IZAK (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4) by KieferSkunk. NAC. Cliff smith talk 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Ithaca Mall[edit]

The Shops at Ithaca Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted under a different title in this AfD, it looks like this recreation fixes none of the concerns in the original discussion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per CSD G4. If this turns out to have been the incorrect action, please feel free to restore the deleted edits. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChristian[edit]

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

No reliable sources cited, no hits on Google News, no real claim of notability (being the 79th largest Wiki isn't much of a claim, neither is being the biggest Wiki on Christianity). I'm amazed this hasn't been deleted yet. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonotable and doesn't meet WP:WEB Themfromspace (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability, doesn't even make it onto this list. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was indeed number 79 in July 2008, but has since reduced massively in size due to bulk deletion of uploaded pages, mainly book chapters including public domain translations of the Bible. As a Christian editor here, having read the previous AFDs, I agree that there is no longer a sufficient justification for retention. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted articles were mainly Bible verses -- these have been moved into a separate name space, so no longer appear in the article count. One could conclude that it hasn't really reduced in size since July. However, it's probably fairer not to count Bible verses as articles; this wiki is therefore revealed as smaller than the raw statistics previously indicated. Given its small number of articles, and lack of independent citations, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (even though I do like it). Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful to its entry in List of wikis. I've done ProQuest, EBSCOHost, and Google News searches and come up with ZERO hits. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list rightly only contains Wikis which are notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia, therefore nothing should be merged there if the nominated article is deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Well, then I'm going to have to reluctantly vote Delete because of my failed search for independent reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- seems a harmless article to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But I have a vested interest because I'm from WikiChristian - If you decide to delete the article on WikiChristian, that's cool. By all means you need to follow the policies of Wikipedia regarding notability. I'll give you a list of a few websites that reference to WikiChristian and you guys I guess need to decide whether or not this makes WikiChristian notable enough. Perhaps they don't. (1) reonline.org.uk (a large site for religious education information in the United Kingdom) recommends reading WikiChristian's information for a number of its topics (for example, Christology - http://post16.reonline.org.uk/tt_alinks.php?222) (2) 123-exp-law.com (a dictionary site for legal information) recommends reading a number of WikiChristian articles (for example death of Jesus - http://www.123exp-law.com/t/03784348455/). (3) The Student Union of the Divinity School of Chung Chi College and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library recommends searching WikiChristian among other encyclopedias when searching for religious information (http://www.sudsccc.org/download/thesis_writing_workshop_koonting.pdf). Cheers, Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.48.186 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for disclosing your possible conflict of interest and providing links. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the provided sources appear to provide any real notability. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability in the [[WP:N|Wikipedia] sense. Springnuts (talk) 18:06, 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 keep. Keeper ǀ 76 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herron[edit]

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

Non-notable company. This article has lacked reliable third-party resources since 2006. If not deleted entirely, it should at least be merged into Sigma Pharmaceuticals Limited. Gr0ff (talk) 16:52, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evin Daly[edit]

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

Interesting local figure, but of dubious notability. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this listing. Mr. Daly is a big proponent of child abuse prevention in the US. All of the links on his bio are verifiable and if you want mroe information I'll give it to you. Robert Wise [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.240.102 (talk) 05:29, 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 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fangland (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Walls[edit]

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

Minor television commentator. The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 23 was that Walls's network experience is sufficient as an "assertion of notability," and thus it's not a valid WP:CSD#A7. However, very little evidence of independent, reliable coverage has been put forward (see the DRV for discussion). Procedural nomination. Chick Bowen 02:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added a little bit to this, but really most all of the info I could find was added by himself on industry social networks and profiles. I think he could become sufficiently notable in time, should this new FCS feature take hold, but right now... is one of those moments you wish you could place an article on "wait and see". Doesn't help that the author is the subject. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not forever. After an article is deleted the previous content remains accessible to admins, and we can undelete if there's reason to do so. Chick Bowen 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage about the subject. The organizations he works for do not make him notable in themselves. Themfromspace (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete.
  • Comment: He is a host for a show on Fox College Sports, but it airs on Fox Sports Networks (FSN Primeticket), FSN Regional Netorks (FSN Ohio, etc.) and on Fox College Sports. How is that NOT sufficient? kai.robertson (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Clearly quite notable, well-sourced, extremely important at this point in time... it's one thing to review the validity of this article on November 5, but certainly not now. Mike (Kicking222) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anonymous user (someone who didn't wish to log in?) posted this AFD request: I have moved the text so far from the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not news. None of the information will be useful after the election. 140.247.243.171 (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI agree that this article might not be as useful after the election but its incredibly useful now. Please do not delete this page. Thanks! Leahcim506 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD is just pretty dumb vandalism. You've not even listed the page properly. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis is my first post on Wikipedia, so if the format is not correct, my apologies. I'd like to say that I've bookmarked this article and that I check it every day; it is immensely informative, and I would appreciate it not being deleted. Furthermore, I think that this article will continue to be of interest after the election, if only to a more specialized readership of political scientists. 76.200.161.110 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Your posting is fine to me. The point is that the winner of a Presidential election is based on electoral votes from each state as opposed to the total popular vote. That makes this article necessary after the election to determine why the winner won the election. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate and viable topic as long as it's sourced, etc. To those IPs who placed opinions above, please note that registered users' opinions tend to carry more weight, so I'd advise you to register or log in if you want your comments to count fully (though this is, of course, not a "vote"). 23skidoo (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. On topic, multi-user edited, rolling-current article about one of the most important events of our time. An obvious keep. Setwisohi (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "usefulness" argument for deletion is bogus and not based on Wikipedia deletion policies. But in fact state level opinion polling is the basis for a candidate giving up in a state and withdrawing resources, as McCain recently did in Michigan, or for their making extra appearances in and running more TV ads in a state which polls show to be a battleground, or a state they thought was solidly in their column, but which polls show their lead to be diminishing in. The real issue is notability, which is demonstrated by substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources of state level polling. And notability is not temporary, so if the 2008 state polls are notable now, their notability will continue. Edison (talk) 16:01, 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 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Hate, and Then There's You[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Love, Hate, and Then There's You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album "due to come out sometime next year" by a non-notable band who "play songs in a studio, songs which are commited [SIC] to tape and then pressed onto compact discs to be released at a later date". Declined a speedy on it as A7 doesn't apply to albums but really...... Nancy talk 15:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to A Little Bit Longer. Per WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (Jonas Brothers song)[edit]

Tonight (Jonas Brothers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questioned redirect. The reason I'm putting this up for deletion is because it's a stub-length article about a barely notable song that won't grow UNLESS it is released as a single. The song, along with many others, was released as an album preview song on iTunes, and charted high based solely on high digital sales, then quickly dropped off. I'm fine for this article existing if it was released as a single, but as of right now, it (and the other pre-released songs) are comparable to the High School Musical songs, which were all merged. I'm not necessarily arguing against notability necessarily (because that is debatable), but as per WP:NSONGS, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Please note that the info is already merged in A Little Bit Longer, and Tonight (Jonas Brothers song) is an unlikely search term. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think being released as a single is a criteria. "Tonight"'s significant chart achievement is impressive. A top 10 debut without any radio promotion (beyond Radio Disney)? In this digital download era, it is possible for a track to reach #1 without an official single release (however unlikely). I'd argue that "Tonight" is more notable than "Lovebug", which as a single has had little chart impact. There is much more to this article than a majority of SONG STUBS (just look at some of those Van Halen song articles - a big name group with songs that only have two lines of text). Finally, I added some sourced comments from reviews of the song to add some critical reception for it. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yet another of the millions of the "infobox plus chart table" stubs. These should generally be merged back to their parent album articles, which is exactly what WP:NSONGS tells us to do.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks attributed to the PKK[edit]

List of attacks attributed to the PKK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork. Although well referenced, this recently created list duplicates material already covered in more than sufficient detail in numerous other articles associated with the Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict, such as Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict. Duplicating casualty claims in separate articles (eg "casualties attributed to the PKK", "casualties attributed to the Turkish military", etc.) is POV-pushing by definition. Furthermore, such lists are inevitably original research as they are essentially collections of newspaper articles collated by individual editors, often articles by local news agencies simply recording military/terrorist press-releases/announcements, which when added as references give the list the impression that it is somehow definitive even though the list is inevitably devoid of independent, third-part verification and/or analysis. Note that both sides make claims repeatedly about casualty figures although such claims are often, as one might expect, subject to interpretation, claim and counter-claim. In the past similar articles nominated for AFD, although ultimately deleted, have attracted comments along the lines that renaming might resolve POV issues. None of these arguments resolve the fork problem as renaming does nothing to stem the flow of random newspaper references by, and according to, the whim and personal perspective of individual editors. Debate 木 14:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note for administrators. the title has since been changed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a significant difference between this and the other lists mentioned above. All the other lists detail no more than half a dozen or so incidents a year, most of which are widely reported (with analysis) in the international press. On the other hand this article details an intense military conflict with huge daily disparities between reported casualty figures, with little or no critical coverage by the international press or international human rights organizations. Often the Turkish military reports nice round numbers like 150/300 deaths while the PKK claims half a dozen, or none, all of which are essentially unverifiable claims in an ongoing conflict with tens of thousands of casualties. Lines like "The Turkish air force conducted a raid on a PKK base in the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq killing 150 militants" are simply ludicrous. How the Turkish military or anyone else could know with any certainty a) how many people were killed, based presumably on reports from the pilots dropping the bombs, and b) how many of these casualties were actually "militants" is anyone's guess. In terms of reliable sourcing, media regurgitation of the contents of military press releases is very different from reports by independent news agencies independently verifying the situation on the ground. I am surprised at the claim that "Wikipedia lists are never claimed to be definitive", which is kind of like saying "Wikipedia lists are never claimed to be accurate". In fact, accuracy is a core pillar of any credible encyclopedia and the fact that this list can never achieve it should be setting off immediate alarm bells. Debate 木 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources includes in the article, Fox news, Reuters, SF chronicle, Associated Press etc. suggest that it is well coverd by international press. It is the reliability of these sources that make the article verifiable. Unless there is another reliable source that contradicts them then there is no argument here, those are the verifiable facts. We cannot make random speculations about where the newswire gets it's info from because we disagree with the facts. The principle that wikipedia presents verifiable facts not the truth is a core part of WP:V policy, in fact it's the first sentence. The principle that most lists are never considered complete or definitive is also policy and common sense. There is always some info that is not yet included. --neon white talk 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind linking to the policy that lists are never considered complete or definitive? Thanks. Debate 木 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Wikipedia:LISTS but genereally it's common sense. It's impossible, with the majority of lists, to definitivly state that there could be no more entries, that the list is final. Even things that would seem obvious, for instance say a list of planets in the solar system, has changed. --neon white talk 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find in Wikipedia:LISTS is a single reference to Dynamic lists, a list sub-type, which applies to topics that might "change as the subjects they cover change", such as a new historical event, newly notable alumni, etc. In fact, Wikipedia:LISTS explicitly states that lists are subject to the same rigorous policies as any other article. In the case of this article, the problem is that implicit in its construction is the assumption that the figures reported are somehow definitive and complete, at least to-date. In fact, a more accurate title would be "Timeline of recent media coverage of the Turkish/PKK conflict as collated selectively by Wikipedia editors". For example, we are lead to believe by the presence of events attributed to 4 May and 6 May that nothing happened on 5 May. If we were to properly source figures such as these from reliable tertiary sources, such as a history textbook, US State Department report, or similar, we could assume that some fact checking of these gaps has gone on. When each bullet is separately referenced to individual media articles, however, no such claim about the facts can be made, misleading the reader and almost inevitably violating WP:Undue as well. Furthermore, such lists inevitably also violate WP:synthesis when the figures from the lists are added up, such as the recently added "Table of casualties by year since the colapse (sic) of the long-term cease-fire in 2004". Such a table implies that it is a definitive list of casualties even though it in fact simply documents the research of Wikipedia editors, based on the sources they have found. Finally, most references do, in fact, attribute the figures to announcements by one side or other but when translated into the body of a summary list that critical information is almost inevitably stripped out. Debate 木 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list concerning ongoing events would be considered dynamic. Considering you've seen Wikipedia:LISTS you should be familar with the section 'list naming'. This ridiculous throwing around of and misinterpreation of policies, most of which havent the slighest bit to do with this article is bordering on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The list is based on reliable sources. Nothing on wikipedia implies definitiveness. Any numbers can be revised at any time. --neon white talk 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be curious to see if we get a second opinion on this, since other than the article creators there's only you and I debating the point at the moment. In my experience these discussions ultimately end up as a debate between those who think any reference is a good reference, and those such as myself who believe that referencing something alone is not enough as there are a great many ways that referencing can be misused. It's a shame that more editors don't contribute, but it does suggest to me that the discussion is more complex than you imply since there's never any shortage of editors willing to weigh in on AFD debates for notability, vandalism, spam, etc. and therefore quite a few editors lurking on the sidelines. Unfortunately, for better or worse, arguments concerning the misuse of references require a slightly more complex case to be made than simply looking for the presence or absence of footnotes. Debate 木 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like these arguments. However I changed the article name and now we can include all the claims to have NPOV. It should be better than articles like Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008).--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per neon white's arguments. Also, I started a discussion for renaming. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not a registered user so I don't know how much my vote will be worth but I have helped user TheFEARgod, who created the article, to expand it. In my opinion, like user Neon white said, this article is well sourced so it is not original research. There are other articles like the List of insurgents killed in Iraq, List of Iraqi security forces killed and List of Afghan security forces killed (which are based on news articles, and at least for one of them there were up to three nominations for deletion on the same bases you have given and all three were rejected by a large majority of users). News articles, as far as I know, have been regarded on Wikipedia to be verifiable. As far as the casualties section, it is not duplicating those from Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict, because the table of casualtise in the Effects article sums up the number of dead from 1984 up to the end of May 2001. This article that you have nominated for deletion only sums up the numbers of dead since the break down of the cease-fire in mid-2004 up to today. So in essence it is not duplicating anything. Actualy the Effects article should use this article as a source so to be updated. Also I see no POV-pushing here if we are just trying to sum up the human cost of the conflict. The only thing that may have to be done is to change the name from List of attacks attributed to the PKK to Timeline of the Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict like user TheFEARgod suggested on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.235.26 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of which presents a compelling argument for updating the Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict article instead of starting an entirely new one. Debate 木 23:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In that case that specific article (Effects) would become just to long because there have been hundreds of attacks in the past four years so the best solution is to make an article that lists attacks during those four years since the collapse of the cease-fire and link Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict to that article and update accordingly. I think that is the best solution.89.216.235.26 (talk) 02:33, 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 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in the classroom[edit]

Plagiarism in the classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:Original research, personal essay. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:07, 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 00:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the caribean 4[edit]

Pirates of the caribean 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD was removed. Page about a future movie with little detail. Not worth keeping at this point, even as a redirect because it is misspelled. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as it stands now the article is speedible for lack of content. Previously, it was speediable as vandalism. Beyond that the subject fails your choice of criteria ( notability, reliable sources, Future Films, original research, and probably a few more. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form it's just the Prod piped parameters. Prior version was blog-class blurbs and speculation. While there's probably a 100% chance the movie will be made, until there's some real information, this article should go. ArakunemTalk 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; even in its original state, it was nothing but speculation. Until it can be verified by reliable sources that principal photography has begun, info on a fourth Pirates film belongs in Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). Cliff smith talk 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no RS. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — Little or no content. Also a textbook failure of WP:CBALL. As mentioned above, redirection is out of the question because of the misspelling. MuZemike 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), as even with the mispelled name it's still a possible search term. While we're at it, suggest creating redirect for the proper spelling, too. There has been media coverage of Depp being signed to do a fourth film, but otherwise it's all WP:CRYSTAL as to whether the film is even going to be made. 23skidoo (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 23skidoo. Propaniac (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 23skidoo; misspelling is not unlikely. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirection should be placed on Pirates of the Carribean 4; it shouldn't be put here. TheMoridian 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree, there should be a redirect at Pirates of the Carribean 4, as well as Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (which is probably what you were going for) and perhaps POTC 4, because these are all titles that could plausibly be entered by a user looking for info on the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film. There is absolutely no restriction on how many redirects can be created to any title (as long as each redirect has some reasonable justification for existing), nor would imposing such a restriction make any sense at all. Propaniac (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I used 'Carribean' on purpose; I assumed that here already would be a redirect on 'Caribbean', so I didn't mention it. I didn't get my spelling wrong or anything. ;) TheMoridian 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:59, 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 no consensus. Yes, it wanders into dicdef territory, but equally it could be argued that many articles about parts of vehicles do that. I have tidied up the OR Black Kite 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflap[edit]

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

Article consists of a dicdef that appears accurate, a rather selective piece of fancy which is not particularly encyclopedic or informative, and another dicdef of a slang use of the term. No references and no serious improvements to the article since its creation on 6 Feb 2006. I do not see how this article can ever be more than a dicdef - perhaps someone else can. Emeraude (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mudguard is still included in that article. --neon white talk 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom; the article isn't adding much of value. It looks to me like Fender (vehicle) uses the word "mudguard" in a different way, that is not synonymous with "mudflap", which would make a redirect illogical. Propaniac (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't think that the dicdef problem is insurmountable, and it strikes me that a lot of the content in mudflap girl should come back to this article to help round it out. Also, don't merge to mudguard; mudflap is to mudguard as necktie is to cravat. Related, but different objects. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT
  • The first paragraph is a single sentence dictionary definition; indisputably a dictionary definition
  • Third paragraph can merge to the mullet haircut article.
  • That leaves us with the middle paragraph. All but the first two sentences are about the mudflap girl.
While some flaps are plain rubber, many contain company logos or other art.
One popular image is cartoon character Yosemite Sam with the words “Back Off!”.
is all that remains, and anyone still believes this to belong in wikipedia? Sentriclecub (talk) 23:38, 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 to numeral system. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha numerals[edit]

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

Per the discussion at this related AfD and hoax concerns, though it's not blatant mis information. TravellingCari 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I userfied the latter per the user's request. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hoax, although it's fishy, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. TravellingCari 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced its a hoax, several references to the languages on google wals, Ethnologue, virtual.finland omniglo. The first of these have some litrature refs. Given that the language exists then I assume it has a number system. --Salix (talk): 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V, specifically WP:NONENG. All of the sources are foreign language, and no translations are available that I can find. I can only verify that one of them exists which doesn't surprise me as they are all pretty dated, but does not help verifiability. Also, one of the claims made by this article is that a decimal numeral system was being used in the stone age, which would mean pre-dating roman numerals, etruscan numerals and attic numerals, despite it's similarity to them. If it was one of the earliest numerical systems then I would expect significant coverage in reliable sources. Google searches: web, books, scholar, whilst not the best way to look for sources for ancient numeric systems, show nothing. Without sources that can be verified for such a significant claim the article fails WP:V again, per WP:REDFLAG. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but merge per dab for now, lets have some good faith here. The guy who created the article should be able to scan some images from those foreign books eventually. the thing if these marks date back to Stone age is another question of course. But in general, lets take time off with this deletion and give the guy a chance to back up the story.--Termer (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • English language sources are not required. On the other hand, it would be good to find someone with some experience in the area of ancient numerals to verify the content. Has anyone contacted the article's author to see what information he can provide? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soupie[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, google shows nothing. Matty (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a hoax. Emeraude (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Merge. I don't think this is a hoax. A little WP:OR on my part turns up some anecdotal evidence that this may be a legit term. Nonetheless, it is unsourced and mainly a dicdef, so I !vote for delete. If more evidence can be found, then it should probably be merged to List of ethnic slurs, but unless/until, nuke it. ArakunemTalk 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except a slur on the people of one town from the people of another a few miles away is hardly "ethnic". Emeraude (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments For Article

Although the term 'Soupie' and indeed 'Scrutonism' are not widely used or known outside Europe or possibly the UK, the terms are, to the Welsh culture at least (which is where they originate), as prominent as 'Facebooking' is to the American culture. Wales does not enjoy the same critical mass of population to propagate a 'new' term to the point that it could be included in a dictionary.

I therefore request that this page not be deleted as it is a valid definition of an important and culturally significant term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.75.93 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been copied and pasted from the article's talk page. Unfortunately, the terms "Soupie" and "Scrutonism" are not widely used INSIDE Europe or the UK, and having close associations with Wales and knowing Welshpool, I have to say I've never heard them there. As "prominent as 'Facebooking' is to the American culture"? No chance! Delete. Emeraude (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not encyclopedic. This is better suited to urbandictionary rather than Wikipedia. -Nard 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, possibly imaginary, slang term. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable slang term at best, very possibly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Soup kitchen as it seems to be used to describe either those who volunteer at soup kitchens or those who eat there. I've found references to the term in both the US and in Australia, as well as Welshpool (which by the way seems genuine). JASpencer (talk) 10:12, 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 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:

American Payroll Association[edit]

American Payroll Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What evidence do you have about this 'big spam circle'? The article looks keepable, but if it is part of a spam campaign then I'd have to say junk it. Themfromspace (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just have to look at the group of articles and the activity around them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is the main article and should be kept; the others should be merged into here. Yes, it seems to be inserted as part of a COI campaign, but i dont see why that affects matters, hundreds of thousands of acceptable Wikipedia articles started out that way. The main national organisation in afield is notable. If the material were added from the other articles there would be references enough--for one good article only. DGG (talk) 23:41, 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 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Corey[edit]

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

Actor, singer, and dancer. Reads like a promotional piece. Is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: where are reliable third-party sources? Alexius08 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. The scanty Google list, devoid of reliable sources, is a well-accustomed litany of non-notability: her personal website, followed by this Wiki article, followed by Youtube self-promotional clips, followed by Facebook, followed by Zoominfo ... toss in various Wiki mirrors, LJ and the like. Obviously she's very diligent at self-promotion, and when she achieves notability no doubt someone will write an article on her.  Ravenswing  16:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:01, 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 List_of_Phoenix_Nights_characters#Jerry_.27St._Clair.27_Dignan. I found a better target for this (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry St.Clair[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to main article. Could have been bold with this one seen as the article hasn't been edited for some time. --neon white talk 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Phoenix Nights. Current article fails to establish independent notability but title is a likely search term. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 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) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems the way to go; but then move the redirect to Jerry St. Clair (with proper spacing in name), since no redirect currently exists there. Deor (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 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 Full Frontal (TV series)#Famous characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Kerrigan[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete mere fancruft - no assertion of notability or real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 02:38, 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]
Check Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd). -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prolicide[edit]

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

Prolicide hits up 4840 on Google, brief survey suggests that it is a depreciated term for the death of your children, born or unborn, or something like that. Non-notable dictionary term, of a dictionary being on the long list of things that WP:Wikipedia is not.--Tznkai (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd say it's masquerading as one, but disambiguation pages tend to be about disparate uses of the same term--e.g., Bob (person) vs. Bob (song)--whereas this is basically a dicdef with wikilinked synonyms. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A dicdef with wikilinks is still a dicdef. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a disambiguation, between two articles on two subjects that would each, if the other did not exist, have a redirect here. That's one of the major reasons for disambiguation, and this is a perfectly valid disambiguation article. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be a useful navigational aid with respect to Wikipedia article topics atht are either referenced by the term or closely related. Replacing it by a redirect with a hat note seems to be a worse solution and removing it altogether would make Wikipedia less useful.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:05, 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 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snoot the dog[edit]

Snoot the dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dog - no sources, no Google hits. Declined speedy because the article explicitly claims notability.  Sandstein  20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a woof draft Cannot find any sources to indicate why this animal is notable. TN‑X-Man 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Understand why article escaped speedy deletion - but am left wondering if this is also a hoax?--VS talk 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any sources and don't believe any are likely to be found. --Banime (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks to be somebody's local podunk news article. FusionMix 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverified promotional piece on behalf of a non-notable pet. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW DELETE. No chance to survive. Make your time. JBsupreme (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references can be cited. Owen× ☎ 15:31, 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Coria[edit]

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

Fails notability for biographies since September 2007. Article is orphan and has very few Google hits. I was unable to find any article referring to him. Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I got quite a few relevant Google hits that seemed to match this fellow's article. Perhaps with some sourcing the article could be kept, unless he fails the artist criteria. Right now it's hard to tell, given that the article doesn't cite any sources. FusionMix 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GladRags[edit]

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

Disputed speedy (db-spam). Non-notable product/company without significant coverage in secondary sources or significant awards; the creator's argument for keep is WP:OTHERSTUFF. 9Nak (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article fails to verify the company's notability. Not wanting to be bitey, but it seems to be another case of a SPA using WP for advertising. OBM | blah blah blah 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't know ... on the face of it the article seems spammy and poorly sourced (but not unsourced) enough to delete. However, they do advertise a lot (mainly in progressive women's magazines and environmental magazines) and I had heard of their products before this. As for the article creator's resort to OTHERSTUFF on the talk page ... well, we don't delete an article because of the arguments used by a new editor, SPA or not, who can't be expected to have read WP:AADD, to keep it. And what would be a reliable secondary source in this case? Do you really expect Time or The Wall Street Journal to regularly report on feminine-hygiene product options? I would put it on the creator to find and cite sources (even offline ones we can accept in good faith) in a widely-read magazine like, say, Mother Jones or Ms. (or better yet a mainstream women's magazine) for us to keep the article. Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment... I would second that. Not being that familiar with "progressive women's magazines" or other areas where this may garner attention I haven't heard of this company, but I would happily change my mind if independent, reliable sources were found. On the face of it, though, I'm not changing my tune yet. OBM | blah blah blah 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, and just a hair away from a speediable advertisement, with weasely adlike language such as "Many women are also drawn by the money savings of using GladRags" and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick search reveals several mentions in the press, both mainstream and alternative. I've posted several of the links on the article's talk page. I haven't looked into them to see if they would help with the WP:CORP guidelines. Note that the article can be rewritten to remove the advert content and if sources are provided then there's little reason to delete this. I'm leaning toward "Keep and rewrite", though I'm ever hopeful that the burden of the rewrite will fall on the original author. That doesn't usually happen, so I may take a stab at it later. Stay tuned. Oh yes, and don't penalize the article for the author's mention of "other stuff" on the article's talk page, which I pointed out to him/her wouldn't fly here. Wouldn't you argue the same if you were a newbie? I would. Katr67 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access them all, but only one of those is non-incidental – and that is ten years old. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Rewrite - per Katr67. It seriously needs editing for NPOV and references added, etc, but the product (whatever about the company) is quite notable. I'll see what I can do to fix it tomorrow (3am here :) ) - Alison ❤ 10:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cloth menstrual pad covers everything that is notable here. With the nature of the product adequately covered I can't see any reason to have a company/product entry. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with rewrite. It sounds quite beginner-like, but it is important to be able to find more information about stuff like they. Hey, we need a category "Feminine hygiene products" - not for the advertising, but for the mechanics of the systems. I know you guys feel squeamish, but get over it. Oooh, lots of work to do here: no entry for the Tassaway either. GladRags are mentioned in the

http://www.mum.org/olnws170.htm (Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health). --WiseWoman (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to, say, Category:Feminine hygiene brands? Or just plain Category:Feminine hygiene? I'm not seeing a shortage of information in those areas, nor how that would transform a non-notable product into a notable one. 9Nak (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Katr67, with a sharp *smack* to Starblind, who ought to be embarrased for displaying his bias and ignorance here. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, between the several secondary sources now listed on the article talkpage and having a "Google Test" score of 343k, I think it fairly meets the CORP guidelines. The page does need cleanup, to be sure. Kylu (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to sound like broken record even to myself, but just to be clear: your argument is based on (a) the sources listed on the talk page (of which it seems only one is a non-incidental mention, and that one is a decade old) and (b) the the number of ghits on "gladrags" (of which no more than 8% relate at all to this product by a quick count of the first 100 hits). Seriously? 9Nak (talk) 09:16, 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 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chaos[edit]

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

This is the article's 8th recreation, and still no improvement in claim of notability (WP:N) since previous AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless sources--or, for that matter, even checkable claims of any sort--are forthcoming. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I don't have time to check the previous AFD, but this surely appears nonnotable, and anything deleted by AFD and recreated this many times needs to be salted. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G4) and salt — blatant recreation of material deleted per AfD. Also, article has been deleted and recreated eight times (see log), so creation protection is certainly in order. Muzemike (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as being recreated without any effort to bring it into compliance with our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 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 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via Paxton[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. HollyHuntaway (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sourced, and shows no sign of being notable. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last AfD was a clear consensus keep and nothing has changed since then.  Xihr  04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Except consensus can change. I'm still wading through the google hits to try to verify her biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure it can, but there's zero evidence that it has here. Continuing to bring it to AfD despite clear consensus keep and no actual evidence of consensus changing whatsoever (that isn't even the argument the nominator makes here) is just trying to do an end run around consensus. If consensus doesn't matter, then we might as well all just pack our bags and go home.  Xihr  01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Except prior "consensus" did not provide any evidence and ignored WP:V. Further, WP:PORNBIO was not established, giving a guideline to review the notability of the article. Consensus is changing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid that doesn't make sense: Consensus is changing because you don't agree with it? Consensus was a clear keep last AfD; either that was wrong, or it was right at the time but the consensus is changing (though there is no evidence for that). But you're arguing both. That is simply nonsensical. Either consensus means something or it is pointless, and it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. (P.S. Where are the nitpicking arguments of delete votes?)  Xihr  07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Prior consensus is being challenged by this afd. The multiple delete votes are evidence that consensus may be changing, but this is not confirmed until the closing of the afd. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found her myspace page which claimed she was Voluptuous Magazine's Model of the Year for 2000 and 2001.[10] However, that's not an independent reliable source for a self-serving notability claim. Magazine is not notable, award is not notable so delete. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIRD TIME'S A CHARM! Delete. Burn it with fire. This is a WP:BLP article which has no sources. Since there are some people who are wiki-stalking every edit I make now, YES I searched on Google News archives. I found ZIP, NADA, ZERO. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also a grand total of 1 film review between AVN and XBIZ. No coverage of any kind found.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:43, 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) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith City Church[edit]

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

prod removed without improvement to article. I'm not sure what guidelines apply to churches, but this appears to fail the general notability policy. There are quite a few google hits but almost all are trivial (e.g. notice that some event is happening at the church), and those that are not are also not independent. Also, there appear to be quite a few churches by this name in NZ and elsewhere, so the article ought to be disambiguated if kept. dramatic (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the church does not inherit notability from the pastor, nor from the school. Your arguments may be a case for expanding Assemblies of God in New Zealand, however. dramatic (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hmmm, thoughtful... but I don't fall in line with the idea. If the church was run by the school, and the church worked for the pastor, then the church would not necessarily "inherit" anything... but since the church runs the school and the pastor works for the church, it's more "reverse inheritance" ... if the right guard for the football team is notable, and the left tackle for the team is notable... then the team is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response But "reverse inheritance" is still inheritance: the now-disappeared Parnassus Reformed Presbyterian Church is not notable simply because a former pastor is notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Valid point (kinda gave me a headache just thinking about it). I'm staying with keep just the same, at least for now... but without prejudice to re-introduce later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 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. We have "season" articles for many notable sports teams, and as mentioned, at least some attempt at prose has been made. Some more refs would be good, though. Black Kite 08:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams[edit]

2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm bringing this to AfD because I can't find really find anything that says if this is allowed or not. It seems to violate WP:NOT. The only sourcing given is really the site of the team. There are articles templated all the way back to 1927. Is Wikipedia the place to list the win-loss , defense, offense and other stats of EVERY college team for EVERY state in the country?

This is meant as a good-faith AfD and inquiry. Please speedy keep it if my interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N is off.  Logical Premise Ergo? 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Depends if it's notable. 2007 USC Trojans football team is a Featured Article, so some seasons of some teams are definitely allowed. I would do an all dates google news search to see if sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a project that is described in [11] and that's not found by going through the search engine. I'm not in favor of Wikipedia being a parallel to a team's official site, nor a repository for "the statistics that anyone can edit" for any sports team, even in the National Football League. I'm all in favor of an article about the Southern Oregon University football team, but not to the level of detail seen here, so I'd be in favor of deleting this article. However, one person's minutiae is another person's project. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As was stated above, no problem with having a history of this football program. However, this seems to be just a copy of plain statistics with no article content. If a page (or series of pages) were created perhaps cataloging the eras of the program, that would be nice. However, a general overview of the games played, scores, and perhaps season standouts is all that is needed as far as stats & numbers go for this type of thing.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discussed at WP:CFBSEASONS. Personally, I'd like to see a better "division" of the dates, say 2000+, or 2006, 2007, 2008 individual articles if there is enough, or "under coach X" ... I think the content could be editied to make a better article, and there is an over-use of the team logo (as if multiple individual season articles were created and then combined).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a LOT of seasons, but I hate nominating a huge batch of articles at once. Should only the "notable" seasons be allowed? What defines the notable one? If the general consensus is that it should be kept and reorganized somehow, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response y'see, that's the thing: "notable" does not necessarily mean "good" especially when it comes to football seasons. Say there's 10 games in a season, then there's 10 opponents. That gives a total of 11 teams involved in any given season (assuming each team is played only once). So we have Teams A (home team), then B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. each week, Team A plays one of the teams from the opponent set. Now at the end of each game, the sports information departments from each school A and opposing school goes to work with releases. Then those releases and statistics are compiled by sportswriters across the country. let's say that they are small schools in the NAIA (like the teams in question here). There would be a minimum of 2 community newspaper articles about that game: Team A News and Team B News (excluding school papers). But that's not what usually happens--there's usually a few articles before and after each game... and then there's usually a regional paper or two that picks up the story (in Kansas, it is not uncommon for the Topeka Capital Journal, Wichita Eagle Beacon, Salina Journal, and Kansas City Star to run articles on each and every Kansas NAIA football game. So the amount of press coverage created by even a small college football game (especially in recent times) is really quite large. So for the season, you've got say 6 articles per game, you're looking at 60 articles from local papers and maybe another 40 articles from regional papers! Not to mention the major newspapers that do pick up small college articles from time to time (NYTimes and Chicago Tribune have been known to have more than a few write-ups, as well as The Sporting News, ESPN, etc). Throw in the news services that specialize in covering nationally NAIA sports, media guides, historical information, and a few occasional "feature" articles and you've got a notable event under WP:SNOW. For the record, WP:CFB does not necessarily encourage season articles (or game articles) for NAIA programs, but we have put together some steps on how to do so. Does that help at all?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:IINFO is met, at least for the 2008 season, because it's not just a list of the data but also has been incorporated into text that is easy to read. 2006 and 2007 are just listed data, but that can be editied like 2008 and it becomes a content issue: " In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 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, MBisanz talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not prepared to discount any college football season. In fact I am happy to see these were all merged together. If anything, I would suggesting merging more together instead of creating new pages --however it might work best being divided by decade or coach as has been done in other college season articles. --Bobak (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul McDonald. I agree the organization of this needs a lot of help. But meets NOTINFO requirements in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A college football season article in need of cleanup. I disagree with the statement from Stifle that it fails WP:IINFO, as a quick look at the 2008 season shows that the article is NOT merely a collection of statistics. SashaNein (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep — Needs a lot of work, but it's a notable subject and at least a minor effort has been made at prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic offensive[edit]

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

For all practical purposes, this is unverified and is probably original research. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some small part might be salvaged for Wiktionary. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The topic probably deserves an article, but the text is way too WP:OR and appears unsalvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As it stands, this is half OR and half a dictionary definition. The subject is covered in the only slightly less crappy Offensive (military). --Narson ~ Talk • 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the actual concept in Soviet Union military strategy, which is what the only source cited in this article is in fact discussing, is the theater-strategic operation (a.k.a. simply strategic operation). There are plenty of sources that discuss that, including ISBN 0714682004, ISBN 0714640778, ISBN 0870216759, and ISBN 0313277133. A strategic offensive is simply a specialization of that (ISBN 0714682004 page 177), alongside the strategic defensive and the counteroffensive.

    Narson is wrong. This isn't original research at all. It is roughly in accordance with the aformentioned sources, including the one cited. It could be a lot better. But, then, it is just a stub. There's scope for expansion here, and refactoring the article to discuss strategic operations, with summary style breakout sub-articles for strategic offensives and strategic defensives if the size eventually warrants them, is simply a matter of the use of the ordinary editing tools that every editor with an account has. There's no need for an administrator to press a delete button. But there is need for editors bringing articles to AFD to start looking at what the sources say before nominating articles. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the article had citations but are those sources reliable? Alexius08 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a very long reach for a straw to base an rationale upon the notion that a work on the subject of military history and strategy that was written by David Glantz is not a reliable source. A quick trip to Google Scholar will show you that he's cited by others in his field, for starters. The specific book cited in this article is cited by 13 others. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if you'd like to make an article, I suggest making one on the Soviet art of operational warfare or strategic offensive or whatever. Something more specific, since this is about the Soviet's strategy specifically. Glantz has written a lot about soviet warfare and strategy and having this as the general "strategic offensive" article would not work as it is specific to WW2 Soviets and more present day armies following the cold war. Ok this rambled a bit I was just trying to get some ideas down in writing: bottom line, this article is more about one specific type of historical straegic offensive and any relevant information should be used in a new article about that. --Banime (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly encyclopedic topic. If the particular refs presently cited are not reliable enough for you, then select some more from the hundreds of military science textbooks and history books [12] which have substantial coverage of this topic. Strategic offensive has long been distinguished from the tactical [13]. Edison (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issues with this article are the extent to which it's WP:OR; how closely it follows Glantz (for example, in the definition in the lead); and the extent to which undue weight is placed on Glantz and WWII. Absent sources it's difficult to judge. Mao, for instance, had an entirely different focus. He saw the strategic offensive as the opportunity to unleash the guerilla "strategic defensive" to create "strategic parity" (ie stalemate) before launching a "strategic counter-offensive". Robert E. Lee conducted many offensive-defensive operations which can be characterised as either strategic offensives or strategic defensives. Similarly, there's no discussion of tactical offensive or defensive operations and the part they play. That said, the expression is also jargon so it needs explanation in context. Perhaps the solution is to create a new article Military defensive and offensive strategies, embracing all these concepts, of which a cut-down version of this could be a part. Again, if this finds support, I'll write it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be merged with/into Offensive (military). I agree that the article in its current form violates wp:OR. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep along with the similar articles. Generalize and expand. That this is just a beginning is no reason to delete it, quite the opposite. There are thousands of print references from the Romans on down:see [http:/http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Strategic+offensive&qt=results_page] for just some books. Some other than Glantz, from a variety of conflicts" Knight, M. (1989). Strategic offensive air operations. London: Brassey's.; Wegener, E. (1975). The Soviet naval offensive: an examination of the strategic role of Soviet naval forces in the East-West conflict. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.; Webster, C. K., & Frankland, N. (1961). The strategic air offensive against Germany, 1939-1945. London: H.M. Stationery Off.; Messenger, C. (1984). "Bomber" Harris and the strategic bombing offensive, 1939-1945. New York: St. Martin's Press.; DGG (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More or less the same content, also effectively unsourced, by the same editor (though with some inexplicable but very significant differences) appears already in Offensive (military). I don't personally have time to expand this article in the way you suggest: if I had, I would have done so. However, the sources I have are radically different in their definitions and emphases: I do not see how one generalizes such a specific subject. From a purely practical point of view, it is much better to consolidate closely related unsourced shards into central articles, where they can updated en masse, easily watchlisted (for quality control), and provide supporting context for each other. This way, they can be broken back out again later once they've improved enough. The problem with leaving unsourced material flying around the ether is that it misinforms an awful lot of people while we wait for the longed for improvement. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG. --Tavrian 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My main issue is that to make this sufficiently general would entail turning it into a dictdef, but if its specific then readers won't get the best picture. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. If it's generalized what distinguishes it from a non-strategical offensive? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Edison, DGG. Notable concept and sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about a type of military offensive and I see no reason to be nominated for deletion, especially considering that it is referenced. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Offensive (military) later if the "Offensive (military)" article starts to become too large (reach 32K limit) then this can be spun out as a separate topic with just a summary paragraph in the main article, but for the moment a section in Offensive (military) would cover the topic if the unsourced statements are removed from this article and that content is merged into "Offensive (military)". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Philip Baird Shearer. Buckshot06(prof) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thought it was a Soviet term? Merge to offensive, perhaps... I don't see how this differs. But make sure it's a merge, not just a redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense (military)[edit]

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

This is unverified and is probably original research. It has been tagged as {{unreferenced}} since December 2007. Because of the large number of one- or two-edit contributors, I have not notified any individual contributors of this AfD. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unsourced. Alexius08 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I'd say keep because it is a real term, but this one is completely unsourced and I doubt you'd be able to find reliable sources talking about it outside of military manuals. --Banime (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly encyclopedic topic, with thousands of books about it dating back to Roman times and beyond. It is taught in every military academy. How well it is done decides the fate of empires and determines who writes the history books. Edison (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This could be turned into an excellent disambiguation page (most of the links are already there), or indeed an excellent military-specfic section of the existing genetic Defense one. But as an article it's a jumble of unsourced assertion.--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact Defense (military) should be a disambiguation page where one would find stuff such as Defensive war, Missile defense, Department of Defense etc as listed subjects. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above, except that Defence is already a disambiguation page. The latter may need an expanded military section if this is deleted.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just roll a military section into the Defence disambig and have Defense redirect there? Though I fear the EngVar warring. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep along with the similar articles. There are tens of thousands of print references from the Romans on down:see [14] for just one of the alternate wordings . the subject is much too large to be just a section of a page, & the concept is general enough for a general article in addition to all the specific ones mentioned above. . Specific full book reference to atart: Kingston-McCloughry, E. J. (1960). Defense: policy and strategy. New York: Praeger. DGG (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Warfare. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Edison, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Offensive (military) to Offense and Defense (military) for now, or some similar title. Our military coverage is very disorganized. Clark89 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable concept - but of course, rewrite. Another important concept / pitfull stub.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counterattack[edit]

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

This is unverified and is probably original research. Because of the large number of one- or two-edit contributors, I have not notified any individual contributors of this AfD. It has been around since 2004. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dictdef. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, valid encyclopedic topic even though the information there is suboptimal. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently neither TallNapoleon nor Roger Davies have actually looked for sources themselves, as they are supposed to before nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability. It took me a mere 2 minutes to find a discussion of counterattacks, in both warfare and sport, in Schneier and a further 2 to find a discussion of counterattacks in warfare in Johns. I didn't bother including the further sources that discussed specific examples of counterattacking, such as ISBN 0044450532 which discusses the failure of Italian military leaders to employ effective counterattacks until the the last few months of World War One. But there were several of those, too. There seems to be plenty of source material upon which to base an article, and what we have already is clearly a stub with scope for expansion. I encourage the aforementioned editors to look for sources yourselves before nominating an article without sources for deletion, as Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage all say to do. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The idea of a counterattack is one of the most basic in military tactics, and (aside from the ones added by Uncle G since this was nominated) you can surely find tons and tons of sources discussing it. There aren't many things of any sort in military affairs that are better known than this. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is little doubt that this article can be improved content wise, but the concept of Counterattack is so basic and widespread that it transcends a mere dictionary term. A simple Goggle search will find countless uses of the term in the context outlined in this article. For example: [15], [16].--Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thousands of reliable sources with substantial coverage of this important aspect of werfare are easily found. It is a highly encyclopedic topic and Wikipedia should have an article about it. If an article needs improvement, then edit it. What is the big idea of the sudden attempt to demilitarize Wikipedia by deleting so many articles related to important military topics? It seems disruptive and "pointy." Edison (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although this is potentially a huge subject, structurally this article is nothing more an unverified dictionary definition. I cannot find a source that supports it as it is. I can find many much simpler definitions and I can find plenty of material alluding to specific counter attacks, which might make a good List of military counterattacks but I cannot find the two together. Incidentally, from the examples (from computing, using counterattack figuratively) given above, it is far from clear what direction this should go in. Perhaps the route is turn this article into a disambiguation page, with separate (new) articles on Counterattack (military) and Counterattack (computing). If this finds support, I'll write them. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Basically a no-brainer. The counterattack is a well known and widely used combat tactic.—RJH (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep along with the similar articles. There should be a few tens of thousands of print references from the Romans on down. The scope and title--whether to refer to purely the military use, or the more general uses-- can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the nom sees the article as having potential, which it clearly does, I don't know why the hell it's at AFD, as all administrators obviously know that AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per most everyone. Valid topic; sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I absolutely agree that the concept is notable. However, my fear is that any article that was sufficiently general would be a dictdef, and any that wasn't would be too focused on particular things. That said this should probably be closed perWP:SNOW. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is exactly the kind of article which would be voted in for WP:COTW back when it was active—it's highly notable but is currently a stub. Someone should expand and source the article, not delete it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - aproximately 2 million stubs on the english wiki are unverified stubs, so why do we have to delete such military tactics articles? --Eurocopter (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's a shame such an important topic is but a pitfull stub... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:34, 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 01:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altavaid[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable collection of houses - see talk page. Ben MacDui 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Harlosh existed, and even if it isn't a great metropolis, at least it gets mentioned in print (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I'd suggest redirecting there. Or Vatten (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) would be a possible target, but again no luck. Delete I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a school of thought which says that all geographic places that actually exist are notable. This one is hard to get details on, and I'd as soon be rid of it. I may have caused some of the trouble myself, when I renamed the article Altvaid->Altavaid. I did once find a government map where it was spelled 'Altavaid.' However, Google is much more familiar with Altvaid than Altavaid, so it's probably not worth sorting out the enigma. I might change my vote if better sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - better to have these pages as redirects than nothing at all. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:15, 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. Wizardman 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon A Time in Mumbai[edit]

Once Upon A Time in Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per WP:NFF; Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles Anshuk (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Ringer for Love[edit]

Dead Ringer for Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per WP:NSONGS; 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... Anshuk (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article as stands is horrible, but WP:NSONGS also states: 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. Dead Ringer for Love certainly charted in the UK singles chart (highest placing number 5 I believe) and I imagine several others. If sources can be found to extend the article beyond stub then it should probably be kept. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to the Meat Loaf album as a plausible search term, per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it did reach #5 in the UK charts in Nov 1981, "a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." One sentence and a huge bunch of WP:COPYVIO lyrics an article does not make.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greensborough Football Club[edit]

Greensborough Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is about an amateur Australian football club. Turned down for speedy delete, but no real evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the content is paltry, and what does it mean that an amateur sports club has "had considerable success to date". Successful results at the pitch? (That would mean something if this were a professional team, but for an amateur team the main goal is having fun and getting a chance to exercise and socialize, and winning or losing is less important.) Success at organizing teams for many people? Without real evidence of notability, deletion remains the only option sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable amateur suburban footy team, several rungs below AFL. Same would apply to other clubs in the league they play in. Murtoa (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article sets a dangerous precedent. If deleted then you may as well delete the following articles:

Heidelberg Football Club North Heidelberg Football Club Bundoora Football Club Diamond Creek Football Club Eltham Football Club Hurstbridge Football Club Lalor Football Club Lower Plenty Football Club Macleod Football Club Montmorency Football Club Northcote Park Football Club Panton Hill Football Club Parkside Football Club Reservoir Football Club Watsonia Football Club West Preston Lakeside Football Club Whittlesea Football Club

  • and to the first dickhead that replied - the league is semi professional and one of the most prominent in Melbourne along with the EFL. Perhaps you should not interfere with something you know nothing about. Regards CTDU (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As suggested above, it's highly likely that the other clubs named would also fail in the absence of any other claims to notability. Murtoa (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we go ahead and delete all articles relating to suburban football clubs? I disagree with your comment, some of these clubs have been around for 130 years and have produced some of the greatest AFL/VFL players of all time. It's a kick in the guts of the highest order, you people should be ashamed of yourselves. CTDU (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The challenge then is to demonstrate in these articles that the clubs in question have some importance beyond their status as suburban clubs in a local amateur football competition. If they boast such a rich vein of history and importance to the game as you appear to be claiming, then demonstrating it with notable content for this club for starters would be good. Murtoa (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the competition is not amateur, you have ex AFL players running around with weekly match payments in excess of $1500. It sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about and it would be a good idea if you stuck to loyalty programs. Regards CTDU (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A discussion on merging is in order at Talk:Alisa Flatow. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Flatow[edit]

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

Classic One event material. She's only notable because she was the victim of a bombing. I don't think an individual becomes notable by being killed in a terrorist attack. She has done nothing notable. Perhaps the information about Iran being ordered to pay damages could be merged into Egged bus 36 bombing. Enigma message 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Flatow has been in the news repeatedly in relation to the case Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran and efforts to recover damages from Iran. Many more reliable and verifiable sources are available to expand the article, but the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard as is. Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it does. She herself hasn't been the subject of reliable sources, only her death and events her family were involved in after her death. Rami R 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with the nom that this is basically a WP:BIO1E case. Could probably be merged/redirected to Egged bus 36 bombing. Nsk92 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - this is as WP:BIO1E as it gets. I mean, her birth date isn't even mentioned, only her death date. The only note-worthy information I see is about Flatow v. Iran, and that can be trivially introduced to the Egged bus 36 bombing article. Rami R 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oodles of coverage for this person, and there's a fricking school named after her - that alone ought to be a sufficient indicium of notability! -- Y not? 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is not whether it is a good article or even a Start-level article. The article needs to be beefed up. But the questions in an AfD based on non-notability are, is the subject notable and is the notability asserted in the article. The article says this person is the subject of a $200+ million judgment against another country, and has a school named after her. I would say that lifts her above the common non-notable rabble. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. News coverage+school+lawsuit=passes inclusion guidelines as they now stand. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Egged bus 36 bombing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a clear one-event entry. With all due respect for the subject, and sympathy to the family, there is nothing notable about being a bombing victim, or, if the bombing is terrorism, receiving a large award in a US court (not every one of the Lockerbie disaster victims who sued in US courts is notable despite meeting that criterion). Likewise, having a school named in one's honor is not any indicator of notability at all. Bongomatic (talk) 23:17, 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 01:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Glen Timms[edit]

Daniel Glen Timms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My research leads me to the conclusion that the subject doesn't meet general notability guidelines or qualify for special consideration due to meeting special notability guidelines for musicians. Sources found are not what I consider to be reliable. Let's not forget to applaud Jimbellizzi for his efforts; it's obvious that he is trying hard to improve Wikipedia, which warrants further encouragement. —  X  S  G  19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some assistance required, please. The AfD template on Daniel Glen Timms shows "this article's entry" as a redlink, which will make things more difficult for inexperienced users. Anyone know why this is happening or how to fix it? —  X  S  G  19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi, I added on more outside sources to improve the verifiability of this article. A review from Hooked on Music, a live studio interview from WETS (it's on his website, but also have a link to WETS confirming it), and more links to stations who have previously played the music. I feel that he has two full length studio albums that have received a lot of national attention, and additionally we now have reviews and playlists up from outside sources that should allow the article to stay. I apologize it took me so long to get it up, still learning the ropes of Wikipedia! Please let me know if there is more I need. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbellizzi (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Hi, Jimbellizzi. I think this is the first time you've had experience with the AfD, or Articles for Deletion process. This is one of the constructs of Wikipedia, where editors make a determination whether articles meet the requirements for being kept on Wikipedia. There's documentation for how this procedure works here: WP:AfD. Typically, this page is used for editors to add their comments regarding keeping or deleteing the article. While lots of editors think that it's a matter of votes, it really isn't, as the process documentation will clarify. So anyway, I know that you're working hard on the article. I would recommend that you add your desired resolution outcome to this page (by adding *'''Keep''' - followed by the reason you think the article should be kept. I'll continue to work with you on the talk page of the article in order to suggest what might be needed to achieve notability. —  X  S  G  04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:45, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help us if there was some detailed discussion of the validity of the sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are many footnotes, on closer examination the sources don't hold up as WP:RS and various claims made appear to be unsupported by the sources cited. For example, the article says: "Daniel's first independently released demo received the highest-rated "rock" review of the year in 1998 by Music Connection Magazine". The footnote given points to the main website of the Music Connection magazine, http://musicconnection.com. However, no specifics in the reference are given (such as a direct link to the article or the date of publication, name of the article, etc). A search of the http://musicconnection.com website for "Daniel Glen Timms" returns 0 hits[17]. The article then says about "The Highway Home" album:"The album garnered strong support among many commercial, public and community radio stations". Two footnotes are given, one to the webpage of the artist and the other is this link[18] to KTEP radio site. The only mention of the name of the subject there is a listing of his song in the playlist column. No discussion of the song or the artist here and not something that can be characterized as "garnered strong support". We then proceed further in the article to the following statement: "His album, "La La Land," received his highest critical acclaim" with a reference to this Belgian site:http://www.rootstime.be/ The site is not searchable, but after looking around it a bit I could not find a mention of the name of Daniel Glen Timms there. The article then says, in relation to the same album:"with airplay worldwide and on over 130 radio stations". The reference given for this 130 stations claim is this link[19] to the website of a radio station WETS. The page link does not mention either the name of the artist or the name of the album. Moreover, searching the entire website for the name "Timms" produces a single hit[20], to a long photogaller containing one photograph from a performace by Timms. Nothing about 130 stations here. And so on. Too many basic WP:V problems here. Also, a googlenews search gives 0 hits [21]. Nsk92 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails to meet the notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not say what is suggested, which is very sneaky. Seems non-notable, per Nsk92.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEMAND Campaign[edit]

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

Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [22]. Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport, and the article as it is is very soapboxy. I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport.
The "campaign news" lists all related news articles, some of which cover the campaign directly. AmaltheaTalk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are IMHO inadequately substantiated and thus the proposal to delete should be rejected.

a) "Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]" - the extent cannot be readily quantified, but the vast majority of the local articles appear to have broken URLs and can no longer be easily traced. Some of the key issues precede the timeframe of articles listed. The domain is complex - which includes for example, planning and environmental legislation, and also the consideration of commercial, private and political interests - and cannot be readily distilled by a layperson or newcomer simply perusing news stories.

b) "Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport" - why should this render the Wikipedia entry as lacking merit ? Using the same argument, why not scrap the individual airport entries and simply have a generalised entry for UK airports ? NB There are also 'pro-airport' campaign groups, which equally warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia.

c) "the article as it is is very soapboxy" - As a constructive suggestion, why not edit the content to remedy this perceived shortcoming ?

d) "I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport" - Why isn't it 'important enough' ?

Lemotsjuste, 6 October 2008 (apologies if this response doesn't accord with Wikipedia protocol in any way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is perfectly fine. However, I'm still not convinced.
To quote the basic inclusion guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here.
I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news". All articles hosted at http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ or http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/ are broken and I couldn't find them elsewhere. Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic.
There are still a number of articles left where the campaign or its chairman is mentioned: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30].
The ones that come closest to significant coverage are the first four in the Melton Times. All others that I found are basically name drops of the campaign or its spokesperson. Note that I haven't looked at all of them, only those with headlines that looked promising.
Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of all of those I think it should be deleted.
I don't blame other editors for not wanting to take part in this discussion, it's not a very attractive AfD, but hopefully someone finds the time to give a third opinion.
AmaltheaTalk 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Amalthea. I looked through some of the links at http://www.demand.uk.net/campaign-news.asp Most seem to cover the issue rather than DEMAND and do not mention DEMAND by name. Many links and footnotes in the article also cover the issue rather than the organization. As for the organization itself, I too found the coverage available to be insufficient. Most are passing mentions and nothing that I would call in-depth. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also per Amalthea. There arearticles onthe problem, but little to nothing on the group itself. At best, this is a merge as a sentence or so at East Midlands Airport. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the elaboration.

a) "I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news"... Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic" - Agreed.

b) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here. - The campaign has received predominantly regional coverage in the print media (mainly Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire newspapers), which qualify as "independent of the subject". Archived editorial stories specifically citing the organisation which have been traced, and which would have also appeared in print as well as on the web, total 44:

www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk ... 13 off www.thisisnottingham.co.uk ... 13 off www.meltontimes.co.uk ... 3 off www.meltonmowbraytoday.co.uk ... 3 off www.loughboroughecho.net ... 1 off www.harboroughtoday.co.uk ... 1 off www.burtonmail.co.uk ... 2 off www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk ... 8 off

The archive is incomplete and so this probably understates the actual editorial coverage but 44 serves as a useful order of magnitude.

National print media coverage includes: Free to find out all you want? - Sunday July 24, 2005 The Observer What if it's in your back yard? - Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer

There has been other coverage nationally, e.g., mentioning the organisation, but not naming it: Focus: New plan revealed for flight-path Britain, The Sunday Times, February 11, 2007

c) "Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide."

The airport has been described as: "... the second largest international freight hub in the UK (after Heathrow), and the largest for the volume carried on dedicated freight aircraft. NEMA serves as a national express freight hub specialising in the movement of high-value, low-weight items and so serves many growth sectors of the economy including pharmaceuticals ..."

Source: 'A flourishing region: Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006-2020', East Midlands Development Agency jointly with the East Midlands Regional Assembly, undated but circa 2006, p.95

Express air freight relies heavily on night-time operations, and according to government data the airport had the highest concentration of night-time flights in the UK:

UK Night Air Transport Movements For 2003 (23:30-06:00 hrs):

Nottingham East Midlands 14,184 Gatwick 13,155 Manchester 9,551 Liverpool 9,447 Stansted 9,046 Luton 6,458 Heathrow 5,969 Edinburgh 5,242 Birmingham 4,592 Glasgow 2,841 Cardiff 1,522

Source: Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, Department for Transport, July 2004 (p.38)

However, it has been claimed in court, and with no apparent refutation by the planning authority, that a major runway extension received planning approval contrary to the environmental assessment requirements of European and national (UK) legislation:

"The proposed ground of challenge is that the DC [district council] breached its obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 ... - the Regulations by which the UK implemented EC Directive 85/337/EEC - by granting the 1994 consent without first considering 'the environmental information' and to that end requiring an environmental statement"

Source: Regina v. North West Leicestershire District Council & EMA ex parte Moses, Court of Appeal, 12th April 2000

Consequently, a night-time noise control scheme formulated by the airport and its customers (primarily express air freight operators) was imposed on the local community by UK national government in 2002. This scheme was considered inadequate and therefore unacceptable by the planning authority and local residents' groups.

Sources: i) "EMA produced its own enhanced noise control scheme, which the main night operators DHL, TNT and UPS, under the aegis of the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES), were willing to accept." (2003 Report to Ministers, Letter from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 10 February 2005, ii) Letter to NW Leicestershire District Council from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 18th June 2002

Lemotsjuste, 8 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: do you have access to anyone with some specialist knowledge of the domain (UK air transportation), and who doesn't have a conflict of interests, who could review this ?

Lemotsjuste, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.32.104 (talk) 08:15, 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 Weak Keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finish The Story[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No chart success, no major tours, no extensive media coverage, no awards, no notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to This Window, primary notability is the Peter Bright connection. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable coverage exists in ZigZag magazine and from the BBC. Meets criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment. The ZigZag review is not currently sourced.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, no, but it is quoted in the BBC article, therefore I consider it likely that it does exist. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • Fair enough. However, I don’t think two articles satisfy the “multiple non-trivial published works”… Is there anything else out there? Nouse4aname (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:10, 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) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Taza (newspaper)[edit]

Ria Taza (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable newspaper. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wemple and Edicks[edit]

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

Local ice cream store, non-notable business. The references given include the local newspaper; a nondiscriminating directory of businesses; and a website for a local kids' swim team that doesn't mention the business. Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with local newspapers as references. The company was founded in 1826. For a retailer to survive for more than 180 years is pretty impressive. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm. Rare is the ice cream store that is never mentioned in a local newspaper, so by that reasoning, practically every ice cream store is notable, and so, by the same token, is every local children's sports team, every local library branch, every local bakery, every movie theatre. I'm concerned that allowing a mention of a local business or club in the local paper to constitute notability will defeat the purpose of having the notability criterion that the guidelines do now provide to keep Wikipedia from having an article about every single local activity. I'm more readily persuaded by the age of the operation. Other than that, what can be said about the store that can't be said about thousands of similar stores, in terms of being an institution in the community and making contributions to local civic affairs? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The store makes its own ice cream, rather than selling mass-produced ice cream from an outside supplier. This makes it significantly less common. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That does not show notability. I don't see anything in WP:CORP that says that stuff like that makes it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I can't find anything other than the one news article, which is about a craft show sponsored by the store, and not the store itself. Weak, because the one source isn't that bad, and I have to imagine there are paper sources out there. Eastmain, do you have any other sources? I can't find anything to support the founding date for example. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no other sources. The article's creator has been blocked indefinitely, which means he or she can't answer our questions. The Dun and Bradstreet information offered through the Manta reference would include the year the company started, but would require payment (and might only give the year the current owners acquired the store). However, given the reference to the store as an old country store, the date isn't impossible. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: A non-notable local business. Local news is not good at all, or else every company would have an article. Schuym1 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll disagree with that, pretty strongly infact. The problem is that we can't write an article given the lack of sources. If significant (and multiple) local sources existed, it would meet WP:N and would be fine. But the one source in question isn't enough to write an article. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References provide close to no information, certainly nothing to establish notability. The only interesting thing here is that it is claimed that this shop has operated continuously for 161 years, but even if that were verified, that fact alone would not convince me that this shop warrants an article. brianlucas (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I go to the store frequently and will be able to show refrences via photography of paper sources. I am not sure of the speed these will be up though (Big lad7 (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep per the historical aspect of the establishment. When I found THIS, I read "Until 1800, ice cream remained a rare and exotic dessert enjoyed mostly by the elite. Around 1800, insulated ice houses were invented. Manufacturing ice cream soon became an industry in America, pioneered in 1851 by a Baltimore milk dealer named Jacob Fussell." Thaat would make an ice crean parlor in 1826 something very special indeed. It might be one of thousands now, but its roots in American history give it the notability it deserves. And no, the article does not mention them by name... but only the business and it being quite unique it that time in history. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is interesting. If it could be conclusively shown that this shop was the first of its kind, or one of the first, and has operated continuously for >160 years, then that would indicate real historical significance. But this would have to be shown with direct historical references and it would have to be particularly significant. Simply noting that this ice cream parlour opened in the early years of ice cream is not enough. "The first ice cream parlour in America" would be notable, but being the 7th, or the 23rd, or the 45th, would not. brianlucas (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, ice cream shops were old hat in the US by 1826. From ice cream: "Ice cream was introduced to the United States by Quaker colonists who brought their ice cream recipes with them. Confectioners sold ice cream at their shops in New York and other cities during the colonial era." However, there are two (related) issue here: notability for being early (which is evidently not the case here) and notability for being old (i.e., it still exists after all these years). —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that all really old ice-cream shops are notable? There are probably a bunch of really old ice-scream shops. I still don't see how it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh? Please tell me some of these others that have been around for nearly 200 years? Wow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't agree that it's notable, just for being old. There are no reliable sources that show notability. The quote you posted is just about ice-cream. Schuym1 (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ice-cream shop being old is not enough to convince me that it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • All you've proven is that ice-cream is historically significant, not this shop. Schuym1 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said earliness and age are two distinct (though related) factors that may be considered in assessing notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was replying to MQS. Schuym1 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't even know what you mean anyways. Schuym1 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then please fix your indentation. Never mind, I did it for you.—Largo Plazo (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, I think notability is shown by the sources on the article and the extra one on my talk page. So forget everything that I just said. Schuym1 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't really have looked at the sources in the article since, as I pointed out earlier, one of them doesn't mention the shop and another one is just a directory—you wouldn't say a person was notable because his name is in the phone book, would you? And you yourself said that a mention in the local news doesn't confer notability, though now you've struck out that remark. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what? I really don't give a crap about what happens to the article anymore. Schuym1 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This AFD has been more trouble than it should have been. Schuym1 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've learned my lesson, never participate in AFDs about old buildings because they are more trouble than an AFD should be. Schuym1 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know what? There could be hundreds of articles about old buildings at the same time, and I would be like whatever. Schuym1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:28, 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 01:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Grey[edit]

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

Declined CSD, non-notable character. BJTalk 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Dinoguy1000 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a possible hoax: "Other publishers - Independent" says it all. I couldn't find any relevant GHits for either the series "The Death of Cancer Grey" (which the article should be located at) or the character, and searching the author's name turned up a FaceBook and Youtube profile at the very top. Also note the conflict of interest with the article's creator, CancerGrey (talk · contribs). —Dinoguy1000 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much haox as running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL -- check the publication dates. If it is published on schedule and receives notice enough to pass WP:BK, no prejudice to recreating it then, but until then, delete. (BTW, this doesn't belong in manga deletions, but comics deletions, since it's a Western graphic novel with an incorrect category.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duly noted, and added a "possible" to my original !vote reasoning to that effect. I'll list this at the comics-related deletions, then, but I won't rm it from the animanga deletions - if someone else wants to, feel free. —Dinoguy1000 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Dinoguy1000 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If not Hoax, Spam. Doceirias (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - runs afoul of WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL]], etc. - no evidence it exists. (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. BJTalk 04:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel (BDSM)[edit]

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

Declined speedy, seems non-notable. BJTalk 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Newa cuisine. MBisanz talk 01:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelaa[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:36, 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, Xclamation point 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources. I couldn't find any sources anywhere that document any such thing by this name, let alone that support any of this content. Of course, transliteration could well be confounding me, but there's no way from the article or its title to determine what else to look for. I couldn't find any clues in the alcoholic drinks section of a Newari phrasebook or a Newari–English dictionary. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rewrite I did find some sources, such as this Nepali tourist site [31], and this blog entry on Newa cuisine [32]. However, the article needs a rewrite and better sources if it is to remain. Otherwise, I agree that it should be deleted. Perhaps the originating editor, Rohitshrestha, would be interested in undertaking the rewrite, as s/he seems to have some knowledge of the subject matter. Geoff (talk) 09:56, 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 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Beazley (dog)[edit]

Miss Beazley (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not too fond of the current US administration myself, but are you seriously saying that www.whitehouse.gov[33] is not a reliable third party source?    SIS  12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not third-party in this case. I'm not contesting the factual accuracy of the article, but the notability of the topic to justify a separate article. VG ☎ 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say whitehouse.gov is third party here. It's not Jenna Bush's blog or anything, it's a national government site. The dog isn't theirs.    SIS  19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wasn't a merge and redirect to List of United States Presidential pets not considered instead of us ending up here? Hiding T 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets, per Hiding.    SIS  19:07, 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, Xclamation point 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep why are we here? Sources are all over. [34] is a good example. A merge, as suggest above is reasonable, but darn it, there is no way this could qualify for deletion. Hobit (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this relisted? The consensus seems fairly clear, there's no consensus to delete. Hiding T 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close A Google news search showed plenty of sources. I added a few. Notability established. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An utterly non-notable animal of no special abilities or accomplishments. Notability is not inherited, and this dog only has mention in press stories in relation to a notable owner. Edison (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb? There are whole articles on this dog on major news sites. One was provided above. Heck, IMDB has a 9 minute short listed about this dog. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of Presidential pets have articles. Article is properly sourced and written. Ward3001 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - zero possibility of this not meeting notability threshold, especially if Barney (dog) and India (cat) do. Long history of presidential pets meeting notability on wikipedia. Consider WP:SNOW... 69.137.62.229 (talk) 19:54, 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 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Teugels[edit]

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

No reliable sources to show that this person is WP:NOTE. The sole claim to fame is that he reached the final of the World Association of Kickboxing Organizations world championship and on the way was the only person ever to beat Jean-Claude Van Damme. There don't seem, however,to be any reliable sources for this, and looks dubious since the WAKO article claims that in world championships, "Each member country can present only 1 competitor in each weight class." If this is correct, then Belgian Teugels can never have beaten Belgian Van Damme in those World Championships. There are 44 distinct Ghits for Teugels excluding Wikipedia and Van Damme[35], establishing quite firmly that he has little to no notability outsidehis claim of beating Van Damme (so not a notable painter or something similar). Of the 122 distinct hits linking him with Van Damme[36]. So in general: Patrick Teugels exists and is a painter, but his sole claim to fame is currently unverifiable. Fram (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a contributor here in wiki on kickboxing, i agree he's not a notable kickboxer. Maybe you can tag those as well: Alejandro DasCola, Bernardo Jua, Wilver (Rio) Johnson. Marty Rockatansky (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Qureshi[edit]

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

Not notable CZmarlin (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Multiple searches across Google and Google News Archive return very few results. The references in the article are not reliable sources; two are from sites affiliated with this individual, while the third reference doesn't even mention this individual. This individual has not won any awards or done anything extraordinary. He fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This should have been speedy-deleted as spam. =Axlq 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 05:56, 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 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Muscle Magazine[edit]

Young Muscle Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable magazine, launched just a few months ago. The article creator (now indef-blocked) had a clear conflict of interest. This article was speedy-deleted once already. Then it was re-created, prodded, prod removed. Subsequent speedy-delete nominations were declined. This magazine may be notable eventually, but "future notability" is not a reason to keep. =Axlq 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's blatant advertising; there is no other reason to submit a Wikipedia article about an obscure magazine that was just launched. However, even though it has been speedily deleted once already, subsequent requests have been declined by administrators. =Axlq 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's not eligible for speedy. The article is at least trying to be encyclopedic; however there's nothing demonstrated that would make it notable (And with such cheesy-looking covers, I doubt it will last long enough to achieve notability). Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copy and pasted from the article's talk page.

I am not sure the problem. This article for Young Muscle Magazine is laid out and described as all other magazines on this website. It does not have as much information as other publications, because it is a new publication.- Paige 04:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Presely11 (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) — Presely11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is the problem. The magazine is totally non-notable, because it is a new publication, only a few weeks old. Therefore it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article until it becomes notable in some way. Also, the fact that other magazines have articles isn't a reason for this article to exist. =Axlq 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Still, I declined the speedy because it's not blatant advertising as G11 requires. Use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to discuss and delete articles without notability. SoWhy 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because the wrong speedy tag is there, doesn't mean the deletion should be declined. The tag should have referenced A7 instead, and I see the speedy tag has now been correctly placed. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Young Muscle Magazine has been published for the past 8 months, and has made appearances and been recognized in such events as the International Miss Italia Competition and the show I Love Money on Vh1 featuring Dave Amerman, the cover model as well as John Basedow's fitness presentations. Young Muscle Magazine also had it's release party for the latest edition at the Hawaiian Tropic Zone in times square (NYC), been featured on Channel 12 (NY) Sport's News Castor with anchor Michael Coleman and has been on a presentation circuit for the past year presenting at such colleges as Hofstra University and Nassau Community College. With over 27,000 people as fans on there MySpace I think its safe to say that Young Muscle Magazine is not small time or "non-notable". Please search google for Young Muscle Magazine and educate yourself. ~User:Presely11 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC) — Presely11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please educate yourself about how Wikipedia works. It is your responsibility to ensure that the article contains verifiable and reliable evidence that a weeks-old magazine (not "8 months" if it was launched this summer) has sufficient notability to warrant having an article on it. =Axlq 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Young Muscle Inc. incorporated in October of 2007 and published an initial issue that was released as a health and fitness magazine in January of 2008 (9 months old*). The first issue that was recreated into a lifestyle magazine was released the end May of 2008(4 months old*) as the Summer Edition, The fall edition was launched in the beginning of September(Weeks old*) and the winter edition has a release date for just after thanksgiving. ~User:Presely11 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC) — Presely11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If what you say above is true, I retract my "weeks old" statement. However, what you claim contradicts the article. And I still don't see evidence, complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that confers notability. You should present your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Muscle Magazine, not here, because that's where the deletion of this article will be decided. Be aware that it will be noted that your association with this publication gives you a conflict of interest. =Axlq 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the discrepancy of summer edition to say summer edition released in May 2008. As far my association, i believe it should be irrelevant at this point. I am putting up factual information on a print periodical, if this article gets deleted because I am associated with it, I will put up a post on our website and MySpace and have one of our 27,000 world wide fans post something here. But I feel that the association rule here on wikipedia is used to maintain integrity on a website and not have people posting information that is not encyclopedia material of themselves, not when it comes to corporate businesses and international companies. ~User:Presely11 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As per post on YMuscle.com I thought I would add in my two sense and let you all know that I am a subscriber to Young Muscle Magazine, and I live in England. I assure you all that Young Muscle Magazine is no small publication, maintaining more fans than companies like Armani Exchange and the Pickens Plan, I have made my additions to this article and sited Young Muscle Inc.'s exponential progress. This article is a valid article and should remain. =User talk:Mrmojo11 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) — Mrmojo11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• contributions — Presely11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deliberate hoaxes are vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geometra[edit]

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

Blatant hoax T L Miles (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of course, although this article made me smile when I saw it. Cute. I wouldn't mind it being moved to Unencyclopedia. =Axlq 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete hoax. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, place jokes elsewhere. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 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 Intercity (New Zealand). MBisanz talk 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sights[edit]

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

Currently reads like an advertisement with no attempt to assert notability via independent sources. Judging from the copyright information on the logo the primary author has a conflict of interest. dramatic (talk) 02:50, 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. To avoid biting the main author, I am userfying to User:Therealgordon/sandbox. lifebaka++ 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Community of Austin[edit]

Atheist Community of Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. All references are either self-references or to non-reliable sources (such as a wiki). This article was created in November of 2007, speedy deleted for lack of notability, and almost immediately recreated. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the nom makes strong points. The article's sources are questionable and it notability is non-existent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Please don't delete this article (I was awake until four this morning learning how to build it and the thought of having to get it back to this point again is terrifying.)

This is not a non-notable organisation, however I haven't had a chance to fill the article out with respectable secondary sources yet so it may not appear particularly notable from it's current content.

The fact is that it's an extremely notable organisation as it's the only one of it's type in the United States and a totally unique educational resource for the public, resulting in regular discussion regarding the organisation - particularly in online-media.

I would also like to write a full article about the television show that this non-notable organisation have produced (more than five-hundred episodes of) over more than a decade. This organisation is of enormous interest to a huge and global audience, as almost all of their productions are available to the online community. If this organisation isn't a notable example of it's type, considering that it's alone in it's approach and criticised constantly, I'd struggle to direct you to one with any greater notoriety.

Since discovering the organisation online around six months ago I've personally followed it very closely. I'm in Tasmania at the moment and will be leaving for Brisbane for at least a week in about three hours due to a family crisis. I sincerely intended to explain why this organisation's existence is so outstanding and I will try to develop the articles whenever I'm able to, particularly with regard to the point that the sources almost exclusively refer to the community's official website.

With regard to the statement that "All references are either self-references or to non-reliable sources (such as a wiki).", you may not have considered that the reference in question was not made to any content at all within the Iron Chariots wiki, but instead to the wiki itself and the nature of it's association with the Atheist Community of Austin.

Little Red Riding Hood I do not know who recreated the article after you deleted it initially. I just decided it was insubstantial last night and needed development, so I adopted it. Therealgordon (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm going to say keep on this one under the "be nice to the newbies" clause and give them time to re-develop/re-design/re-whatever it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion/Comment Perhaps this artice can be moved to the current author's sandbox so he may continue working and developing it, asking advice and input from other editors to make it encyclopedic and properly sourced before returning it to the main pages? This way it has less chance to be deleted before coming of age. And yes, I still think the current version is not suitable... but having it in his sandbox will take off the pressure of time that is brought to bear by an AfD... and with the author's family crisis in Brisbane, he may not be able to address any concerns in a timely manner. In being kind to newbies, this gives him that time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom and Schmidt. Doesn't pass WP:ORG, no notability at all, poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article here, In the NYT (the article is largely about their actions and furor they caused) this seems related, but I can't get the text. Does anyone actually search for stuff or just come here and !vote? The article was written by a newbee, and at the least we should try to help out rather than bite them. One could reasonably argue that the sources I've provided don't meet WP:N, but to not help out with a simple news search and instead just !vote to delete? Very bitey. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for assuming good faith. I did search, and I went to google news and looked for all dates, and found nothing other than lists of what events they were sponsoring, nothing that indicated the notability of the organization. I also searched on Google for websites, and Although there were quite a few hits, I searched through about fifty pages without finding anything that provided a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article definitely needs improvement, but the organization certainly isn't non-notable. Sure the name may say "Austin", but this organization is known all around the world. The podcast for the television show probably reaches an audience that is an order of mangitude (or two) above what the actual broadcast reaches.Shnakepup (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure what "be nice to newbies" has to do with an entry that has been here for 11 months. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response the page User talk:Therealgordon was initialized yesterday.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes... but the user has been editing since November 2007.... though mot much. I will still stand my suggestion (above) to have this article copied to the user's sandbox. It is rare that an article springs perfect to Wiki pages... and yes, this article has existed since 2007... but with User:Therealgordon willing to make it better, what safer place than his sandbox? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment weeelllll because articles in user sandboxes tend to not get as much collaboration--only the user tends to edit. And unless there is some harm with leaving the page where it is (copyvio, bioliving, etc) then I'd rather have it where it is, put a tag on it that it needs improvement so readers will know it is a work in process, and have at it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • With respects, an article in a sandbox gets as much or as little help as an editor asks for. As it is, the result of his improvements to this current article led to this AfD... and it is unlikely that those feeling a delete as best for Wiki may not agree to just let it sit as he works on it, as even he granted (above) that due to a current family crisis such work won't be immediate. If the article does not survive this Afd, the work he put into it will be lost. In my own WP:AGF that he wishes to improve the article, and only if this AfD results in delete, I ask that the closing Admin put a copy in the user's sandbox, as the user may not be aware of such existing, and it would to improve Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good points, but I still disagree with the concept. Key phrases are sandbox development "gets as much or as little help as an editor asks for" but an open article (my term for non-sandbox-article) potentially gets help regardless of how much an editor asks. And yes, the culmination of the collaboration to date "led to this AfD" but it has not led to its deletion--at least, not yet. If the closing admin does land on deleting the article, then YEAH I'd say port it to the sandbox for the user. But by reading through the discussion, it looks to me more like a "no consensus" than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's a fair enough assessment. I am in full agreement that an open article might be helped from anyone willing to do so, and only wished to address your concern inre a sandbox when I suggested it might be placed in his sandbox if it gets deleted while he is unable to work on it... in my good faith acceptance of the circumstances surrounding his inability to do so for a short time due to family crisis, and my good faith acceptance of his willingness to do so. And if a no-consesus default keeps the article, it will be here for his efforts when he gets back. And I still am one that votes delete... I just wish to be fair to someone so willing to attempt the improvements on this article. Bt heck... it may well be improved by others in his absence... and I would be willing to then rethink my opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified notability, or better Userfy to allow time for sources to be found. Article was created november 2007, plenty of time to learn how to write an article, so condescending to a newbie is not appropriate. non of the involved editor's comments indicate he would show notability (being oustanding is not the same), and circumventing an AfD of a non-notable org by going on holiday should not be made into a precedent. No useful collaboration in nearly a year meakes it unlikely any will happen in the next week while it is off mainspace.Yobmod (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 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 merge to Expanded Universe. MBisanz talk 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Quee[edit]

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

non notable fictional character from the star wars expanded universe. prod was removed without any attempt to address it. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Danni Quee is notable for her success in aiding the war effort against the Yuuzhan Vong, especially for her considerable contributions of yammosk jamming, a technique that proved vital in deciding many battles in the New Republic's favor. In addition, she also participated considerably in the search for Zonama Sekot, an endeavor that surely was a deciding factor in the final book.Inigo1 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources? The only one in the article is to a wiki, which is not a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Move to Star Wars Expanded Universe. Outside that universe, there is no notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a secondary character. No evidence that there was even a suggestion to merge, before an attempt to delete it. DGG (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Important within Expanded Universe, but not without it. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--If that were the criteria for merging, then Jaina Solo would not be a solo page.66.182.79.254 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, I'd merge that one also-- Solo family perhaps. where we do justify an individual article is for her father. DGG (talk) 00:06, 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 merge to Lego Group. MBisanz talk 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Lego Network[edit]

My Lego Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Web site/social networking tool/browser game that does not meet notability criteria of WP:WEB. Prod contested without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 02:07, 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 and redirect to The Sims. No clear argument was given why this subject is worthy of content in this or any article. The title, however, appears ot be a viable search term. lifebaka++ 01:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Family[edit]

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

Totally, completely unnotable. Minor characters in the Sims with no evidence of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 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 delete. lifebaka++ 00:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okorie Okorocha[edit]

Okorie Okorocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Notice to closing admin: Please relist this AfD so it runs for another 5 days. Apparently some users were deterred from participating in it because it showed as a red link for a couple of days on the article page, even though the link itself was correct and worked. Further details on this ANI thread. Thanks, VG ☎ 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources that are already on the article don't show notability of this person. At most, he has represented some notable cases, but the cases were not notable because he has represented them, and I don't see that he is represented on the sources as a notable figure. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 7 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) 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to re-list this one, the consensus is clear. Get rid of it! JBsupreme (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator requested a relist because of this. See comment above. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lawyers do not become notable just for doing the job they are paid to do. Mentions in sources are trivial (not about him, only about cases).10:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. While the lack of Google hits doesn't mean the conference isn't notable, the possibility of sources in other areas does not make it notable either. No prejudice against recreation with offline sources. Drop me a line and I will be happy to userfy. lifebaka++ 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy League[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:38, 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) 01:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - high school athletics conferences can be sourced, typically, with archival research. Google searches are not adequate usually for CURRENT conferences, let alone a conference from the 1980s. High school conferences are frequently covered in newspapers. Google hits are not an indicator of a subject being non-notable. matt91486 (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 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. lifebaka++ 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen[edit]

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

DeleteArticle prev no consensus at AfD in 2006. This was created by spa IP address, and heavily edited by "DirectorPaul" which appears to be the subject. Article is completely unreferenced, nothing consequential turned up on gnews, and definitely not seeing any proof of subject's "numerous awards". "Popular cult classic film", Zombie Killers, that is subject's major claim to meeting bio specific notability criteria has a tripod homepage and no reviews or gnews hits found. It's not even in IMDB, nor are most of his other claimed credits. Fails WP:V, WP:N, bio, WP:COI etc. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:34, 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) 01:13, 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 merge to A Dog of Flanders . MBisanz talk 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrache, a Dog of Flanders - Made in Japan[edit]

Patrache, a Dog of Flanders - Made in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable documentary. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to people searching: Article title misspelled. Your searches should be on "Patrasche, a Dog of Flanders - Made in Japan".—Kww(talk) 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also it's written in a very overly effusive and presumptuous style. Tadakuni (talk) 23:47, 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) 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into A Dog of Flanders First, the basic claim is true, that "A Dog of Flanders" is probably more popular in Japan than anywhere else. The Japanese Wikipedia uses the film described here as a source (see [37], if you can follow the Japanese. Reviews of the film are at a Belgian site seeking Japanese tourists and another Belgian travel site. Seems like this barely scrapes past the notability barrier, but just barely. That said, the article doesn't seem salvageable, and I'm not sure that deleting would be a bad idea, because any recreation of the article is unlikely to use any of the information in it. Merge seems like the best alternative.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the misspelling, I didn't get good Google hits. I'd still merge it, but there's enough sources under Patrasche, a Dog of Flanders - Made in Japan that I couldn't argue strongly against keeping the article.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Dog of Flanders, I'm just not seeing a lot of reliable sources for this documentary to stand alone, but I don't think it should be totally ignored. An ANN article does mention it briefly, including that it does look at the phenomenon of it being better received in Japan than in Belgium, but not enough to be "significant coverage". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 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 to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University Park Alliance[edit]

University Park Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No third-party sources. The description consists of fuzzy non-encyclopedic language ("facilitating investment, "building community capacity"), instead of "hard facts" (such as the size of the budget, or a description of the kind of measures which are financed). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The fuzzy press-release type wording needs cleanup, but they appear to be an otable organisation with sustained coverage in the news. This and this are examples of recent coverage found on Google News, and the news archives shows a lot more articles are availabe from behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 7 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) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sources. There maybe a good merge target out there, and rather than being a perma-stub, a merger would be nice. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unacceptably vague, and the article has no evidence of actually having accomplished anything. Some well-sourced specifics would help, but I'm not holding my breath. An article on a group or organisation must, at a bare minimum, answer the question "What have they actually done?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want to delete the article because it's poorly written? Hobit (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to delete it because, based on the article and the sources I have access to, they don't seem to have done much of anything and are thus non-notable... but leaving open the option of someone with access to local sources having a differing perspective. Since even their own website doesn't indicate any notability in particular, I'm not very hopeful, but I'm not completely closing the possibility, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [38] looks on topic. A L/N search shows a few things, but the local paper isn't available to me. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very fluffy article. Honestly, I can find way more substantive material on the association of realtors from College Park, MD (due to their never-ending battles with the municipality, which has plenty of mentions in the local and university press), but I still don't think that entitles them to Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 00:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Desert[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. If the alleged "surprisingly high amount of national press" materializes, we might have something, but right now... no. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:12, 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) 01:07, 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 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of grassroots organizations[edit]

List of grassroots organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There have historically been three classes of entry in this list:

  • Bare links to articles
  • Bare redlinks
  • Weblinks to organisations usually without articles

The first is best served by a category, as the list is very obviously incomplete and categories are automagically updated. The second is not, in my view, necessary, since these days every single nonprofit on the planet sets up a Wikipedia article right after they get their own website online (and sometimes before). The third violates WP:NOT a linkfarm.

I would suggest that this is one of those lists that is redundant to a category. I would simply redirect, but lists typically attract fierce advocacy so a debate is warranted, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there any way the list could be made into something not redundant with a category? I'm trying to think of one. Ancemy (talk) 22:39, 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) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an indiscriminate collection of information; no uncontentious definition of the subject may be possible. If anything, this should be a category. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per items 2-4, 6, and 11 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: when the page was created, the edit summary by Aquillion was "Moving rapidly expanding list from Grassroots; for contributor information, see that article." More than two years have went and the list is still incomplete. It's hopeless. Alexius08 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC and WP:NOT. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Not Alone (The Enemy song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
You're Not Alone (The Enemy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable Toypadlock (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to parent article on the album itself, which is notable. This song needs some secondary sources to establish how well it charted, how it was received, etc. before it can have its own article. Ancemy (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs Keep in light of the fact it charted.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Top 20 in a major country, third party sources cited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it charted (top 20 in the UK, which would be unusual without any significant coverage). I looked for information and found some, but not as much as I expected (however, it is difficult to search for on Google). I think it is notable enough to avoid deletion, but I wouldn't object to it being merged into the album article when that has been expanded. —Snigbrook 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 delete. lifebaka++ 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal (Brian Keene novel)[edit]

Terminal (Brian Keene novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost entirely a plot summary: fails WP:PLOT and WP:OR; no references: fails WP:V and WP:RS. No evidence that WP:BK is met. Ros0709 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find nothing about this novel in reliable sources - no reviews at all. The entire article is OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going Out (song)[edit]

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

Reguest DELETE per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC Wolfer68 (talk) 18:48, 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) 00:57, 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 meMy work 16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeYarmond Edison[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Sources seem local/trivial, only notability is tied to Bon Iver. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep A marginal candidate, to be certain, but the Bon Iver connection and referenced articles in IndyWeek (a major alternative weekly for that region) seems to warrant inclusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to meet WP:MUSIC part 1/the general notability guideline. [Snigbrook] 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So Weak I Can barely stand" Keep -Article still needs alot of improvement; but it seems to just pass the notability guidelines. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It does seem that much of the band's press would not have happened were it not for the Bon Iver connection (such as the articles I have now added from The News & Observer and The Boston Globe). But the Independent Weekly articles do help establish notability–there is nothing in the guideline that says that "local" media coverage is unacceptable. There's a fair amount of verifiable information that can still be added from those articles. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Erik as a quick search in google news: [39][40][41] and even foreign press: [42][43][44]. Many, many more. We66er (talk) 23:18, 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 Speedy delete . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class 14a gatling laser pistol[edit]

Class 14a gatling laser pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is science fiction and hence does not belong here Merenta (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE Unless the creator has his hands on some really hot top-secret documents the rest of the world doesn't, I agree per nom. -- Matthew Glennon(Talk to me) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G3 as a blatant hoax. RayAYang (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 per above. Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax/nonsense. JJL (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Unless, sources are provided, in which case I will be remarkably impressed with our nation's technological capabilities. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Cafe[edit]

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

Non notable cafe. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lacks evidence of “notability”; appears to be promotional. —SlamDiego←T 10:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Not every article about a likely non-notable business comes under G11; also I would prefer we not go and tag articles for speedying after they get listed here. If the consensus is for a speedy, then the closing admin can do it). Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Except in some cases of bald and especially problematic policy violation, AfD should not be subverted by speedy deletion. (A combination of comments supporting speedy deletion with WP:SNOW would, of course, not be a subversion.) —SlamDiego←T 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Life[edit]

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

Non notable person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:02, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 21:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spine (Alcoholic Bevrage)[edit]

Spine (Alcoholic Bevrage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reason given why this is notable. No reference to any sources that might have written it up, and no information in the article that would lead one to believe there're any such sources. Note: Article is one and a half sentences, consisting of name and recipe. Why Not A Duck 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Call me spineless if you like, but this is non-notable and unreferenced. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: It's a prank, a goof, nonsense, and therefore vandalism. Delete as a protologism or speedy delete for the above reasons. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended set theory[edit]

Extended set theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original Research; used prod tag initially, editor objected, referring to AfD. Zero sharp (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research. It's borderline patent nonsense, too; I'm reasonably well-versed in mathematics, astrophysics, physical cosmology and religious cosmology, and so I ought to be able to understand an article on this subject. It's as incoherent, in its field, as 'bu ba buff' would be as article content elsewhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_8&oldid=1081071877"