Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close; duplicate nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hughes (soccer)[edit]

Justin_Hughes_(soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 2008/09/10 23:15:27

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dawn Cody[edit]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4 by Orangemike (non-admin closure) – Toon ^(talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actress who's most notable role was a bit-part on Pleasantville, and has had only other minor/extra roles in non-notable television shows. WP:ACTOR requires the subject to have "... had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," which this person clearly hasn't had. There is no evidence of a "cult following" or having "...made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." 49 news ghits, none of which appear to refer to her, which makes it unlikely that she qualifies under WP:N, and there is no evidence of this within the article. – Toon ^(talk) 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this should be a Speedy Delete under G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Cody – Toon ^(talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Bag gang[edit]

Delete Not notable - Brief, small, loosely affiliated, group of con men Mynameisstanley (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem like a real gang

~~Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008~~ Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. So do you think the New York Times made this up? You only have to click on the reference to check that this was a real gang. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article, plus others found by Google Books and Google News, confirm notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Years of sustained WP:RS interest easily found. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McMurray[edit]

I can't find even one link to support this article. It's a stretch to think that one could compose and co-produce "many hit songs" for people as high-profile as Snoop Dog and not have even one hit on Google (besides this article.) Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire Hoax. Someone who's produced and written for Snoop Dog would at least turn up a MySpace, nothing at all here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TPH: if someone had done such work, there'd be reliable sources about he or she. Cliff smith ^talk 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Yipe! Hoax and then some! TaintedZebra (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Article's creator seems to have a history of unconstructive edits, including giving "Jordan McMurray" songwriter credits in various articles on singles. Basement12 (T.C) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk)
Speedy Delete - hoax --T-rex 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia)[edit]

Unsourced and not notable. Community television deal does not prove notability and article contains much information that is not cited and appears to be advertising. Was prodded but prod removed without appropriate improvement !! Justa Punk !! 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a work in progress and a ligitimate Federation whith more history than any other wrestling Federation in Australia with International Fame and Shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.248.52 (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.208.248.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It Is True, I train for this wrestling federation, all information correct and up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.178.134 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to verify above comments, and comment above violates WP:OR and WP:COI. Where is the mainstream third party coverage? Agre with nom - this is advertising with bits added. Get Dumb 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. Needs mainstream sources. Query compliance with WP:CORP. And are comments by anons allowed? I agree with GetDumb about WP:COI per the second anon. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any 3rd party reliable sources to show notability. I'd also question the existance of Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand). Basement12 (T.C) 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to find any references to verify its notability. The only scant references in this part of the world pertain to the New Zealand version. Murtoa (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Referenced only to a primary source (ie, self-referenced) means only one thing - it has no notability.--Lester 04:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic[edit]

Article on a small company. The are few claims (and little evidence) of impact, and only one local news source (the others are press releases). This was nominated for deletion two years ago, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind its being kept then. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was kept then as it should be now because it fulfils WP:N and WP:CORP. It has been sourced. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspects of notability criteria does it fulfil? It certainly doesn't comply with sourcing requirements, what with said sources being one local newspaper story and a few press releases. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was kept the last time it was nominated and is a notable company. I respectfully disagree with the claims that this is an article on a "small company." They are one of IACs largest, most profitable companies and provide a service to millions of homeowners. As an attempt to alleviate any doubt that may occur from the claims of this nomination, I have updated the article with additional facts and more authoritative sources. Spidermidget (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'They are one of IACs largest, most profitable companies and provide a service to millions of homeowners. ' ^{[citation needed]}. Those are strong claims not borne out by any reliable sources (and no, press releases don't count). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more notable sources: SEC Filing showing $93 million in revenue for 2007, listed on INC 500, story on NY Times, listed as #7 Real Estate web site on Inman. This should address the nominator's claims for deletion. --Spidermidget (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although the article has sources (primary and press releases that they are). It is still basically spam which needs a significant rewrite to become encylopedic (part of the CSD). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the Rocky Mountain News item referenced in the article, a search on Google News reveals more results. To be sure, there are tons of press releases, but included are reports about the company in the Denver Post and Business Journal-Portland. I stopped lokking after that as this should be sufficient to establish that there is coverage about the company from independent sources satisfying notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. We66er (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zilbersteyn[edit]

Delete Not Notable, just an "alleged associate", later shot "supposedly in connection to a dispute" Mynameisstanley (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

Delete - A stub better located within a general article about the event in question. I'd nominate a merger, but I don't know with what. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor criminal Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an "alleged" partner Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hughes (soccer)[edit]

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with old and now outdated reasons, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Has yet to make any appearances that make him notable. Although WP:FOOTY/N is not a policy it has now been supported by numerous AfDs and as there appears to be nothing else to make him notable the article should be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and the unofficial WP:FOOTY/N and is not notable in any other way. Basement12 (T.C) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTYN --Angelo (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE - never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appeared in just two reserve division games, starting one, in 2007[1]. Has not played at the highest level per WP:Athlete, i.e. in a fully professional league, nor has he played for the senior national team. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate if and when he makes his professional debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate if and when he meets criteria--ClubOranje^Talk 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Knutson[edit]

Fails WP:VERIFY - notability is claimed but no reliable sources are cited - in fact none of the references mentions the subject at all, even in passing. And there's a serious conflict of interest - the author is the subject's son andy (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. No reliable references cited or found to support the article's extraordinary claims. The article's "Citations" section is just a list of home pages. Knutson's association with the Marlboro Man appears to be indirect even if it could be proven. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-11t08:30z
Delete Tenuous link to the Marlboro Man fails WP:V. BigDunc^Talk 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are some claims to notability, the sources do not back them up. Edward321 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does meet the general case of WP:BIO. As WP:ATHLETE is a special case of WP:BIO and does not supersede it, the subject is therefore notable. Likewise, WP:FOOTY/N is a special case of WP:ATHLETE, and does not supersede WP:BIO. lifebaka++ 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nimo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the 3rd nomination, not 2nd. Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with other bundled players, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Weak Keep Delete Has yet to make any appearances that make him notable. Although WP:FOOTY/N is not a policy it has now been supported by numerous AfDs and as there appears to be nothing else to make him notable the article should be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep per the sources added and mentioned below. I'm not convinced by any of the references from the article that I can access (I can't access The Salt Lake Tribune or The Oregonian) as we generally hold 'significant coverage' to be stricter when it comes to professional athletes. References which just mention them as playing on a team, what they did in a game, a transfer, stats etc are generally held to be trivial and so not meeting WP:N. Most of the articles I can't access also look like they may fall in this category. That said the two sources found by Peteforsyth are not, in my opinion, trivial coverage and although I might normally not be convined that they were enough to meet WP:N being from, essentially, a local newpaper I think the combination of them and the sources in the article is just enough to pass WP:N. Dpmuk (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below for current opinionDelete clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and the unofficial WP:FOOTY/N and is not notable in any other way. Basement12 (T.C) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO if people take the time to search for sources, as instructed at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructs nominators be familiar with prior to nomination. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTYN --Angelo (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aboutmovies. If the 12 citations AM already added aren't enough, here's a couple more, from a different publication: [2] [3]. The ATHLETE and FOOTY guidelines cited by others do not supersede WP:NOTE. -Pete (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the criteria at WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition yet. Recreate if and when he ever does. --Jimbo^[online] 08:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting, you do know that if any article passes the normal WP:N of coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject then they are notable? The WP:ATHLETE is an exception for additional inclusion of those that do not pass the standard WP:BIO, which is the same as WP:N, substantial coverage in WP:RS that are independent of the subject? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how any of the sources provided pass WP:BIO. There are hundreds of stories about footballers moving clubs/joining academies who don't meet criteria. BBC produces articles about non-league players who clearly fail the notability. --Jimbo^[online] 09:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources would make him pass WP:BIO, like Jimbo says it would be quite easy to find a number of sources for hundreds of non-league players in the UK but it doesn't make them notable. Heck I could even find sources on my footballing exploits but it doesn't make me notable enough for an article. Basement12 (T.C) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I linked above -- two feature articles focusing entirely on Nimo from the Portland Tribune, one of which covered him when he was playing in Florida (opposite side of the country) would definitely be significant per WP:BIO. I haven't had a chance to work them into the article yet, but I will. -Pete (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles "PREP WEDNESDAY Road to join U.S. elite, starts in refugee camp" and "Nimo gets All-America team honor" and "RSL: Rookie toughened by years as refugee" as can easily be discerned from the titles, are only about him. These three are independent/RS and substantial coverage. Throw in the two FIFA articles which contain his name in the article title (also independent since he does not work for FIFA) and that's five, not counting the ones Pete has discovered. Please note, that if this was just another player, he probably wouldn't pass BIO, (in contrast to the above concern: the articles created by the BBC for the non-league players likely do not provide substantial/significant coverage of those player) but here you have the additional sob story of being a refugee and overcoming great odds, basically the American dream that the media loves to eat up and regurgitate. That's why there is so much on him, it ain't just about football/soccer. Further, if there were 5000 sources for a player all with substantial/independent coverage, but they never played in a professional league, it sounds like that might not be enough for the deleters here. Remember that deletion is not about what you find notable, but about applying the preexisting guidelines, which this article passes under either WP:N or WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ATHLETE is a section of that guideline. He is not notable for anything outside of his football career therefore his notability should be established as an athlete. He has never played professionally and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, the relevant part of WP:BIO. Basement12 (T.C) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and simply, nope. Read the guidleine, the whole thing and pay attention to what it says at the header of the section Additional criteria, for which Athlete is a SUB section of:

Additional criteria

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

Emphasis mine. So, he passes not only WP:BIO under bio's standard criteria, but he also passes under the general WP:N criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're quoting guidelines, from WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic .... "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion"

I'd say that gives me leeway to apply my opinion as to what I see as notable. Therfore i'm going to stick with my view, as he is an athlete who has not competed at the top level, regardless of how many sources have been written about his performances at youth levels or his early life. Its almost certainly academic anyway as he'll no doubt play a pro game eventually and then he can have an article, but please don't suggest i'm ignorant of the guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been that "presumption issue" but that is not what you were arguing above. You have been arguing he doesn't meet ATHLETE and FOOTY and BIO. So, do you have any other arguments you want to throw out there like WP:IAR or simply the Basement12 inclusion guidelines now that your original argument was undermined? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only further advice to you would be to take a quick look at AfD Wikietiquette and possibly WP:DBAD as well, the aim here is to gain a consensus not to try and undermine the thoughts/arguements of other editors. Basement12 (T.C) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have no access to the majority of references in the article I'm going with Neutral. Although, he obviously fails WP:ATHLETE if the print sources listed cover HIM in significant detail he would pass the general criteria under WP:N. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The print media sources are only regional news, not national. Of course they're going to report on local players. There are thousands of local rags that do articles on local footballers, I'd hardly call them a significant amount of media interest. --Jimbo^[online] 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The Oregonian" is a "regional" paper in Utah? Are you serious? And considering the size of the US who decides what is regional vs local? Say in comparison with Peterborough, UK and Cambridgeshire for instance? Additionally, "media interest" isn't really the same as significant coverage. (otherwise a whole lot of stuff that is covered ALOT in a trivial manner would trump things covered very little but, in great depth. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jimbo, as I have yet to see anything about coverage being "national" in any notability guidelines, could you let me know where that is coming from? Otherwise The Oregonian is one of the 30 largest newspapers in the US (higher if you throw out those with inflated numbers due to JOA papers) and is a Pulitzer Prize winning paper, thus easily meets the definition of a WP:RS. And notability is notability, not international notability, not I've heard of it notability. If it were international notability, then so many things on Wikipedia would fail that requirement and need to be deleted (how people in the UK know of Orr, Minnesota?). These subjective viewpoints are the very reason why we try to stick to the more objective standards of the various notability guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair play, apologies for the ignorance on my part. As for Orr, Minnesota that comes under totally different criteria so media interest isn't a factor. As far as I know, The Oregonian reference is a 10 sentance paragraph just stating he's made the All-American team. --Jimbo^[online] 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To continue this thought then, it seems that if it was say a 40 sentence piece, then that would do it for you? Because it is not only substantial coverage, it is substantial coverage or: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;. So that to me at least (your views may differ) substantial is a large article focused on the subject. But trivial is the box score listing or say the ESPN source given that simply confirms his DOB. A 10 sentence piece only on the subject is in between, which is where the multiple parts come in. Here, we have those multiple parts, by my calculation there are 6 of those (though some I think are more substantial). Aboutmovies (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo can you clarify for me the "as far as I know" thing? Are you saying you've seen it and it IS "a 10 sentance paragraph just stating he's made the All-American team" or that you haven't seen it and are guessing at what it MAY contain? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have put "As far as I know, The Oregonian reference could be a..." --Jimbo^[online] 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read it i'd be interested to know where as I can't find some of the articles searching the Oregonian website and I doubt the references were added directly from the original publication itself. Basement12 (T.C) 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips on accessing Oregonian content online, etc. can be found at WP:ORE/RD. Also User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish. -Pete (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it explains the problem but I still can't find (using any of the methods described) the articles themselves to check what content is contained within them. Basement12 (T.C) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use this and copy and paste the article title from the Nimo article ref section, and you get a free preview of part of the article and info on how long it is. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks that worked and I can now find all the summaries. But they do seem to be little more than what Jimbo said, "a 10 sentance paragraph just stating he's made the All-American team". It is nothing more than local interest in the player as a footballer, thus saying to me they are trivial coverage. The only reference that might not fall into that category is the one from Fifa, however that article is not enough for WP:N, particularly given the fact that we tend to apply stricter criteria for sportspeople given the amount that is written about them at all levels of media, hence the existance of WP:FOOTY/N. Basement12 (T.C) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basement, the summary clearly shows "Nimo gets All-America team honor " to be a 359 word article. Having looked at it myself, it has twelve paragraphs -- not one. Focused entirely on Nimo. I share your frustration that it's tough to find some of these articles online, but the fact that you can't see them does not give you grounds to speculate on what might or might not be there. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should clarify that, my point is that just because its 359 words long it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than local interest in the player as a footballer and no more important in establishing notability than if it had been 10 sentences long. There are clear and established precidents for dealing with the articles of young footballers and there is no reason for Alex Nimo to be an exception. Basement12 (T.C) 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTYN guidelines. Let's keep to criteria. Yes he generated local interest, but I can dig up hundreds of articles about many players who fail notability criteria, mainly because of the environment they are in. Colourful fish in a small pond, but would be unnoticed in a big pond--ClubOranje^Talk 11:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original nom has been demonstrated to be flawed. ATHLETE and FOOTY do not override WP:N or WP:BIO to require deletion. These last two !votes do not take into account the more recent discussion. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but ATHLETE and FOOTY were created because WP:N and WP:BIO were found not to be sufficient for dealing with articles concerning professional athletes, particularly when it comes to young players. I'm sure the users who placed the "votes" above were well aware of this given their involement in WP:FOOTY. Basement12 (T.C) 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. People are forgetting that if the argument is that he meets WP:BIO, then any argument that he fails WP:ATHLETE is not relevant. There is significant national media coverage from his U-20 appearances for the USA last year, as well as in Mexico after he appeared in a friendly that Salt Lake played against a Mexican Team. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK. I think the arguement being made here is essentially that, because of the clarifications made in WP:ATHLETE, and WP:FOOTY/N in particular, the events being covered do not pass WP:BIO, i.e. the events themselves are trivial and thus so is any coverage of them regardless of what publication that coverage is in. If there was extensive coverage for something other than being a youth international or playing in a non-competetive friendly the article should be kept (and being a refugee is not sufficient). Basement12 (T.C) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Basement, thanks for summing up your position. The difficulty I have is this: some of the things you say are highly subjective. Whether or not an event is trivial, whether or not refugee status is significant, etc. In my view, this is precisely why we have a policy like WP:N: rather than have Wikipedia editors determine whether the nebulous totality of facts about a person or topic is sufficient to establish notability, we turn to the editorial decisions of established news organizations and the like. In this case, multiple organizations have determined that the totality of Nimo's life to date merit coverage of him as an individual. In applying the inclusion criterion, it is not up to us to determine on what basis they made that determination; the simple fact that they did is enough to establish notability.

I'd also like to address the oft-repeated concern about "local" coverage. None of the relevant policies (WP:N, WP:BIO, nor WP:RS) mention "local" coverage. They talk about the quality of a news organization, but not "how local" it is. If a publication qualifies as a reliable source, the "local" nature of it should not concern us as editors. If there were a case where broad coverage conflicted with local coverage that seemed to carry a bias of some sort, that might be worth exploring; but in terms of determining notability, it is not relevant. -Pete (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree to a certain extent about the issue of local coverage, but you need to understand that in the UK, and other countries where football is a far bigger sport than in the US, media coverage is far more extensive, all the way down to local papers that circulate within small towns or even villages. Thus many, many articles are written in reliable sources on players who represent small or even amateur clubs. The precident is to ignore this type of coverage, a recent example would be Giuseppe Sole's deletion, where sources included some from the BBC, but deletion occured because he had never played a professional, competetive game at senior level and thus failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. The aim of ATHLETE and FOOTY/N is to keep the creation of articles like these from getting out of hand, by clearing up the loophole created by extensive and trivial coverage on sportspeople. Would you allow articles on the 500+ players in Conference National, the 1000+ in Conference North and Conference South, i'm sure reliable sources could be found for them all? Where would you suggest we draw the line? And as for "rather than have editors determine whether the nebulous totality of facts about a person or topic is sufficient to establish notability", how do you think WP:N was created in the first place, why are these other guidelines, which I am simply explaining in a more wordy way specifically to this case, any less valid? Basement12 (T.C) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basement, you raise interesting points, but let's not leave aside a general discussion of where to draw the line. (Or move it to our talk pages, or elsewhere.) We have a specific article to decide on. The example that you bring up (the BBC article about Sole) is merely 3 sentences -- quite a different situation than the multiple full-length articles about Nimo. WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE might be helpful in clarifying cases like Sole's, where the concept of an "article" is not fully applicable, and a brief mention might otherwise be confused for substantial coverage. But that is not the case with Nimo. The articles about Nimo (two in the general interest Portland Tribune, one in the general interest Oregonian, and others in soccer-specific pubs) are real articles -- they have a lead paragraph, and then go into his life history and development as a player. They are not mere data entries that happen to be put on the web as distinct pages. Thus, there is nothing about Nimo that makes WP:N or WP:BIO difficult to interpret, there is no clarification needed. Full articles focusing on the subject in multiple independent publications equals notability. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of where to draw the line is a relevant one, and for now I continue the debate here as it could be seen as a test of the relatively new WP:FOOTY/N guidelines. You are attempting after all to go against what is now the established convention on notability of football players (which to a certain degree has come to ignore general notability guidelines), note the box at the top of WP:FOOTY/N that states "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability or the applicable sub-guideline (BIO, ORG, NUMBER, ACADEMICS, and rest of the sub guidelines)." The key word there I think is exceed. The article from the BBC may only have be four paragraphs but it is from an internationally known media outlet. I don't have access to local publications for the Woking (i'm not sure what they would be) but i'm sure there would be a number of articles written about Sole, another young, up and coming player, that would be equivalent to those in the Portland Tribune, or Oregonian. I use Sole merely as a comparison of an article that i've seen recently which seems to have upheld FOOTY/N, perhaps over BIO. I merely ask that you don't dismiss the expectations set out by other editors who are perhaps more knowledgeable in the area. Just to clarify my position i'm not a part of WikiProject football, my only editing in the field is to keep an eye on articles relating to my favourite team, however I have tended to contribute to a lot of sport related deletion discussions. I will leave a message at WP:FOOTY to draw their attention to this discussion with the aim of getting a wider from its members on the application of their guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is now done. - Basement12 (T.C) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if the role of the WP:FOOTYN essay (not adopted as guideline, I now see) needs clarifying, I'm happy to discuss a bit more. And your note to WP:FOOTY seems like a good idea, I'm interested to see what others say.

I think part of the confusion arises from the note in the essay box that you quote, that "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays…that meet or exceed the expectations…" I think that's a somewhat vague statement, and it would be nice to see it clarified. First, being encouraged to write essays doesn't mean "are empowered to override policy" -- I support the intent to encourage public deliberation, but I don't think it should be understood to created binding rules. Second, what exactly is meant by "exceed" in this context? I'm not sure. Does it mean that the essays should concern topics that should be included even though they fail WP:N, or topics that should be excluded even though they pass WP:N? I'm not sure. Nor am I sure who it is doing the "encouraging," or on what basis.

In any event, I think it would be one thing if the only interest in Nimo derived from his being a football/soccer player. But as with pretty much everyone, it's a little more complex than that; he is also an Oregonian, a Liberian, a Floridian, and a political refugee. That's potentially four WikiProjects (or more) besides WP:FOOTY that may have insight into whether or not there should be an article on this guy. Sure, his prominence arises mainly from his playing football, but there is a point where the aggregate interest based on all those factors pushes an individual over the cusp of notability.

I firmly believe that in such cases, WP:N and WP:BIO are, and should be, the ultimate guide to making this sort of decision, where overlapping WikiProjects are concerned. The simple fact that several, non-soccer-specific publications have chosen to publish complete articles on the person satisfies the notability criterion, independent of whether the publications chose to write about him based on his soccer playing, his refugee status, his shoe size, or whatever else. -Pete (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep - I agree with what you've said there. WP:FOOTY/N is indeed only an essay, yet it is applied ruthlessly at AfD in the role of an endorsed guideline in a one two punch with WP:ATHLETE, hence my previous position. The problem seems to be a chronic misapplication of this essay, and for that matter ATHLETE itself, to overule any other criteria, in BIO etc, in order to delete when infact they should probably only be used include people who may not otherwise "qualify" for an article. This needs clarifying in a wider context and it needs to be made clear that WP:FOOTY/N is not endorsed as overruling criteria for inclusion. Basement12 (T.C) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ATHLETE, but passes WP:BIO - especially the articles from FIFA. Which should take precedence? It's got to be WP:BIO in my eyes, so it's a Keep from me. - fchd (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basement, glad we've found some agreement. I think you're right that the precedent of various policies, guidelines and essays could be made a little clearer, and I'm happy to help work on that if you have any ideas of how to proceed. -Pete (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think the FIFA sources should be used to establish notability as, IMO, they are not sufficiently independent. Although not having a direct connection to Nimo it's obviously in FIFA's interest to raise the profile of football as a whole and the profile of events they organise in particular. Thus, IMO, they are likely to cover subjects that a truely independent source wouldn't. I accept this is just my view and is only one possible way of reading WP:N - others may, quite reasonably, have a quite different view. Dpmuk (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Sources indicate clear notability. D.M.N. (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bordering on delete. He isn't notable as a footballer per WP:ATHLETE and by skimming over the discussion, his only way of passing WP:N is via articles on him as a footballer anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLord Cornwallis (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the references provided in Alex_Nimo#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. As WP:ATHLETE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria, which expressly provides that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included", the subject's asserted non-notability per WP:ATHLETE does not supersede his notability pursuant to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. John254 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: John, I think you've managed to state what took us a couple days and many paragraphs, in a nice tidy package. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Sarah Palin[edit]

Article is redundant to Sarah Palin#Electoral history (before User:Happyme22 removed this section while this AFD was still in process). It is not particularly long and will not get much longer in the near future. Though fixable, it doesn't look nearly as nice as the section in the main article. Redundant. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to existing Sarah Palin article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah Palin. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have placed the tables/charts from the Sarah Palin article in this article, and the Sarah Palin article now properly adheres to summary style. As a result of my actions, I feel that this article should now be kept. Happyme22 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article is incomplete without the tables. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it incomplete? Electoral history of George W. Bush, Electoral history of Ronald Reagan, Electoral history of Richard Nixon, Electoral history of Ted Kennedy, Electoral history of George H. W. Bush, etc. -- this is only a small example of separate subarticles for American political biographies, which Sarah Palin is, and their biographies are not 'incomplete'. It makes perfect sense to place the election tables into a separate article (this one) as not to clog up the main article and adhere to WP:SS. It is a very common practice. Happyme22 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A section with only a {{main}} doesn't seem very complete or common to me. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is structured that way in Ted Kennedy#Electoral history, Bill Clinton#Electoral history, Walter Mondale#Electoral history, etc. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does that mean this article has to follow in the same manner? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course other stuff exists, and there are other Wikipedia articles that structure things differently and place their links to their electoral history articles in different places. Many wikilink it under a heading in the article (John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000, Ronald Reagan#Presidency (1981–1989), etc.). Still others place them in a "See also" section (George W. Bush#See also, Jimmy Carter#See also, etc.) Yet I see nothing wrong with the current format; it simply directs the reader to a different article for many reasons, including saving space in the main article. The nominator, however, has also voiced his opposition to a single link, so let me try something. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to discourage formatting an article based on what previous articles have been doing. As such, we're dealing with Sarah Palin, not the several other articles you've given. That said, a reader scrolls to the section looking for an overview, yet is given a link to another article. Is that what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do? ddAnd because the main article isn't all that long, we would lose nothing by merging the articles. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's better, but I still think it would be better to have the tables there. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not redundant. ~~The only thing at Sarah Palin#Electoral history is a link to this article, and~~ [T]his was created because of complaints that the section had undue weight. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. The electoral history article now looks much better with the tables moved to it, but the original section is now empty without any summary, which does not adhere to WP:SS, Happyme22. Although other politician articles do that, it is still not correct to have an empty header, and they all have significantly more electoral information, making it actually worthwhile to have a new article. As she does not have as many elections to record, and the main article is not as relatively long, I still see no need for a new list. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try something in a minute. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Good balance for the rest of the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expanding in terms of summary, but I see this as fair game for an article. There should be similar articles for at least Joe Biden in order to provide balance, of course. 23skidoo (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is :) Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it gives more detail for the reader who is interested in this type of information --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred[reply]
Keep - There are a number of these types of articles listed at Category:Electoral history of American politicians, so it is a legit topic for a list. Of all the ones created, this was the only electoral history listed for deletion and no electoral history has ever been deleted. Some of the initial issues have been fixed during this AfD and the editors of the article seem amenable to modifications for the article. -- Suntag (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a general rule, I'm wary of article forks about controversial figures unless they're really needed. In this case, we want this information but it would really clutter up the main Palin article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely notable. rootology (C)(T) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? She's only a candidate for Vice President? (Please read the basis for deletion before !voting)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Palin article is getting a bit unwieldy, this is a good fork. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not extensive enough to need a separate article. DGG (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like plenty of useful material. There's too much to fit conveniently into the main Sarah Palin article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any important information into the main page, though. The candidate's page is only 80k, and this page is only 6k, which reinforces that this does not deserve to be a stand alone page. This can be recreated after Sarah Palin's main page is swollen past 140k (or so). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and serves a good purpose. The subject is notable. I would like to see it expanded to include other electoral facts, such as endorsements she earned and so on. Buspar (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Customer centric selling[edit]

A disputed prod, and speedied a number of times as spam, under various spellings/hyphenations. The initial Google hits all lead to a commercial organization which has copyrighted this phrase and uses it to label a commercial product; I suggest this is a WP:COATRACK for WP:SPAM, since there are no citations that I can locate that are anything other than a reference to this commercial product. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I was one initially involved in the tagging for speedy deletions, and the initial articles did indeed link to this company. The creator came back with "Customer centric" (without the external links). I found that the term does seems to be a generally used term / a term used by other companies(eg here) and probably worthy of inclusion - certainly at least until debated here at AfD. I also thought the article title "customer centric" to be too vague and suggested moving it back to "customer centric selling". This has now been done but may have been bad advice for now it is the company name again. Perhaps "customer centric (marketing)" would be better. Anyone familiar with the company already might use WP to research them and come to this article, but with no external links the reverse should not be true. If the article is kept we should keep an eye on it to ensure the links do not return. Ros0709 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this has been the subject of serious publications or mainstream media. There's an endless stream of buzzwords and non notable neologisms coming from marketing and managerial methods. Equendil Talk 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I of course meant to say Take a proactive course and get the article offline utilizing an administrator centric approach based on the content management workflow. Equendil Talk 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not a proper article could be written on the subject, the existing text is a breathless essay that would not be all that helpful to someone writing a better one. The fact that this phrase has been trademarked also raises a strong suspicion of spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. --Masamage ♫ 23:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy![edit]

A "hit song" that's not been released. Apparently it's expected to hit number 5 (shall I lay a bet?). As per WP:MUSIC: "most songs do not merit an article". Booglamay (talk) - 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Author blanked. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and also include Troy Rodriguez (singer). This is a joke; "troy rodriguez grammy" gets no hits outside of Wikipedia. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Author seems to have blanked all related pages (I see TPH has come across some/all of them. I'm not sure it's a "joke", but it is CB. Booglamay (talk) - 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn the article has seen significant improvement over the course of this afd, and I am satisfied with the results. The "delete"s aren't really on any sort of foundation, so I'm calling WP:SNOW too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick on a pig[edit]

Dicdef and list of differnet uses of the term in popular culture. Most of the article has been tagged with {{off-topic}}, and I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anything can become a good article, and the intense focus on this phrase nowadays should give us plenty of sources to work with on its etymology. Besides, not every article in this encyclopedia has FA potential. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are we going to have to put up with this sort of junk until after the election? Guy (Help!) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing yes.[4] - auburnpilot talk 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um probably it's been used against Cameron at least once and is more imaginative that toff.Genisock2 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant phrase, and we should have an article explaining both its origins and its notable usage. Granted, the usage isn't included yet, but that's a reason to expand not delete. This article was only created a few hours ago, let's give it a chance to grow.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 10lb. Not "everything" can become a good article, in spite of HM's cheerful optimism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'keep Eh give it time we will be getting to the analysis shortly.Genisock2 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I removed the {{off-topic}} tag because it was used inappropriately, requiring an article to move the content too. Perhaps the user meant {{trivia}} or similar? Bastique ^demandez 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was explained on the talk page, under the heading Off Topic. The September 2008 was a fuckup, I didn't see that it was rendered as an article parameter not a date parameter. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give your fellow editors a break. the article was created yesterday, and you are expecting a top quality article? Research takes time you know.--Voidvector (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue shouldn't be the quality of the article. It's that the article is a coatrack for irrelevant instances where someone has used the phrase, when what matters is discussion of the development of the phrase and discussion of the phrase (compare this to Santorum (sexual neologism) or LOL). PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my understanding, "discussion of the development of the phrase and discussion of the phrase" is in essence "lack of content". My point is that quality of the article will always improve over time, which will address this "lack of content". --Voidvector (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was surprised that there wasn't an article on this phrase beforehand, and as the references show, it has been used a great deal before the current political usage. The article can be expanded, and is the the progress of doing so - to claim NN is to ignore the long time and widespread usage of it -- all of which is cited. Turlo Lomon (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not sure not seen anything pre early 90s yet. The times doesn't appear to have used it between 1785 and 1985.Geni 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at microfish at a library? The internet wasn't widely used until 1988. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No but there is a digital archive of the times that covers those dates.Geni 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but improve). This is one of 196 articles with the English phrases template, such as Almighty dollar, and Nigger in the woodpile, and Fly in the ointment and Economical with the truth etc. Only one of 196 similar articles is AfD! Hmmmm. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added a ton of references on the talk page of this article for possible inclusion into the article. This is not a passing phrase, but one that has been in the newspapers for years - and there are now the links to prove it. Investigating the times claim - but there are more then one newspaper out there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of trivia is still a list of trivia even if you source it. I don't think anyone is questioning its existence as a phrase, or that it existed before today. Proper sources are only relevant to this article if they explain the origins, or otherwise analyse its usage as a theme. Finding sources just demonstrating it exists is a pretty big waste of time if they don't do that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the intention of re-nominating after the elections if the current political brouhaha dies quickly - but right now the ball is still in play. We may determine that this phrase has become a significant political icon. Simesa (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its use in politics alone since 1992 is a history interesting enough to be worth documenting (and I'd still like to know more, and believe there are reliable sources to provide more). I don't understand why people are hostile to this stuff. 86.44.28.222 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable expression, which will probably become the most memorable phrase of this election. Dems on the move (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is certanly notable now and I think a history of how the term came about is certainly encyclopedic. The article can certainly be much more than a dictionary definition. Dpmuk (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, offered in the spirit of defending lost causes: At most two examples are sufficient to clarify the meaning. Preferably they should be at least ten years old. Anything more is trivia, and an invitation to hang coats on the rack. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. It's obviously a phrase in popular use, but the article will just consist of a definition and a list of times it's been used. Famous people using a phrase doesn't make it notable; reliable publications discussing the development of the phrase do. Just like w:like taking candy from a baby, w:stubborn as a mule, w:like clockwork, and w:sleep like a baby, this is a commonly used term that doesn't have a notable history, so it belongs on Wiktionary. Any speculation on it becoming "the most memorable phrase of this election" is purely speculative, and the article should be kept or deleted based on whether or not it has long-term notability now. If it continues to be used and discussed, then the article can be undeleted and developed into an actual article. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, you're seriously misunderstanding the second guideline you link to.~~ 86.44.29.244 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) stricken, i have serious reading problems[reply]

Aside from the fact that PiracyFundsTerrorism misunderstood "Notability is not temporary", I found it funny that he is trying to tie it with Wikipedia:Crystal Ball to create a position about "future notability". Seems to me his position is in itself a speculation that says "the phrase could have no future notability". --Voidvector (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the issue here. "probably become the most memorable phrase of this election" is quite clearly not a good argument to keep, that's the point he was trying to make I believe. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain what exactly I misunderstood. "Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future" directly disputes the statement that we should keep the article because it will probably become famous in relation to this election, which is exactly the kind of speculation that doesn't belong on here. Regarding "future notability", I specifically said that it may become notable in the future, in which case it would be undeleted. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- its a notable phrase thats been in use long before this election season in plenty of areas other than politics. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable phrase and the article is well-sourced -- most importantly with sources that pre-date the brouhaha over Obama's use of the phrase. The creation of this article clearly was in response to the Obama situation, but this is where Wikipedia is superior to printed encyclopedias -- in taking a topic of current interest and providing historical context. In this case this article shows - in an NPOV way - that the phrase wasn't invented yesterday. Obviously it needs to be policed to make sure it doesn't get weighted with anti-Obama/pro-Palin rhetoric, but otherwise it's perfectly viable as long as NPOV is maintained. 23skidoo (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- What has NPOV even got to do with it if the aim is to actually write something meaningful about the phrase, and not as it is now, act as a container for discussion around a list of examples of its use? I honestly would like an answer to the question of what exactly people think is being imparted here as knowledge by this article as it stands now, that arguably doesn't belong in A.N. Other article? I mean, why here and not Obama sexism controversy (for the 2008 example), Rebuttal of the Obama sexism controversy (for the 2004, 2007, 2007 examples), Criticism of Windows / Vista / Itanium, Article about a book not even worthy of its own article?. As for the Governor of Texas 'sourced' factoid, this has got to be the most uninformative sentence ever included on an article, I have no clue as to where that could go, because I have no idea why it is in here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. I just ran some searches ("lipstick on a pig") and exclude anything from this year, and I was seeing sources and references to this cultural staple expression going back past the days of old Dicky Nixon. If anyone is saying Delete thinking this is some new Americanism because of Obama, er, it's not... rootology (C)(T) 02:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is. The article as it stands is basicaly an uninformative coatrack with no actual sources talking about the phrase, rather just repeating the phrase while really talking about something else. The propensity to prove something by 'running searches' is probably not the best technique for this type of article. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-documented and notable idiomatic expression.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable. If this doesn't belong here, then maybe we should take a look at at the entire category. Article is well referenced, which also helps. -Brougham96 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I spot checked that category earlier, not one of the articles I saw had anything close to the lack of definition/explanation of the phrase, combined with the amount of rambling trivial pop culture references as this article currently has. So other stuff exists not withstanding, yes I would urge others look in that category, for examples of good articles so they realise what this one should be aiming to look like. MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition... all that can be provided is useage and etymology (which is dictionary content) and trivia (which is unencyclopedic). --Rividian (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well keep. DS (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless more information is forthcoming about the history of the phrase itself, this belongs on Wiktionary, not here. howcheng {chat} 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a phrase worth having a short article on. The fact^{[citation needed]} that current events provided the instigation for its creation now is not a reason to delete it. SkyDot (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs) and 23skidoo (talk · contribs), there are literally hundreds of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to utilize that were published years ago about this subject matter from which to draw upon for this article in order to provide historical context. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article finaly has a couple of sources actually about the phrase rather than just being a verbatim sources of its use, however, the contemporary coatrack of popular culture should still be drastically cut back as being an off topic list of trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources, worth keeping. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded and sourced the "origins" section, which rather undercuts any deletion arguments. The balance of the more recent material is really a matter for discussion on the talk page rather than a deletion discussion. Recommend this nomination is withdrawn, and we proceed to the talk page.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- people will check sourcing as we go along & in 6 months we will know whether notability has been sustained. Better than creating it then, when all the sources are cold. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- phrases should sometimes get there own article, especially if it achieves enough common usage. It should also be on Wikitionary Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 12:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those instances where Wikipedia excels from the diversity of its contributors. Republicans can point out that it seemed in poor taste because of Sarah Palin's pit bull and lipstick remark the week before, while Democrats can point out the context of the remark-- and the fact that it's apparently a common remark that politicians use. By now, we've seen film clips of John McCain also using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" in the same context that Barack Obama did. This article turns up when doing a google search for "lipstick on a pig", and people who want to hear from both sides can go to Wikipedia rather than a right or left website. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The content you describe is properly recorded under an article titled Obama lipstick controversy, or a similar section of one of the 2008 US election articles. It categorically does not belong in this one, and over the years the ridiculousness of the content with regard Wikipedia's core mission, will only become more and more apparent. Wikipedia is not a political discussion blog or the google current affairs extension, NPOV and proper sourcing is quite irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "over the years", the content of the article can/will change. Right now, the political stuff is relevant to the subject's interest, and, in fact, the reason anyone is writing or reading the article. However, these are issues rightly for the talk page of the article - content disagreement is not ever a reason to delete.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should split off the political stuff and create a new article on Lipstickgate?--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this was meant as a joke comment, but as per my comment above to Mandsford, you've actually shown what is wrong with the current article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Reynolds[edit]

Fails notability (check WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS). No media coverage, no third-party references, no real world information. A minor fictional character who made a short appearance in a show. Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to find one secondary source, New Zealand Herald, but that was about all, no real significant discussion in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has independent sources. Clearly notabilty, remember that Wiki is free content and doesn't have firm rules per WP:FP. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that the character appeared for only some weeks in a long-running soap opera where hundreds of character's appear? Do we really expect anything more than {{plot}} in this article? We could think of converting to a redirect to List of Shortland Street characters in order to preserve edit history. But is it worth? The secondary source provided is not really important. If the character was a person I would say that "Wikipedia is not a memorial site" (per WP:MEMORIAL). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I don't understand why you're invoking Wikipedia:Featured Pictures. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources to assert notability independent from its series, it doesn't need separate coverage. TTN (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FWIW, merging to List of Shortland Street characters doesn't seem to be an option, since that list is simply names. The list has her name spelled "Lindsay". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:NOT#PLOT. His only claim to notability seems to be that he is an openly gay character on Shortland Street, but this isn't as special as it used to be 20 years ago. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claddagh Ring pub[edit]

Only sign of notability is the Shine Corporate 'Best Customer Experience' Award in 2008. I haven't been able to quickly find information on the award. Other than that, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absoletely zero notability Mayalld (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources to speak of, article appears to be mostly WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hendon#Church End where it is adequately covered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to lack notability -- billinghurst (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at all. Winchelsea (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam for a non notable pub. Nuttah (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McCormick (radio presenter)[edit]

Unnotable radio presenter who fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Already been CSDed at least once, but keeps getting recreated and last CSD declined, so bringing to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Collectonian (talk · contribs), not much else to say here, lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no signifcant, independent coverage thus failing notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Super Sluggers Collectible Cards[edit]

This is simply an online game to promote the newest Mario baseball video game. This is an unacceptable split off of Mario Super Sluggers for various reasons. The article is simply a game guide at best, and any relevant content can be fit in a few paragraphs at best on the main article. I've tried explaining this to the editors involved: but they refuse to listen. I've tried redirecting this to the main article, and it just gets reverted. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete places undue weight on a glorified ad campaign, which can and should be covered in prose within Mario Super Sluggers. The article is a guide in every sense, being nothing more than a list of URL card locations and instructions on how to unlock other materials - Wikipedia is not a guide. Someone another 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trivial, unsourced information, undue weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is clearly no need to have an article for this. -- E.M. talk ● contribs 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not need articles for ad campaigns. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true - see also Where's the beef?, for example. But I concur that there is no independent notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while not necessarily advertising in itself, it certainly fails WP:NOT in many areas, including original research, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:GAMEGUIDE. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above poster, RobJ1981 is wrong. This information is valuable to hundreds if not thounds of children and adults around the world. He also stated Gamefaqs was not reliable, which I disagree with, people can say that Wikipedia is not reliable in the same manner. Once people who care post good and correct information, it is up to the user to consider if it is reliable or not. This article is not a game guide, it is a resource to a collectible card game from Mario Super Sluggers. Not the/and/or video game, but something else entirely. My question is why does he care so much about this page? does he own it? does he need it? he should just lay off and find some others to harrase. Thank you, Daddio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.185.90 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — 69.139.185.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- First, read the introduction on Wikipedia. And if you read WP:VG/S, which is a community consensus, GameFAQs is to only be used for release information, nothing else. Also please read WP:OWN and WP:V. Finally, you will be WP:CIVIL in these discussions and assume good faith. MuZemike (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think MuZemike (talk · contribs) said it best, namely the WP:OR and WP:NOT bits. Doesn't seem like what this project is suited for, especially when there isn't significant discussion in independent reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be covered with a section in the MSS article. Too bad this couldn't have been a simple redirect job without the need for AFD. Pagra shtak 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I note above, we do have some articles on ad campaigns and promotions, but in each such case there is converage of the campaign itself, and the subject's notability is established independently from the product being advertised. That's not the case here, and I'm unclear on why this material cannot be included in the game's main article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the ad campaign gets the coverage required for notability an encyclopaedia article can be created then. Nuttah (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Krutz[edit]

Non-notable. Google search turns up nothing. Brougham96 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He wrote a book - one book, published by a small publisher. Fails to meet notability requirements. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual has not really been discussed at all in independent WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneablog[edit]

Neologism with few notable hits that aren't self-titled so-called geneablogs, most serious Genealogists with blogs call them blogs, not geneablogs. Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak , for example, simply used a blogspot account for a while, calling it her blog. ThuranX (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources writing about the term (as opposed to using it in passing to refer to blogs of a genealogical nature). I think this is a non-notable neologism and, unless several sources come to light, there is no way to write a verifiable encyclopaedic article on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sheffield: apparently a non-notable neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced WP:OR with no referenced value. If there were any sourced material, it would be useful to merge to genealogy, but there is not, so it is not. Cirt (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farey search[edit]

Unencyclopedically written article consisting primarily of long pieces of computer implementation, describing a non-notable search algorithm whose title gets no hits in Google scholar. The article was previously prodded, but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP user. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be original research Equendil Talk 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Google scholar returns no hits and I'd certainly expect some if this algorithm was in any way notable. Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfect example of OR. Nuttah (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. We66er (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hurley[edit]

Individual member of King's Singers. No independent notability under WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move David Hurley (General) to this title (maybe with a hatnote pointing to Kings' Singers). Then delete David Hurley (disambiguation) as well. This singer is not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability beyond the group, no sources for the peacock terms. Nuttah (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/no consensus by Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[5][6]. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meganekko[edit]

Uncited since March 2007, and by looking at the talk page it's clear that nothing has happened that might improve the situation since. As it stands, I can't even verify the article's title is correct (I get more hits when searching for an alternative spelling), let alone the content, which is completely uncited. Shinobu (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Lack of citation is not ground for deletion, subject doesn't seem to be that obscure: article exists in several languages, and a google search returns plenty of results [7]. Equendil Talk 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Life support keep the extraordinarily long of every girl who ever wore glasses in a manga/anime ever needs to be killed with fire, but the basic concept of that article is a noteworthy one I believe. JuJube (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up that dementedly long list (I'd suggest trimming it down to a handful of sourced few and converting it into prose), and get better sourcing. Seeing the term mentioned by mangaka and anime directors several times over the years (including in comments along the lines of "he/she wears glasses because I needed a meganekko character") is enough to convince me that this is a recognized and recognizable character type. I'm not familiar enough with academic literature on manga/anime, though, to provide better sources myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator: what alternate spelling did you use? "Meganeko" will get a lot of false positives, as that's also a common spelling for "mega-neko" i.e. big cat, like the catbus from My Neighbor Totoro. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Japanese spelling without the little tsu. Shinobu (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Sorry, but this is still yet to be sourced, has not been sourced since sources were requested back in March 2007 (whats that, one and a half years ago?) and doesn't look like it will be sourced, either. RFerreira (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anime and manga terminology. The reason it's low-content and unsourced is because it's essentially a dictionary entry. It's very difficult to make a good, well-sourced article out of "the Japanese word for 'glasses girl'", and it really hasn't taken on any specific meaning beyond that which would give people something to write an article about, even in anime fandom, which is why the definition in the article is so vague. Gelmax (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But then you'd still need to properly source the term. Can this be done? Shinobu (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are found in Japanese and English Wikipedia doesn't need all sources in English. And meganekko characters are presented in each anime/manga series (with those sources). This correct title is meganekko (see the talk page). Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so easy to find sources, source the article. For the double k thing, see above. Shinobu (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean it's not worthy of being an article. I agree with those above that it's very difficult to find good sources for pop-culture words, especially when it's in another language. The bottom of the page could really use some clean up though, perhaps a shortened version consisting of a handful of notable Meganekkos would suffice. Either that, or create a separate page for the list, though with the main page under debate for deletion I can't see much of an argument to make separate page with a list of them. —FantajiFan (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @"Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean it's not worthy of being an article.": Please read WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The authors of the article have been given ample time to source it, but no sources have been added. Shinobu (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm new to nominating articles for deleting. Do I have to {{subst:adw|Meganekko}} ~~~~ all authors manually, or just the first, or can this be botted or otherwise made easier in some fashion? Shinobu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the creator only, but it's considered good form to also notify editors who have done significant work on it since. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Ignoring minor changes and those by the original author most content appears to be written, as determined by quickly clicking through the edit history of the article, by Animedude360 and Sana Jisushi. I will notify them now. Shinobu (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources, but I'm sure they can be found through searches of Japanese cultural magazines and anime publications. The topic itself is notable. Buspar (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm sure they can be found" means the same as "I haven't found any yet". Notability isn't the only criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is even more important. Shinobu (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:V says "should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". It does not say that entire articles which have insufficient inline citations must be deleted." In this article, what information is likely to be challenged? Any? If not, then throw away all of the above arguments about verifiability. Now back to notability. If sources exist in another language to show that there has been significant non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, then the subject is presumed to be notable. IF we don't have an English translation of the sources available, then we have to assume they are valid until proven otherwise.Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Deep[edit]

This is too forward looking and speculative at this time, fails WP:CRYSTAL in the very worst of ways. JBsupreme (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I have outlined as nominator, not to mention problems with verifiability. JBsupreme (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V problems; I trimmed out the worst of the spammy language and peacockery. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL. I attempted to try and save the article and have been able to find some information, but not much; only about what actors have signed on for the film so far. Not to mention that I have found articles stating the release date will be sometime in 2009 while other articles state the release date will be sometime in 2010, so this is a violation of WP:V as well. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: shooting hasn't begun yet. Cliff smith ^talk 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now... bring back when filming commences. If not quite WP:Crystal, it fails WP:NF and at the moment, WP:GNG. It needs to bake for a while yet, and move from pre-production to production. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not enough info yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even when a film comes out it has to be note-worthy enough to merit an entry, never mind when it hasn't gone into production. Lets have another look when it hits the cinema Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Filming / production has yet to begin, this appears to be beyond saving for the moment. RFerreira (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CBALL and WP:NFF, lacks notability and substantial coverage. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 21:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SNES Game Maker[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - There is similar software out there that could be the reason why the software is under development. Similar articales on wikipedia speaks of these similar peaces of software Robert (talk) I nominate to act against deletion, it cannot be deleted for 30 days giving Johnson enough time to appear and edit the articale in order to apply what would be considered undisputed sources. Also, the articale has been deleted twice already and this will be third time, the next time it is posted, it will be posted by Johnson himself due to discovery that the articale is no longer avalible. Information that can be used to contact Mr. Johnson must be found so that I may have time to place it in the articale itself. I want one of you who are for deletion to change your posision based on my proposal. Place a message on my talk page that will lead me to the original author.
—Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — Roberttheman2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Uncited, unreleased, non-notable. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ An emerging project is rarely notable. There are no reliable, verifiable sources listed in the article. No assertion of notability. I found none on the internet. Anyone favoring speedy deletion might want to know it has been speedily deleted twice before. A case could be made for speedy deletion as an advert. Dloh cierekim 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

switch to strong delete and salt per creator's attempt to buy Wikipedia on article talk page, see User_talk:Roberttheman2008#Talk:The_SNES_game_maker and because this is the third try at deletion. A rather sad attempt at spamming the 'pedia. So unable to meet notability and verifiability that it must use Wikipedia for promotion. Dloh cierekim 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, crystalballing, describes a program that, even if it were out now and verifiable, might not be notable. Different versions have been speedied a few times in the last few days, though AfD is probably a better place, since A7 isn't supposed to apply to software. gnfnrf (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:N. ~~Possibly Speedy Delete via CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) depending how the article was "deleted twice already".~~ Equendil Talk 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Conflict of interest, original research, and crystalballing. Article's creator needs to read basic Wikipedia policies. Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't apply since this is the article's first time at an AfD. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I am calling for every single active member to be contacted in an attempt to find any imformation that I can't find as I intend to repost the articale if deleted. It cannot be considered spam if the information is true. Robert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment You *should* follow the links offered here and read about Wikipedia's policies. Further attempts to recreate an article if deleted through this AfD process would result in speedy deletion. Equendil Talk 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment-- this is user's second !vote. He is AKA "Roberttheman2008". See above. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14

05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: (to Roberttheman2008) Slight clarification on the above: Recreating a previously deleted article will cause the article to be speedy-deleted IF the new article does not address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. If it's deleted now, and the subject of the article later becomes notable and you can provide reliable, sourced information establishing its notability, it will not be speedy-deleted again. At that time, a new AfD review would be called for if someone wanted to have the article deleted again. Conversely, re-creating a deleted article just for the sake of doing so will not only get it CSD'd, but it may get you blocked for disruptive behavior. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the subject of the article should become notable in the future it would be best if the article were re-created in user space, then a WP:DRV filed for others to discuss whether it actually meets the notability issues discussed during the deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm just going by what CSD G4 says - that gives a provision for improving the content in place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely disgusting attempt to spam Wikipedia as evidenced here where the article creator basically tries to bribe Wikipedia into keeping the article. I also believe the editor needs an indef block as he is committing himself to making trouble, regardless of how inane it is (lol me & my pals wil boycot teh wikipedo!) JuJube (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt spamitycruft (or whatever neothingy you want to make up for it).Article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:COI, and any other number of policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell it doesn't pass a single one. Threats to recreate if deleted means it should be salted. The threatmaker can still recreate in userspace and seek approval for moving to mainspace if a remotely encyclopedic article evolves. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're looking for WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MuZemike (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — A request for comment for user conduct has been initiated in regard to the situation above. MuZemike (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt per Dlohcierekim. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references available, crystal balling etc. AlexJ (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's untitled third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beyoncé's untitled third studio album

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums in that the only confirmed details are the release date and the titles of a couple of songs. Nothing else that can be reliably said about it at present. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and the arguments at Wikipedia:HAMMER without prejudice for recreation nearer to the time of release. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything that's sourced here can easily be included in the Beyoncé Knowles. Consider AfDing If I Were a Boy as well, since all that appears to be sourced about that is its existence and release date. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Not enough verifiable info yet. I already redirected the single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I redirected this from the fake Queen B! title and removed the fake track list. However, this is beginning to get some reliable press and November is only two months away so expect the hype machine to start turning and the media blitz to begin. I'm not opposed to a delete per se, but honestly, with an artist as high-profile as this I'm thinking a recreation will be inevitable very, very quickly. - eo (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Piracy: the title and track list are unknown, so the sourced content here should be in the artist's page (Beyoncé Knowles) per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. RockManQ (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although I like WP:HAMMER it's not Wikipedia policy nor a guideline and therefore can be ignored if necessary. Although no title has been announced as yet, the Billboard coverage satisfies notability and established verifiability of this article, even if an album title is not yet available. If it's coming out in less than 2 months, a title announcement is no doubt imminent so there's no point deleting this if it's just going to be recreated soon anyway. Additional: I don't know if anyone's checked it lately but WP:HAMMER has been revised to include a notwithstanding clause that allows for articles like this that have been sourced in the way this article has been. 23skidoo (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreate it when it has a title, til then it's hammer time. JuJube (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title or not it isn't notable, hasn't come out (and may not ever come out despite what is currently said). Clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Billboard reference means including it in the artist's article is reasonable but, on its own really doesn't support a separate article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is getting stronger, with two reliable sources. --Efe (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with crystal hammer until released. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It will be notable like the king's word in a couple of months. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Why delete? theres lots of other pages focusing on upcoming albums that have been announced officially, why not keep this one aswell. The album is due for release in two months time which isn't that long really, keep! Wneedham02 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotheology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page, previously deleted as being non-notable, has been recreated. The page as it stands is no more than a dictionary definition. I can only find two sources that directly relate to the subject -- a dictionary definition and the one Derham book cited. I see no reason to think that the article as it now stands is any more likely to be sourced than it was back in June. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, as it is just a definition and there are not reliable sources suitable to make it anything more than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- with a proviso. As it stands today, the article is nothing more than a definition and suitable only for Wiktionary. However, there do appear to be 8 direct titles on Amazon, among others which include the subject, and the popular internet film Zeitgeist (2007 Film) which discusses the subject. As well, a google search shows quite a number of ongoing discussions between advocates and debunkers, which suggests notability. I would suggest keeping the page for the interim and revisit it in a couple of weeks. If hasn't developed further, than it should be transwikied post haste. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is essentially that this period of grace -- looking for reliable sources -- has already happened with the previous AFD. Looking at the books in Amazon.com (almost none of which appear to have been published in the UK), I am extremely unsure that there is a coherent subject to write about, rather a few authors who have used the term to describe their own theories. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Point taken, Sam. However, in reading through the previous Afd, it appears it devolved into a revert war concerning a classic definition of Astrotheology as it relates to Natural Theology. (Unfortunately, the old page history is gone, so I can't place it in context) I admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject, but it seems that Astrotheology is being discussed in a different light these days. NASA historian Steven J. Dick devotes a section to it in his 1998 Cambridge Press book here, writing ...astrotheology in the 20th century came to describe the considerable modifications of theology and religion that might develop in the wake of the discovery of intelligence in the heavens. Which suggests a changing topic from the one in Natural Theology. Therefore, I was looking for a way to merge it and then redirect the page while editors sourced out a bit more. I first thought Natural Theology where it already is mentioned, but given the last Afd discussion, I doubt editors on that page would allow any expansion there. I also considered suggesting New Age Spirituality or somewhere in Cosmology, but I'm not sure about those either. If there isn't a decent "merge and redirect" point for it, I still think a "weak keep" is in order given the popular amount of press and blather found on internet searches, and the discussion by a prominent guy like Dick. Thoughts? — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a chance. It is unreasonable to flag for lack of content only 4 days after it's been created. As for notability, I think it is easily demonstrable by a simple search and by the fact that entire books were written that were devoted to the subject (e.g. William Derham, "Astro-theology: or A Demonstration of The Being And Attributes of God From A Survey of The Heavens" (1714) which by the way was published in London UK). The fact that information on the subject is not so easy to locate is all the more reason to try to have it here on WP rather than fight it. Estr4ng3d (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article is original research with a hint of spam. Far from having only 4 days to develop content, this is a recreation of an article deleted months ago. The one external link is an ad for a non-notable book. Of the three references in the article, one is to that same non-notable book and the other two do not support the subject of the article. Edward321 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is enough material to write a coherent article. Used in the context of teleological arguments, the term has a subtantial history, including William Derham's 1714 Astro-Theology. That the modern new-age spirituality use of the term has deviated from its roots at the intersection of natural history and religion is not cause to delete the article, but rather evidence that it can be developed into something more substantial than a dictionary definiton (and the Cambridge University Press book cited above draws explicit connections between the two eras of use). I don't have a full copy available, but it looks as though the topic has even seen some discussion in scholarly journals, such as this article [8] in Biology and Philosophy. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself makes evident that it is talking about several different things-- the question of salvation of postulated individuals elsewhere as a theological topic is one thing; deducing God's existence and properties from the nature of the heavenly bodies another. Both of these are perfectly good topics (plurality of worlds, and natural theology,respectively), but this article is not a good start to discussing them. DGG (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite simply bollocks. Seems to confuse a archaeological astronomy or Archaeoastronomy - which is a pure history/science discipline with theological debates within Christianity about the soteriological possibilities if extra-terrestrial life exists. Both are valid topics, but utterly unrelated.--Troikoalogo (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Ray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nom. User:Mywikieditor2007 tried to afd this but didn't do it right. No vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His book did hit #6 on one of the NYT lists.[9] --Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for the original nom (whom I've notified) to say why they think the page should be deleted. If they don't respond, I'll just close this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, two previous james ray pages were deleted as vanity pages, one was even marked for speedy deletion - last year i don't know if the circumstances have changed that his page is not considered a vanity one. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its nothing but a thinly veiled ad, like his previous pages. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a thinly veiled ad? It looks fairly neutral in tone to me, it's not written in a promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for example the 'harmonic wealth weekend' Harmonic Wealth Weekend

Ray has become known in the media and press for talking about “Harmonic Wealth”. This focuses on teaching individuals to create wealth in all areas of their lives: financially, relationally, mentally, physically and spiritually. He claims that his two-day, transformational event helps participants achieve more harmony in all areas of their life. Ray has been known in the media and press? then it goes on the soft sell the harmonic wealth weekend, which, presumably is an expensive seminar. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, per WP:CREATIVE. Yes, his book is on the nyt bestseller list, and there are numerous hits on google news. However, I simply cannot find significant coverage, and the accumulated minor things and trivial coverage I find in the article or at google don't seem to be enough.
Note that I also think that this is an autobiography: the article's author also uploaded the professional photograph Image:JamesArthurRay.jpg, and claims to be the copyright holder. --Amalthea^Talk 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through the same exercise as Amalthea and arrived at the same conclusion. Lots of coverage, but everything I read was trivial mentions... it's arguable whether he's a "noted expert" in his field; he does seem to get called on a lot to discuss motivational stuff. But without better sourcing of HIM as opposed to his words about other people and issues, I don't think this article demonstrates the notability required here. Townlake (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't have to like what he does or says, but he has appeared on national tv multiple times, appeared in a controversial movie, and lectured around the US. There's an interview on WGN. I think we need an article. If there isn't much to say about him from reliable third party sources, then it can just stay a stub. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question: if his page was deleted twice previously, what is the policy if he put up again? Brianyoumans - the problem is, i guess if its put up as a stub he'll start posting the adverts again. these 'noted experts' seem to make their living by self&cross-referencing and self promoting their 'expertise', so it seems, to me this page is only helping to enable that..Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD was in 2005; possibly he has become more notable since then. I don't know what the article looked like at that time, or at the time of the speedy deletion. If someone tries to add inappropriate material, then it should be removed. I don't think the potential for "spamvertisment" is really a valid reason to delete. You are free to keep an eye on the article by putting it on your watch list. I think I will do that myself. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A recreation of an article deleted per AfD is in principle speedily deletable per WP:CSD#G4 – this doesn't apply here for several reasons though, see the conditions there.
  Besides, as Brianyoumans said, the last AfD was three years ago, long enough that policies and consenus can have changed. --Amalthea^Talk 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of this guy in recent years. Motivational pitchmen are as American as apple pie. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes the article does strike me as a little bit promotional, but the notability is there (meeting WP:BIO in my mind) and can be equally verified as well. RFerreira (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he made the NYT best seller list, he;s notable. That a very high standard to meet. Regardless of why so many people thought his work notable enough to purchase, they did do so. DGG (talk)
- That would make the book notable, but him? I don't think WP:CREATIVE presumes notability for book charting. I don't mean to disrespect the Keeps here, but they seem to mostly be based on WP:IKNOWIT arguments instead of actual sourcing. Am I wrong? Townlake (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. having a nytimes best-selling book does not necessarily make the author notable Theserialcomma (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, the article reads like a vanity page/advertisement Theserialcomma (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT bestseller author does imply notability, one can construe various parts of WP:CREATIVE that way. It might not be proper to use an obscure, highly specialized bestseller list that way, but the NYT is the big time. Sometimes their brief comments on the bestsellers are subtly snarky, but their prominence and existence means significant critical attention among other criteria.John Z (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability guidelines, I'd also class him more as an entertainer than a creative. RMHED (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association[edit]

An article on a group for doctors and dentists who are Christians. Nice, but not important as far as I can tell. No independent sources. A few thousand ghits, most of which appear to be blogs and social networking sites. External links make up much of the content and without the internal and external links it would be a very short article indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Not Notable - loose group of people Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008~~ Indef-Blocked as sock puppet Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and link spam Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the linkspam should go and yes it's short, but I'd say it is notable as an umbrella organization of multiple national organizations, some of which have articles too. Also gets some Google news hits and book hits. RMHED (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof of notablity. A group of people by job who have the same religion isn't self-notable. We66er (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Lane Park[edit]

Article fails to establish the notability of what appears to be an unremarkable public park. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support - I agree with the above comment. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Pit-yacker (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- it is difficult to tell from such a slifght stub whether it is notable or not. In my experiecne the best solution for articles on minor geographic features is to merge them with an article on the area where they are located. In that way the information is retained, but the temptation for inconsequential details to be added is reduced. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know what information there is in this article that you believe ought to be merged with any other article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the entire (short text) could conveniently be added to an article on the locality. Peterkingiron (talk)

Delete per initial description - maybe it belongs in Wikitravel. Simesa (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's girl fetish[edit]

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then delete again. I don't even know where to begin. Deltabeignet (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. I don't really care what the subject of the article is, but I do care that there are no sources. I ran a few book searches I found nothing on this topic, just some psychology texts on non-sexual family roleplaying therapies. Reliable sources covering this fetish are needed, otherwise there's no evidence this is an encyclopedia article rather than original study of the hobby of random internet people. The former is good, the latter is not what Wikipedia is for. --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Ageplay with cleanup Atom (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to even warrant a merge to Ageplay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where to begin to rework this article!--Ret.Prof (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the potential literary sources, this can stand on its own. As usual, we will probably have to adapt what we consider as reliable sources to this type of article, just as we do for other subjects that lack representation in the conventional mans of publication, and where most of us are unfamiliar with the actual literature. In my opinion, another in the continued saga of deletions of alternative sexuality. WP, the supposedly contemporary encyclopedia where things not found in maintream lterature are ignored. I care about the representation of the subject field, but not quite enough to go looking myself where i would need to look for sources. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS's, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is an actual fetish rather than merely a vanilla sexual fantasy (that is, an activity that is used for sexual variety rather than an actual preference over all other sexual expressions).

— James Cantor (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire fetish[edit]

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Vampires as a subconscious sexual metaphor is something that has been explored in both pop writing and more serious works, but I'm not sure if that warrants this as a separate article from 'vampire'. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If vampire fiction does refer to sexuality then there's not much point saying we have something distinct here in a "fetish for vampires", unless behaving like a vampire for sexual arousal is worthy of a article, but this seems akin to supporting an unreferenced article on "kids enjoying pretending to be ghouls". Redblueball (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yes, the fetish does refer to(pretend or fictional) vampires. But since vampires are intrinsically fictional that's not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the fetish exist? Why not also write an unreferenced article about "Non-sexual vampire role-play"? Redblueball (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This fetish (more accurately called a paraphilia) is discussed in more than one high-quality RS (examples follow), but the professional literature calls it "vampirism." I recommend keeping the page, but renaming it to match the RS's.

Vanden Bergh, R. L., & Kelly, J. F. (1964). Vampirism: A review with new observations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 543-547.

Prins, H. (1985). Vampirism—A clinical condition. British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 666-668.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thank you - I agree. Redblueball (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a list of semi-notable at best obscene phrases. It is entirely unsourced, consists mainly of original research, violates our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, and our Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information policy. Therefore it should be deleted from Wikipedia, with the option of giving it to Wikiquote or Wiktionary proposed to those projects. MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary/en in the appendices. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equendil Talk 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profanity is as much a part of an ethnic group or nation's culture as etiquette is. Just as one should know what is considered polite, one should also know what is offensive. While I'm sure there are some readers who would get a juvenile thrill out of knowing how to use a bad word in Brazil or Portugal, there are many others who would get an understanding of what words to avoid using. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wickipedia is not a dictionary, not a tourist phrase book (or How too guide). It is certainly not a portuguese dictionary. Without sources is no point even to transwiki.Yobmod (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series of articles on profanity by language, this needs expansion, not deletion. It would be helpful if a Portuguese speaker were to de-listify this and expand on the cultural resonance of the various words. But there is no deadline, and even the opening paragraphs are a start. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia WP:NOT a dictionary. RFerreira (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the series; even though not yet well developed, the solution to that is to work on the article. The nom mntioned that much of it is obscene--I hope that did not count in the nomination, for WP is not censored. DGG (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, censorship didn't play a role in my choice, other than to the extent that defining what is and is not profanity is an inherently individual term (outside of published literature) and therefore runs into original research issues. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are two conflicting issues in this discussion: the topic of the article and the content of the article. The topic of the article (Portuguese profanity) is valid and notable -- it is a subject of interest to students of culture and language. However, much of the content of the article (the list of words/phrases and their translations) is probably more appropriate in Wiktionary. (I write "probably" since Wiktionary has its own inclusion criteria, about which I know very little.) Is it possible to keep and transwiki? (Note: this is essentially the same comment I typed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin Chinese profanity.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profanity is a rich vein of cultural insight. Much more could be done to this article it needs expert attention and referencing not deletion. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amuso[edit]

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 9 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, BJ^Talk 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable. Equendil Talk 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial link at Google, no Google News results, so not notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, is news covered and the information in the article is absolutely correct 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.160.69 (talk)

Keep - newsworthy - covered by The Guardian (UK National Newspaper) in this article and industry leading blog Mashable in this article. Nickentrepreneur (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.77.59 (talk) [reply]

Delete not notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caselex[edit]

Disputed PROD. Not quite /blatant/ advertising, but pretty damned close. Plus dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:SOURCES, WP:COMPANY and, as there are no sources, WP:OR. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated to counter arguments for deletion. Caselex is a high impact service, see award won in 2008 and classification provided by epractice.eu listed under sources. The alliance that has built and supported the service is substantial, however if you are not into European law it may be hard to grasp the value and contribution of Caselex. However the pure fact that the service is supported by the European Commission represents a ground to include the service. The included sources demonstrate the points made in the article. Ellenbeate (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Caselex has been covered by many reliable sources in many languages, certainly compared to other online law databases: Caselex: 31,300 hits on Google; Lawtel: 14,300 hits; "Scots Law Times": 13,900 hits; JustCite: 5,600 hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.192.220 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC) — 82.156.192.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Case law reporting in Europe, and for the European audience, is in the Stone Age compared to the US. This is partly due to language and cultural barriers, and equally about national publishers not moving to cover international content for their national audience. Not even the leading international publishers covered by Wikipedia have been systematically covering case law on EU law topics like Caselex. This is why the Caselex service is a leading example of how Europe can finally move towards case law reporting, tearing down previous barriers and leading the way as best practice example. The service is notable and the current presentation cannot be seen as a marketing plot.--Nwschk (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)— Nwschk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepI have worked for the European Commission (basically the European Government). Its support is only awarded to worthy initiatives that Europe is in need of to move ahead towards its political objectives. Caselex is also supported by the leading associations representing most of the lawyers and judges across Europe. I presume none of these would be interested in distorting the market. So why support to Caselex? Such support is only granted because there is a recognised need from a societal perspective which the private sector, or the market, does not deal with. Why then should it not be included on Wikipedia? To me it is notable, it has demonstrated its support and links to the societal value, and this service is not built on unpublished facts, undocumented research, speculations or wild ideas. Harmonisation of law and Europeanisation of law are key points on the political agenda in Europe. The consortium and its supporters lends sufficient credence to the role Caselex plays in this context.Rodemackertje (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)— Rodemackertje (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 9 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, BJ^Talk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to say that this argument for keeping an article, because the European Commission says so, must be the strangest I have yet encountered. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. 1. I use the service in real-world work, so probably it is notable. :)) 2. Like any startup, it will either pick up or vanish. It does not qualify automatically under notable website guideline. 3. The article has issues that can be edited out (peacocks/weasels), these are not arguments for deletion. 4. Ultimately it's all about twisting general notability rules. Some would say the sources are good, others will object that there are no major independent reports (no reuters or bbc or whatever your favorite newswire). But keep in mind (as the anon already said) that EU legal scene is quite a closed and fragmented realm, nowhere near as public as Mongolia or the United States. NVO (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage about this company. It may become notable, but it doesn't appear to be right now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep major international service, descriptive article. The paragraph about the types of law included may not be necessary as an internal linkfarm, but otherwise it is not in the least promotional. The sources are adequate. News reports are not necessary. DGG (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable organization which whilst not likely to be much covered in newspapers is still adequately sourced given its only really been in existence for a year. RMHED (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmy[edit]

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It's been covered by the Washington Post, the inquirer, etc. 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had some coverage. Equendil Talk 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan X. Cote[edit]

Contested prod by anon. A local councillor, nothing more nothing less. The article makes no claims as to meeting WP:BIO and there are no obviously available to sources to establish a claim. Nuttah (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a local politician of a medium-sized city and apparently without any substantial news coverage does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians criteria CactusWriter 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 5 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, X clamation point 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Also obvious COI and apparent copyvio from one of two websites ([10] or [11]). No substantial WP:RS cited and none found in search. A 3-year council member of a medium-sized city doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced bio of minimally notable municipal councillor. It is possible for a councillor of a medium-sized city to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, since the bottom line there is the quality of the sources rather than the office itself, but this article as written certainly isn't demonstrating that point. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this councillor should be able to meet WP:Politician, based on the fact that he is a councillor in a MAJOR metropolitan area (Metro Vancouver). However, sources need to be presented that establishes his notability ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"). - DigitalC (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- just to clarify, this person is a city council member for New Westminster -- a medium-sized city of ca. 60,000. He is not a member of the Vancouver City Council in Vancouver -- clearly a major city of ca. 600,000, and as such, whose council members are considered "major local politicians" and all have brief bios on WP. Both cities are within the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a major city and not otherwise notable. DGG (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nuclear future[edit]

Non-nuclear_future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Article gives the views of "energy analysts" who are only anti-nuclear, a clear POV fork. (This is I believe my first afd nomination, so bear with me.) Simesa (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while merging the various pro/anti-nuclear debates into one section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. This article represents a fork of that section. Simesa (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a clear pov fork, and does not present a balanced view of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anti-nuclear movement Energy policy Nuclear energy policy Nuclear Power are as many articles where this can be addressed with NPOV. Equendil Talk 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Index[edit]

Article is a wholesale copyvio from CPA Journal Online, reads like an advert, has no sources (been tagged for a year) and is a generally substandard article. I think its time for it to be put out of its misery. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 17:39, 5 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, BJ^Talk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. minus the copyvio which I don't see. Equendil Talk 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio is of this article [12]Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recockless[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN dicdef. -- role^player 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN dictionary definition/neologism, suspect it might also be something someone made up one day. --Dawn Bard (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism made up at school one day. Nuttah (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Middle School (San Francisco)[edit]

Delete for non-notability. I would argue that Middle Schools, being there are so many, are inherently non-notable. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to San Francisco Unified School District#Middle schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In combination with the in depth coverage by the San Francisco Chronicle and the several awards the school has won, inclusion appears warranted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oakshade's find has prompted me to look further into this article and here there are several awards and non-trivial coverage. I will expand the page tomorrow ... TerriersFan (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.L.A: The Chronicles - Marble (film)[edit]

Advertisement for film not yet made, by non-notable director. VerticalDrop (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: shooting hasn't even begun yet. Note the possible COI. Cliff smith ^talk 17:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is premature. Bring it back when/if filming begins and there is WP:RS for verification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advert by one of the film's actors. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong[edit]

Software Freedom Day is notable, celebration by a little team in Hong Kong is not. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nonnotable very local evet. Mukadderat (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 9 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, X clamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no reliable coverage about this group -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega X[edit]

This page has been speedily deleted three times now. Its a yet to be released Sega emulator with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Hopefully this can be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising, crystalballery…, the list goes on. TN‑X-Man 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As notability grows fast, I say keep. -Former co-developer of Sega X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.35.238 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Product has not been released, and admits to being in development for an extended period. If & when the product is released and independently reviewed, reevaluate at that time for notability. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just found My product on wikipedia, as to one of My developers wrote an article 1. without letting me know to give out such info, this is why I vote delete and to be salted until Sega X earns it's notability after December 13th, 2008 when it is released as a final. Please delete this article now or I'll do it myself, not to be rude, but I don't like inside people leaking My projects, as this article could be a start. -CB (For security reasons, I will not give out My full name and IP and I had bad experiences) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.35.238 (talk)

Speedy Delete - Chris is not happy at the moment, so as a close friend, I'm voting speedy deletion as he wants this article to disappear within 10 mintues. (note: We use same IP's as we are on the same network Dannyianrodrigues (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G DATA AntiVirus[edit]

Similar to SuperAntiSpyware, the software makes no assertion of notability and is nothing more than an advertising vehicle for the company. seicer | talk | contribs 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This page just shows an anti-virus product which is mentioned in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antivirus_software --Emperordarius (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I wish people stopped building lists of every piece of software ever written and turning every item into a link. Equendil Talk 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't mind freeware finding its way to Wikipedia all that much, but this is a commercial product, and it is not notable. Equendil Talk 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per seicer. No assertion of notability and functions as an advertisement for a commercial product. Enigma ^message 22:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An encyclopedia should have as much information as possible, especially if the information is correct. But since you have no idea of what an Encyclopedia is, and since the administrators are so stupid to listen to your baby cries, then do what you want and Screw you. [unsigned comment by Emperordarius 03:54, 13 September 2008]

Comment Emperordarius, that last reply is uncalled-for and does not help your case. Please remain civil if you want to stay in good standing here. JGHowes ^talk - 22:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think for items like this, respected bloggers are usable sources, if its known that they are regarded as reliable. DGG 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for Usenet despite lack of major press coverage; clearly verifiable (at DejaNews). JJL 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, USENET nostalgia notwithstanding, as I remember a little of this but it surely doesn't seem important by itself even in terms of USENET history. There are no reliable sources -- nothing at Google Books or Google News Archive. (Even alt.fan.karl-malden.nose is mentioned only a couple of times in passing, and not in relation to this.) Perhaps some of the material could be merged into newsgroup spam or (less targeted) troll (internet). --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:JJL. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a USENET archive can be a reliable source on matters of USENET history. And I'm sure secondary sources for this could be found, possibly college newspapers from the schools where this was going on, or I.T.-related journals, even if they're only available in print. Also disagree with the interpretation of OR, this article merely brings together several sources without promoting an opinion or deducing any new facts. Squidfryerchef 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources here folks. Whispe ring 11:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was looking around in ODP, and the GWU.edu page this article uses as a source is one of only ten pages in the "Usenet History" section. I'd say that being one of only ten chosen articles on a historical subject speaks well of it as a source. Also I'd like to point out the term has entered the net lexicon, ex. Net Abuse Jargon File which means that it's notable and it's not just an argument in a Beavis fan group 12 years ago. Squidfryerchef 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the "guide to deletion" page: "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous."
Keep — a worthy, verifiable article ➥the Epopt 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the important details to a subsection of newsgroup spam, as an example/case-study of that phenomenon. Per Dhartung and mergism. --Quiddity 01:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per notable and veriable. -- Kai ^talk 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgerless burger[edit]

Not needed, not referenced, and the article it self does not make sense. A burger does not automatically mean meat, a burger is a patty that cane me made from non-meat sources, so saying a burgerless burger and then saying it has a non-meat patty in it does not make sense. Plus there is already Veggie burger, if anything delete the article and merge with that one. Sugarcubez (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was under the impression that a "burgerless burger" was an empty plate. Seriously, no reliable sources, dicdef, self-contradictory. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for having lots of original research and precisely naff-all common sense. It also boasts a complete absence of sources too, for good measure. How a BLT can be classified as a Burgerless burger escapes me and quite frankly is messing with things beyond our control. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above. I can't be bothered at this hour to retype the various rationales. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I appreciate the author's idea, this is original research (I'm presuming that the author has either been to these restaurants, or looked at their websites), and it shows the problems with drawing one's own conclusions. I think the author assumes that anything served on a hamburger bun would be a burger, since three of these appear to be a "cheese sandwich"; yet a piece of chicken on a bun is not a "burger". What most people would consider "burger-like" would be something that resembles a ground beef patty on a bun. Consider adding to the existing article Veggie burger. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sort of speechless here, but Onebravemonkey pretty much sums it up for me. RFerreira (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, never mind, withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive rock supergroups[edit]

Overly narrow criterion for a list. No really clear definition as to what progressive rock constitutes for the former, no sources for either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that there was a previous attempt to delete List of grunge supergroups that failed to reach consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grunge supergroups. I've tried to do some work on List of progressive rock supergroups and added a citation, but the article could certainly do with more. I'm not certain I understand the criticism of "Overly narrow criterion": given how long List of progressive rock supergroups is, it's hard to see it as a narrow criterion! I also don't understand the criticism that there is no clear definition as to what progressive rock constitutes: there isn't in the article, but there's a lengthy discussion of that in the progressive rock article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "overly narrow" is why just lists of supergroups in these genres but not a list of general supergroups? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a reason for creating some other articles, not a reason to delete these two. Given the length of these two articles, a List of supergroups would be unwieldy anyway. Lists of supergroups in other genres might be desirable (List of punk supergroups anyone?) and having these two lists isn't stopping those being created. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prog rock has had a greater tendency towards supergroup formation than other genres, so I think the scope is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some work into adding citations to the prog page and they're out there, so I like it's possible for this article to improve in quality and there is no strong reason to delete it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I am willing to userfy for any editor interested in merging some of this content to other articles, provided such editor agrees to maintain GFDL attribution, which would require undeleting the history of this page and referencing it in the edit summary when merging content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hymers[edit]

Where to begin? The subject fails the notability criteria (in general as well as WP:ENTERTAINER), verifiability, and WP:NOTINHERITED (in an admittedly weird reading of it maybe). Article has no assertion of importance/significance that I could see and it was tagged for speedy as such (a tag which the author removed in direct contravention of the advice provided in the tag). The show he was involved in may in fact be notable but, that does not confer notability to him, nor has he been covered in any significant form by reliable 3rd party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The 1940s House, since that appears to be notable and since the references in the article support the program. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the article as it stands, lack of notability of the person seems pretty much beyond doubt in my view. If The 1940s House or something similar existed, I would suggest merging, but the fact is that such an article does not exist and might not meet notability requirements if it did. The show was nominated for a pretty major TV award, but failed to win any - which means it doesn't meet even the secondary criteria in the related Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. Also, no independent, reliable sources are cited in the current article to establish notability of the show. Merely being shown on a major British TV channel is not enough, in my view, if it did not get mentioned by other sources. The current article is also not a great starting point for an article about the show. Based on all that, I disagree with the above suggestion to move the current article since I feel that it's just delaying a valid deletion nomination. GDallimore (Talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly move, per above, but probably delete as non-notable. If he's barely 19, he has time to become notable :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

The reference to the IMDB proves the notability of the programme, and the individual's (Ben Hymers') notability within said programme. The belief is held that such notability is not in contradiction to WP:BIO. Thankyou. Thomwilkinson (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The show may be notable, but that would be borderline. However, the cast are not unless they can show significant coverage in independent sources. Nuttah (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant spam. – iride scent 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovaflo[edit]

Contested prod. This went from being a very short entry about non-notable software to almost blatant advertising. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: presently, this is a copy of four paragraphs of the second page of this. Looks pretty blatant to me. Cliff smith ^talk 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: It is a copy I give you that, I just wanted to draft something, it's work in progess, I want to describe the concept of meta workflow and have Ovaflo as an example of an implementation. This is my first post, please guide rather than just delete. Gean Boegman.

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2[edit]

Article also fails both WP:N and WP:NOT just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Forces. See WP:SNOW.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is designed exactly the same way and has exactly the same problems as the former:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this fails both notability guidelines and verifiability policy in that neither of these two aspects of the Combine have been scrutinised in this level of detail by reliable, secondary sources, and although I imagine The Combine itself has covered by such sources, there's no evidence of independent notability for these spinoffs. Many aspects detail information are of use only to players of the game (hitpoints, weapon damage, entity spawn codes, spawning behaviour, advice on how to defeat enemies, etc), in breach of Wikipedia is not a guide and points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of inappropriate video game content. Likewise, particularly with the technology list, this stuff is pretty indiscriminate, against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, listing things down to a door and a shelf for storing weapons. Large parts of the articles consist of speculation, and it is primarily the result of original research from playing the game. This level of detail is simply not needed, cannot be saved and should be disposed of. Most (ie not the doors and shelves) already exist comfortably and in proper context at Combine Wiki, generally in better forms, so there is no need for a transwiki. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails the WP:N guideline, because a search reveals no reliable third-party sources that cover this subject. Also fails WP:V, because "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also fails WP:VGSCOPE, because we only allow a WP:CONCISEPLOT rather than a detailed list of every weapon/technology/enemy/etc. in the game. Randomran (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least keep the information about Citadel in List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2#The Citadel? Maybe delete the old page and create a Citadel (Half-Life 2)? Unlike the other technology in the article (which can be unnecessary information), It has a big importance in the game and in the game plot. Or maybe it's better to transfer this information about Citadel to City 17? --Kotofei (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree some coverage of it is warranted, although not a separate article, as that would have all the same notability problems here. I'd suggest covering it in Combine (Half-Life) if anywhere, but the information contained on it here is still far too detailed for any encyclopedic coverage of the Citadel. You'd be better off just writing something new about it in either the Combine's article or if you wanted to City 17's article (both articles have their own problems that need to be addressed though, although unlike these two up for AfD they are surmountable) than trying to merge from this version strewn with original research and excessive plot and fictional details. -- Sabre (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Combine (Half-Life), as this is far too detailed a series of descriptions to even begin to meet WP:VGSCOPE and related guidelines (esp. WP:WAF). Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no redirection. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as overturned non-admin snowball keep of previous AfD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Smackdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Most of the discussion of the page is written as an advertisement for the website. For example, the first sentence of "Concept" states "The Movie Smackdown concept is based on the premise that to succeed in the Internet age, film reviews need to be more fun and more surprising. They need to be, whenever possible, as entertaining as the films they seek to criticize or praise".

A large chunk of this page has very little to do with the website itself. For example, "Evolution (and Revolution) in Film Criticism" has nothing to do with Move Smackdown itself. Rather, it just comes across as an essay on film criticism in itself.

This was nominated for deletion before (obviously). One of the "Keep Votes" (User:CineTex) is obviously a single-purpose account: all four of his edits deal with Movie Smackdown, and his "Keep" vote was a large impassioned essay. Another "Keep" vote, from User:Walkingbillboard, also made all of his edits on the deletion page. Yet another "Keep" vote, from User:Pusster1 made his sole edit on this page. Another Keep Edit, User:Chickflix made their first edit on this page, and the rest of their edits were on the page for Bryce Zabel, the creator of this website. Did anyone look into this at all when making their consensus? CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article could be re-tooled to focus on the concept rather than the website, which sort of seems to be the direction it is taking. It's still spammy, true - but the previous AfD closed as a firm Keep only five days ago. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you think that Keep wasn't helped by all the single-purpose accounts I mentioned?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's obvious that it was, but the proper place to dispute an AfD would be Deletion Review. Of course, Deletion Review would say "Fine, re-nominate", which you did, so it's a non-issue. I mentioned it because I knew the question would come up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Sorry, you're right. I just assumed that "Deletion Review" was for articles that were deleted, not for ones that passed but I see that it goes both ways.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real reliable sources about the site itself and plenty of coatrack material to boot. This is a valid relist, as I feel the last one was improperly closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's spam for the website (although maybe unintentional) this fails the required notability and verifiability levels for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OhMyGod that last AfD was terrible. One spa, Two spa, Three spa, Four spa who blanked the Afd, Five spa. The main contributer is spamming other pages with link to this site. And I have no idea what was running through RyanLupin's mind when he did a snowball keep. Delete and keep your eyes open for any spas. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate to play the Devil's Advocate here, but the blanking was of the discussion's talk page because the user put his opinion there first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply, yes but it was still an SPA acting unusually, the AfD should not have been closed as a keep. Darrenhusted (talk)
    - Oh, I'm not doubting that part.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank goodness. After being the only editor who voted delete at the first AfD I thought I must be reading a different article to that seen by the other voters. This site fails WP:WEB as it hasn't multiple, non-trivial references. (In fact the LA Times article doesn't reference it at all). Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a website that fails to assert notability. Original version was extremely keen to point out how just plain great this site was, too. That's been removed, but there is precious little left of note. Might be worth taking a look at Bryce Zabel too, as it's written in a very similar style and contains about the same level of references. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should Zabel be AFDed as well?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having looked at a few more of the sources, I think he might skirt in under the notability radar... but it certainly needs one hell of a rewrite.OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the person who did the most on this, I'm sorry to see how this has turned out. It was only my intention to write up a page about what I thought was a noteworthy site, like Rotten Tomatoes or Megacritics. I can see this was controversial and I should have learned more about Wiki before starting. As it stands now, I'd take it down entirely, rather than see it as is currently. Thanks for listening. Ablebaker2 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has anyone asked the closing admin of the previous AFD to comment on this? I'm uncomfortable with the idea of overturning a keep decision on an AFD only a few days later, no matter what the reason; it sets poor precedent unless it is fully understood why. Having the closing admin either admit an error OR dispute the criticism would be good. 23skidoo (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it means anything, User:RyanLupin performed a non-admin closure. But I'll ask him right now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Just checked his talk page. User:UltraExactZZ already told him. And while I'm not sure, it appeared RyanLupin was unaware of the keep votes being SPA accounts.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon-X[edit]

The subject of the article, the web comic Pokémon-X, doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. The page is badly written, and badly laid out, as well as most of the work being done by the comic's author themselves (as user ReconDye). It does not have a neutral point of view, nor any cited sources. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, failing WP:N. The one claim to fame is that it is in the top 100 in some gan poll of web comics, but it is not clear how representative that site is and how strong a claim to notability that is. In addition, the article seems to be written from a positive and uncritical point of view, and based on inside information or on the work itself. It belongs [Bulbapedia, not Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks sources and WP:COI issues don't help. Nifboy (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respiration of human / mammal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Respiration of human / mammal

Redundant to respiratory system, which is of significantly higher quality. Title is unlikely search term, so keeping it as a redirect seems useless. Huon (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also, this cites no source and seems to be original work. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, reads like original work, redundant, title is an unlikely search term. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay. I'm sure I've seen this (or something very much like it) around here before, too. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination,& per Dawn Bard. Also what is this being distinguished from? "Respiration of human/fish?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
~~Exhale~~ Delete Unsourced essay, anything that could be sourced is already in the article on the respiratory system. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails an epic failure. It burns my eyes. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Anyone who says this article is worth keeping is most likely ridiculously inclusionistic. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- and I'm sometimes ridiculously inclusionistic. Simply put, there is no benefit to forking this concept from its base article even if we were to overlook the total lack of citations and pitiable condition of the text. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident[edit]

This is a non-notable bus accident. This article was written shortly after the accident when it was still in the news but Wikipedia is not a news source and it should have been deleted back then. Creating articles about every road accident that gets into the news would not be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia. And who, outside of the area that it happened in, actually remembers this accident now? Notability is not temporary. Millionsandbillions (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTNEWS. Huon (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep following expanded coverage. If the crash changes the behaviour of federal agencies, it's notable. Huon (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not notable and WP:NOTNEWS Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it still looks like a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. The debate on seatbelts in buses has been on and off for decades so I can't agree that this is anymore significant than other crashes based on that alone. The overseas news coverage doesn't make it anymore notable than news coverage in the states of americans dieing in a bus crash in germany would make that crash notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some concern as expressed in the previous struck-out comment about it being just a news atory about a vehicle accident,, but 2 new refs (3 are shown but 2 are based on the same AP story) indicate some societal effects in bus licensing and possible governmental requirements for laminated glass and safety belts. Revisit this later to see if the seeming significance in terms of new rules and new equipment requirements pans out. Edison (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the local newspaper Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The National Transportation Safety Board is involved, and perhaps there will be recommendations from the NTSB or an inquest which will result in legislative or regulatory changes. http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/bios/hersman.htm lists Deborah A. P. Hersman as "the member on scene at 11 major transportation accidents", including the Sherman crash. So this isn't just a local issue.

As well, the fallout from the crash has already begun. See these stories: Feds nix new bus company licenses after crash. Sherman crash angers those fighting for bus reforms. Activists say belts, special glass can save lives; industry defends standards --Eastmain (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the crash was covered by media outside Texas, including the International Herald Tribune and The Times of India. --Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done relooking but, I have to say that just because news is covered internationally doesn't mean that it still isn't news in wikipedia sense. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Traffic accidents involving buses tend to produce greater carnage than those involving cars, but only because more people are in the vehicle. This measn that they get greater press coverage, as sensational. Neverthelss, this seems a very ordinary accident, and does not need an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Refers to safety issues involving buses. If there a magic number when a road/rail/ship/air accident becomes notable because of the number of deaths, 17 may be enough? PS: I was asked to write the article. Hugo999 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastman's logic re NTSB involvement. A similar rationale has been used for aviation accidents/incidents i.e. that involvement of a major investigative agency with attendant (likely) impact on regulation or operation brings notability. Reviewing the NTSB's list of Highway Accident Reports and Briefs suggests, by looking at the second numeral, which is the annual report index, that they rarely produce more than 3 or 4 formal Highway Accident reports per year (for some reason they went crazy in 2002, with 19, but many are similar and there may have been a 'campaign' to cover many similar accident causes that year.) That would tend to suggest, if this accident generates an NTSB report, that it's one of the 5 most important US highway accidents this year, certainly grounds for notability I think. In fact, I note the NTSB has announced a public hearing; not even all aircraft accidents get one of these. That usually signifies high profile and likelihood of significant recommendations.MadScot666 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This page is normal. If you say it a new reporter and should be delete, then all of the pages in Category:Bus accidents in the United States would be delete too because they all discussed about bus accident/disaster. There're also many other articles that look like news service, like 2006 US raid on Iranian diplomats or 26 July 2007 Baghdad market bombing. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't finished but, other stuff needs deleting isn't a valid rationale to keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that there are some who will point out that bus crashes happen all over the world, and that not all of those get their own article. On the other hand, there is no reason to delete an article about a fatal bus accident in Africa or South America. If 17 people were killed in an airplane crash, it would be considered notable, and I see no difference here. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the difference is in rarity of occurance (just as a beginning). I fail to see what point you are trying to make with the reference to accidents in Africa or South America? Would you mind elaborating?Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it is relevant to the point about recentism (which I think, by the way, is a good point!). Would this be notable if an editor hadn't seen the breaking news coverage of the accident on CNN, and news items that night on NBC? I'm saying that if someone were to create an article about a bus accident that happened on March 5, 1998, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where 32 people died, it would be entitled to the same deference as a bus accident that happened in 2008 in Texas where 17 people were killed. I can guarantee that the Texas accident received significantly more coverage on CNN, however. Looking back over your original point, you raise recentism, which is most certainly relevant. People see something on TV and want to create an article about it. In the case of a recent event, we have to ask the question-- regardless of when or where this happened, would it be notable? My opinion is that any accident which has a significant number of deaths is notable, regardless of when or where it happened. I know, "significant" is something that's a matter of opinion. And before anyone calls me on it, I know that Sri Lanka is not in Africa or South America. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sri Lanka incident was a terrorist bus bombing campaign. How can you compare the two? [13] Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to non-"routine coverage" and fallout events. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political corpse[edit]

Neologisms have no place in Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page may be qualified as original research, but the term is certainly not a neologism. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has fewer Google hits than "random terms" Martintg (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a turn of phrase used as a coatrack for a news bite. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Randomly picked-up libel to push political POV.--Kober^Talk 13:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Russian propaganda during Russian-Georgian war or simply as Russian propaganda and significantly extend.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: this page was deleted on Russian Wikipedia per CSD G.10 — VasilievV ² 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, blatant POV Pushing Iberieli (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Text discusses only one use of it? If Saakashvili gets assassinated as a result of this, that would be notable, but one nasty remark/threat is hardly significant. Simesa (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We cannot create articles for every phrase that politicians "create" for one another unless there is something more substantial behind it. In this particular case, the article seems to serve more as an attempt to label Saakashvili with certain adjectives than explain the significance (which itself does not seem to exist anyway) of the phrase. --Ubardak (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mikhail Saakashvili --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another tidbit of Russian hatemongers attempting to rewrite their own language. The idiom existed for quite a while. NVO (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idiom has been in use for ages. KNewman (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the delete votes did not far exceed the keeps, none of the Keep rationales provided a convincing policy justification. For instance, one of the keep voters said "There is a huge universe created by Angie Sage in the Septimus Heap series and fans are willing to read all the information." Factors that Keep voters should have addressed were WP:PLOT, which is part of policy, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which is an essay but has a lot of influence. The Times Online article cited in the AfD discussion clearly shows that the Septimus Heap series of books is notable, and it is well-justified to have an article on the series, which is what Septimus Heap is. But there was no evidence provided that the Septimus Heap *character* has been addressed and commented on by reliable sources. I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who believes they will be able to add sources and improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap (character)[edit]

article on a fictional character that does note cite notability UltraMagnus (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Snorri Snorrelssen because it is unreferenced and fails both Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (under Elements of fiction) and Wikipedia:Plot. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little late to add new articles to this nom. Meanwhile, Marcia Overstrand and Jenna Heap have been created, and I think it's best to open a new AfD for the three of them. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with sgeureka's reasoning and boldly followed his suggestion, moving Snorri Snorrelssen to WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Heap with the other newly created pages with exactly the same problems. Huon (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis may be a tiny article, but someone will notice it soon and then begin to edit it with style.--RoryReloaded (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Size is irrelevant; it's the notability that counts. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT because it does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional character biography. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources to establish real-world context or notability, fails WP:FICT. Huon (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the main character in a series of books which have received good critical reviews and good sales per Amazon,com. I do not like to see every character, scene, event, spell, location, and gizmo in a book made into a separate article, but a breakout article about the protagonist of a series of books following up on the Harry Potter phenomenon, seems reasonable. See Times online: "Angie Sage's Cornish wizard Septimus Heap follows Harry Potter to Hollywood"which talks about this character, in addition to the book, its author, and the forthcoming Hollywood film.The article says th Heap series has "soared to the top of the book charts." At the same time, I strongly discourage breakout articles for all the other minor characters etc from the series until they have substantial discussion in reliable and independent sources. BBC News also has coverage of this character. Pakistan Dawn discusses this character as well, but expresses regret at the number of characters, a reason for my reluctance to green-light articles for each character. Edison (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect in its current form (pure plot summary at best, pure original research at worst), or upmerge into List of characters in the Septimus Heap series (along with Snorri Snorrelssen and the redlinked characters from the template) to allow the addition of analysis/reception by reliable sources. The mentioned sources above do not convince me that this character can stand on its own as an article (yet), although these sources would be excellent for the main Septimus Heap series article. – sgeureka ^{User_talk:Sgeureka•c} 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Very Strong Keep~~ There you go. It's now in the process of getting rescued by WP:ARS. Let's see what happens now, critics! RoryReloaded (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not vote more than once. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This should probably just be merged to a list of characters from the fiction, or just to the fiction itself.--UltraMagnus (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Extreme Keep~~ Septimus is famous and the main character for a well-recieved series of books. Well, I'll be off now... can't waste me time. RoryReloaded (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already put in a !vote above. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's good now, so why delete? --RoryReloaded (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is good now? Double-voting is never accepted, and the article hasn't improved at all (no sources or analysis were added). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look, he has triple voted....--UltraMagnus (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even notice... – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:PLOT and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (under Elements of fiction). A short paragraph of actual character information (not plot regurgitation) can easily be included into the main series article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a popular Fiction character. Please guys don't delete it. There is a huge universe created by Angie Sage in the Septimus Heap series and fans are willing to read all the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas2186 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no linking to the real world at all, therefore no establishment of notability. From a search I can see no coverage of the character. Nuttah (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very hasty nomination minutes after creation. It may well fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) but that is currently just an essay. The other problem with regard to Wikipedia:Plot can be fixed with editing. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Fantasy[edit]

Appears to be a Fancruft/Vanity article, unsourced since July 2007, few pages link to the article, mostly Wikiproject links. I don't think this has gotten to the notability level of the Troops fanfilm as well. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Confusing nomination, why not just use a prod? Also please note accusations of "vanity" are deprecated on Wikipedia because they're considered unnecessarily insulting (see WP:VANITY). -- Nevertheless, since the AfD process has begun my recommendation would be delete on notability grounds.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being "Old School," but I saw nothing in the general deletion instructions that disallowed noting "vanity" in the nomination. Skipping that point, I did normal Google and Yahoo searches: this was one result. It would seem that unless the film as about Iron Kingdoms or Final Fantasy (oddly enough, it was via a mistype in a Final Fantasy search on Wikipedia that showed me this article), it has already failed the Notability guideline as I don't see any "verifiable" third party articles (or is buried so far into the search results or under an obscure search parameter/words). It also appears to be a pure fancruft article given the tone of the article and the Trivia section. Also, it was tagged in July 2007; there is a line when you can only give so much before deletion is the only option. Seeing it's September 2008, whomever had an interest in the article had a good year to clean it up with an extra 2 months thrown in for being unoticed. I tried to at least attempt to salvage the article, but as stated above, to meet current Wikipedia guidelines, it failed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting as the article is, and wonderful as the fan film might have been, the article fails WP:NF because it does not have WP:RS to support the WP:GNG. If that changes, so will my vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world relevance per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, to S Marshall, I did see WP:VANITY. Did you see the part where it says "Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the people it is applied to"? JuJube (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ree dy 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burwell village college[edit]

Some essay by a (presumably) former student. Not notable,at least not in this state. Fireaxe888 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of beloniform fishes[edit]

Prod contested (a year and a half ago). Page is just a gallery, which violates WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate subject for article. Brilliantine (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, beautiful pictures, no article. Huon (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, galleries should be at commons.--Grahame (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy, item 4. If there is not room in the parent articles, consider breakout along lines of subject matter rather than a media dump. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Every image I looked at was either already on Commons, or uploaded here under a licence that makes it eligible to move to Commons. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper article topic. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for image galleries. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual gallery of Adelidae[edit]

Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Also nominated:

Visual gallery of Arctiidae
Visual gallery of Cerambycidae
Visual gallery of Crambidae
Visual gallery of Geometridae Fram (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - inappropriate subjects for articles. Brilliantine (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, those are not articles; they fail WP:NOT. Huon (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy, item 4. As per nom, expanding as a field guide would not be an encyclopedic topic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: links to commons categories containing images fulfils the purpose of these articles.--Grahame (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not proper subjects for articles. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a repository; articles consist only of image collections. SchfiftyThree 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acland Hospital[edit]

Hospitals are no different from organizations they must pass WP:CORP. Nothing I can find anywhere gives this hospital notability. It can not be called notable because of those it was founded in memory of because notability is not inherited. (Although a mention in that persons bio may be appropriate. Being sold also does not create notability....I mean you have to be kidding! benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Delete~~ AS per my nomination... benjicharlton (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviewed my discussion based on the new information added to the article

Delete A hospital can be notable, but no evidence this one is. No inherent notability just because it is a hospital. Edison (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A little research reveals that the building is designed by the leading Victorian architect Sir Thomas Graham Jackson and the notable patients include John Betjeman and C. S. Lewis. I have added this information with multiple references and believe this passes as a notable building as well as former nursing home and hospital. — 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a pizzaria serves someone famous, they dont become notable. This is a run of the mill nursing home, and NN RogueNinja_talk 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not even "run of the mill"...it's closed.....benjicharlton (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no in-depth coverage of the hospital anywhere, only mentions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is non-notable and despite being designed by someone famous and having famous former patients notability is not inherited. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Clearly not notable as a hospital. (Changed vote below.) Not convincingly notable as Acland Hospital building. A list of works by the architect belongs in and is in the article on the architect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at google books, there seems to be an entry on it on p. 6 of The Encyclopedia of Oxford, ed. Christopher Hibbert, London: Macmillan 1988, ISBN 033339917X (snippet only, so I don't know what it says). Mention in Pevsner (given in the article) also strongly suggests notability. As to famous people having stayed there (more candidates in Google books), the comparison with visits to a pizzeria is not appropriate (a serious biography will say what hospital its subject stayed at, not every restaurant they ate at). N p holmes (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable (1) a building by a notable architect (2) a nursing home that operated for 125 years. Even though it is now defunct, the article is worth keeping for its historic content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable building, notable architect, notable history, sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to sufficient rationale provided by Bduke (talk · contribs) and Peterkingiron (talk · contribs), it was relatively simple to find independent secondary sources which give significant discussion of the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? I hope you don't mind me asking. Brilliantine (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses" - in Bristol Times And Mirror, April 19, 1897.

Canada Free Press, November 16, 2004.

Some additional book sources "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses", "Acland Hospital", "Acland Nursing Home", "Acland Home", hospital

The fact that there is an entry in The Encyclopedia of Oxford is also compelling.

There is enough info there in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to establish notability, not to mention also enough to get this article up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Encyclopedia entry I would say is not at all compelling. It has thousands and thousands of entries for what is essentially a pretty small city. Pretty much every street would be notable by that standard. I am still looking at the other sources, as Google Books is being very slow today. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is unimportant now, I hope, since Cirt has updated the article, but Brilliantine's description of The Oxford Encyclopaedia is at odds with what the review in The Oxford Review of Education 16 (1990), 126 says "The Encyclopaedia comprises some 1000 entries" (accessible via JSTOR). Since these are on institutions, places and people as well as buildings, it ought not to be surprising that Oxford has more than a thousand notable subjects. N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please see changes made to the article incorporating further information from an additional (16) WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Changed vote.) Improved article shows clear notability. Good work Cirt! ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ningauble (talk · contribs), most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done Cirt, thank you for all your interesting research. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, it was a fun little expansion project. It was most interesting in the course of research to learn that George V of the United Kingdom officially opened the new buildings of the facility on May 12, 1879. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I extended the debate for a second time to allow time for editors requested to look at this from WP:WPVA. This has happened and they have endorsed the deletion, as failing wikipedia's requirements regarding a combination of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Please note this is not a vote, but a debate related to policy interpreted by informed consensus. Editors whose only or main contributions to the encylopedia are to this debate or the article concerned carry very little weight compared with established editors. See also WP:OSE. Ty 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis St. Lewis[edit]

Non-notable artist. Google search returns only local mentions, no national coverage or other reason for WP:N. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this entry: Artist is represented in multiple museum collections, and has been reviewed numerous times by national and international publications over the last 20 years. His collaboration with Sean Yseult of White Zombie and his activities as a openly gay artist in the South ad to his distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.242.120 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider professional artists with more than three museum collections worthy of note, and this artist has more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia does not have listings on very notable museums such as the New Orleans Museum of Art ( which happens to have the largest collection of Faberge in America), the Morris Museum, The Masur museum etc. seems to run contrary to being an informative encyclopedia. While I can certainly understand your needing entries on Paris Hilton, I would certainly hope that in the end, your purpose would be to include a myriad of institutions and people of note and merit....such as Louis St.Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 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, RMHED (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist, no reliable sources. Above user (s?) seem to be the author or involved with the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there really were numerous reviews of St Lewis' work, the article should easily be sourced. Sadly, it isn't, thus failing WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'"Keep'", google search clearly shows articles and reviews throughout the country for this artist as well as museum references on askart.com The artist has many google hits as well being an arts writer. Just how many museums are needed for an artist to be worthy of wikipedia..3--5 - 50? It's ludicrous to think that a well known and well collected artist is being considered for deletion because of the lack of arts knowledge by some on this site. What is Ironic is the fact that there are pages upon pages for murder victims from obscure crimes here on wiki, yet this artist's importance is up for debate. If wiki cares to be considered having any integrity whatsoever, they truly need to rethink their mission. I personally think that what this entry needs is someone capable of editing, placing references, and registered facts about this artist, as opposed to just deleting the entire entry. What is especially striking to me is that many of the editors requesting deletion for this entry have as their own entries a series of shopping malls and other obviously " notable" organizations. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia deals with what is, not what ought to be. LSL is not notable; the claim that there are other non-notable articles in the encyclopedia does not change this. DeGawl (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"' updated references and links have been added to this listing, which more than adequately supports the artist's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete (see below) for now. There should be more links to on-line refs, as most are recent, but Florence Biennale and other claims suggest notability. Most coverage is in the US South, but not everyone has to live in New York. This article should have been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts from the start - nominator please do this. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 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, Ty 08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of accessible and reliable sources required to show verifiability. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [14]. Didn't see that source in the article so it might be a new one. Very borderline. Neutral for me. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm in agreement with Johnbod. While being a "featured artist" at the Toronto International Art Fair means little (trust me), appearing at the Florence Biennale is significant. Coverage in Artpapers is also useful. There seems to be enough coverage to establish some notability. There are problems with the article: no inline citations for some of the claims (i.e. Warhol's comment) and way too much name-dropping for my liking. But this can be fixed. I suggest erring on "keep" for this one. freshacconci talktalk 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On reflection, I'm now leaning towards delete per CactusWriter and Huon. There are too many unanswered questions and unsourced claims. That much of this may be a self-promotional stunt is troubling. Unless these issues are addressed and corrected, I say delete. freshacconci talktalk 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or gut it. The problem with the article is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. It includes large amounts of un-sourced material -- no in-line citations -- and much of it of dubious nature. The entire early life portion appears to be an exaggeration, if not a parody, and is unsupported by any evidence. The person's own account only states that, as a teenager, he was in high school (not a child genius at the university) and he was expelled from the North Carolina School of Arts. The AP article states this person is a self-promoter and he admits making up stories about himself. (for example: on his website here] he implies that he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford from 1980 to 1981 - check the bottom of the page.) What can be sourced is that he has written an art column for a monthly city magazine for four years, his artwork is exhibited for sale at several North Carolina galleries and he is known in North Carolina as a pop artist. (The Ogden Museum does not presently list him among the artists in their collection. And commercial galleries which are trying to sell artwork and post bios based on unchecked information from the artist do no qualify as independent sources.) Unfortunately, this article might pass notability criteria, however without any veriable information it is difficult to judge. The article will need to be deleted or, at the very least, gutted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the unsigned IP address posted their response below, I noticed that the subject had altered his web page from [15] to [16], removing the Rhodes Scholar bs that I mentioned above. This continuing pattern of deception is problematic. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I find the problem with this entry to be the fact that several of the statements deal with publications that predate google or being able to be easily referenced. The artist does indeed seem to be represented by galleries in California ( under the name Louis St.Louis) as well as New Orleans and the Carolina's and to possess a extensive exhibition record and notable critical references such as ArtForum and ArtPapers. With half of his career in the 80's and early 90's it comes as no surprise that the facts are hard to pin down. The reference to the Ogden Museum not having the artist listed on it's website should not neccissarily negate his being in the collection, and it seems that this article is at the least in need of paring down and cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Second vote. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the lack of results whenever one tries to find confirmation for something mentioned in the article extremely troubling. The Ogden Museum has an "art search" option that, according to their website, searches all their collections, but it doesn't find anything on Louis St. Lewis. Or take the "51st. annual DAG juried art contest" where he's supposed to have been ranked first. The only relevant Google hit for the search terms "DAG", "art contest" and "St Lewis" is - his Wikipedia article. I wasn't even able to find out whether there is a "DAG juried art contest", an odd lack of information for an event supposed to be held for more than half a century. For the Florence Biennale I'd like to see a reliable secondary source before I beleive it. Their online list of artists goes back to 1997, and St Lewis is not on that list. Huon (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do get that his work was auctioned by the Ogden at a fundraiser (home page search), but that is not much help re notability. What is the link to the Florence list? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's this [17]. Appallingly designed and I'm not sure what it's authority is, but probably legit. No sign of the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"' -What"s is most appalling is the fact that if a fact can't be found in 30 seconds via google then it doesn't exist. This artist has been recognized since the mid 80's and documented by reliable sources since then. BUT because they can't be referenced in 2 seconds via google, the rats come out in droves. aaaaawhat is Wiki's viewpoint on references that have been removed from websites after a few years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

In which year did the artist participate in the Florence Biennale?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Biennale website. I did find that auction at Ogden mentioning St. Lewis, but the article explicitly claims his works are part of their collection. I just mailed the registrar of Ogden; he should know if the Art Search is correct or if they do have some work of St. Lewis. Huon (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find those pages before - he's not there under LE LO SA or ST, so changing to delete above; we seem to have a merry prankster on our hands. What a lot of Lopez's though. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Ogden registrar replied that their collection records are not complete online; St. Lewis is represented in the Ogden collection by two paintings, Self-Portrait as a Dandy and The Prophecy. Now we'd only need a reliable source, something I found extremely difficult to obtain when St. Lewis is concerned. Huon (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - do people think this, & the other (smaller?) museum collections mentioned in the article are enough for notability? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on that, Huon. It provides a confirmation to a point all of us felt could be made -- the subject would probably pass the criteria for notability. However, we are still left with the original problem of WP:SOURCES and verifiability. WP:BLP guidelines are clear that biographies of living persons must err on the side of caution. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. (emphasis is WP's); and ...badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. (emphasis is mine). The discovery of so much dubious, if not blatantly false, information about St. Lewis is still problematic. So the question remains: What improves WP's standing more -- the inclusion of a North Carolina contemporary artist of minor notability, or the lack of a self-promoter with an apparent desire to create his own mythology? If kept, the article needs to be gutted, and then will need to be carefully watched to prevent further BLP violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Additional information and links have been provided to this entry. Anyone who has referenced the askart.com website surely has noticed that they contact the museums before listing them for each artist. It could have saved the time of people contacting the registrar at the Ogden Museum. As you can see from the added sources, there are many references to St. Lewis' notability over the years, and even an Ebay listing where they are selling a page from ARTFORUM magazine featuring St.Lewis' portrait of Andy Warhol from 1988. The fact that many of the periodicals listed have not kept articles online for reference certainly doesn't take away from this artists notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Ok, now something seems kinda crazy to me. Some folks here seem to be saying that the artist is running a fast one and doing so without use of verifiable information. But lets look at facts. The links show that the artist is indeed in multiple museums ( even though some people might find southern museums objectionable, they are still very much museums). The entry states that the artist works with Sean Yseult of White Zombie, and has statements by Andre Leon Talley, both of these are documented. The entry shows comments by Warhol about St.Lewis and there is a link to the mint Museum of Art that actually links an article where St. Lewis talks about meeting Warho back in the day....not to mention a link on EBAY where they are selling a page from the International Magazine ARTFORUM featuring an ad by St.Lewis about Warhol. Now I don't know if people here are aware or not, but regular local artists don't get full page ads in ARTFORUM, not now and not in the 1980's when each page would have cost $ 5000 +. I think this is an example of someone caught between print and internet, where verifying is more difficult than most because of the lack of online information. I also note that someone mentioned above were the other museums "smaller" museums. Anyone who has ever dealt with the New Orleans Museum of Art, knows that it is a major institution that rivals any museum in the country. St.Lewis' inclusion is worthy and distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - by now there are lots of external links, but I remain unimpressed. A collection of articles written by St. Lewis, passing mentions, and gallery blurbs. The low points are a forum entry, a Wiki, and Spanish eBay. Those are supposed to be the best secondary sources on a notable artist? I think not. All those "sources" don't even once mention his date of birth, for example. Huon (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many problems here, too vague, too ambiguous. Clarify, simplify and come back when you're ready...all this explanation should not be necessary. The article should speak for itself, or don't bother. Modernist (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Modernist expresses my view on this exactly. Also, the IP states that the artist falls between print and the internet. They're referring to the difficulty of finding references, but I think it also applies to the artist's notability: enough for some mentions in the local press, but not enough for the kind of mainstream newspapers and specialist art magazines that have a large presence on the internet. Notability isn't decided by Google, but since a 47 year old artist can't really be described as pre-internet the lack of online sources is a real problem. Especially because we're talking about someone who's claim to notability is slight to begin with. Reluctant delete as having a minor claim to notability per WP:CREATIVE, but one that can't be verified with reliable third-party sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WOW, has anyone really looked at the entries that the people crying delete have as their own entries? Shopping malls, backwoods Scottish artists with one show, never seen films, and very recherche biographies. Give me a break, this artist may be most notably a Southern Art, but the South is Larger than the UK, France, and Germany combined. All of this smacks of snobbish behavior. This artist is obviously in several museums, yet for some reason, they aren't the RIGHT museums to please some of the critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's page on notability for creative individuals clearly states that if an artist is in the collection of several museum then he is indeed notable. And since some of the people here have been kind enough to contact museum to check on the validity of that claim, that objection is now totally mute, and that is the end of the story. Someone commented that the museums were " smaller" museums, but smaller in whose estimation? an art curator? A critic? All of the museums that hold work by St.Lewis are respected organizations, and as much as people may object to the artist being of regional importance, the fact remains that he is indeed notable in his field.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bäckman[edit]

This article fails the notability criteria, with references to four primary sources (all Estonian press publications) reporting the same single event, which was an interview where he makes some controversial assertion about Estonia while promoting his unpublished book "The Bronze Soldier". Martintg (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With seven books published and a controversial view on Finnish politics and history, this man looks notable enough. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't seem to be notable outside of Estonia, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeGawl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason this guy made news in Estonia that eventually brought him all the way to WP is not because of the seven books published and controversial view on Finnish politics and history, but because he recently came up with an idea popularized by the yellow press: Estonia to lose independence in 10 years as a follow up to the Bronze Soldier controversy. And yes, he got his 8th yet unpublished book to sell that's written on the subject. Does it make the guy notable and WP worthy? up to you.--Termer (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books appear notable--he would be without the interview. And notable in Estonia or Finland is quite enough for notability. The English WP covers he world, as longas people will write the articles in English. DGG (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, these books could be self published. I see no evidence that even the basic notability criteria, that the person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, is fulfilled. Martintg (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you follow the ISBN links in the article you can easily see that the books are not self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self-published sources have a specific meaning on WP, it has nothing much to do with following the ISBN numbers but only if the books are written by the guy or are those written about the guy, that what determines WP:Notability. Currently the only secondary sources about the guy provided in the article, once more, are about his statement in printed press regarding possible future of Republic of Estonia. There are no secondary published sources provided that would cover his notability otherwise. Since Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, once more, the notability of the guy according to the sources provided lies only on his statement about "10 years left for Estonia"--Termer (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until any secondary published sources are provided showing that the notability goes beyond his controversial statement in the Estonian press. Please provide secondary published sources that has noted or relied on Johan Bäckman's scholarly work for me to be able to reconsider my current stand. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is nothing here that makes him more notable than a prolific cookbook author, prolific writing isn't notability. --Buridan (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete his books are held by single-digit numbers of libraries (in some cases just one or two). Apart from that, he fails, per nom, on one event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both notability and verifiability concerns. I was unable to verify his connection to Helsinki University, for example. Huon (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few independent sources are interested in his interview, the article might be interesting in evaluation his books as sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His interview still is a single event which is the sum total to his claim to notability. Are you suggesting you created this article so that his books could be evaluated as being more reliable than they would normally be? In other words, you are saying that one purpose in creating this article was to support the placement of fringe theories by a "historian" into various articles? Martintg (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 17-year-old fanfic author, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brown (author)[edit]

An article beginning "a little-known..." is never good notability-wise. This would appear to be a writer of fan fiction - straight under our notability radar. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy as I do not see notability even asserted. Unpublished author is never going to pass WP:N. Brilliantine (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything from reliable 3rd party sources about this author. The article doesn't seem to have a proper claim to importance/significance. So I'm going with fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chardonnay socialist[edit]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar‎

This is an unsourced dictionary definition, and as we all know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, WP:NOT firmly applies in this case even if the sources issues did not exist. JBsupreme (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, transwiki to wiktionary or merge as per previous proposal Brilliantine (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the same as all points raised here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar. — Realist² 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to champagne socialist. There is no need for more than two of these articles, the other being limousine liberal. --Rumping (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Champagne socialist also has sourcing issues and is a combination dictionary definition + directory. It should probably be nominated for deletion under similar circumstances but I will wait until this discussion comes to a close before doing so. JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a dictionary definition, because it is phrase that is widely commented on, not just used, in the media. However, it needs sources which I do not have time to find right now. I suggest that all these similar articles (there are the two mentioned above and a French term) could be merged into a single article, but I do not know what to call it. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the linking term could be chattering classes --Matilda ^talk 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merger was proposed to Liberal elite but the consensus was to oppose the merger - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) --Matilda ^talk 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Liberal elite would not work too well for this article, which is Australian and the Liberals are the right wing party. chattering classes might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberals are not liberal in the worldwide sense. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - widely used term and I have located at least three reliable refs for it. It is more than a dictionary definition as, for example, it is useful to understand the changing fashion in Chardonnay drinking to be aware that the term had more sting than it does now.--Matilda ^talk 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add more to rescue this article but have to take a break right now --Matilda ^talk 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has particular meaning in Australia more than anywhere else. Sometimes the term used was "Chardonnay Set", used as a derogatory description of inner-city intellectuals who were critics of the former Prime Minister, John Howard. It was used widely during the Howard era.--Lester 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus, and the term appears derogatory with little reference in WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the refs provided? Please clarify in what way they do not meet the guideline WP:RS?--Matilda ^talk 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer slightly more than one-sentence mentions. All they offer is proof that the term is in use and of its meaning. They don't offer enough information to give anything more than a dictionary definition with a bit of background. What would be useful would be articles or substantial article sections on the phrase itself, or more in-depth scholarly discussion of the phrase. I still think it would be better transwikied. Brilliantine (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the quotes that I embodied in the citations - in particular Mark Rolfe's article (noting that the title refers to wine) - and perhaps you would like to read the 30 odd pages and you would discover that it is a substantial article that deals with the phrase and its use in more than a passing mention. Once again AfD is not a call for cleanup , it is a debate as to whether the article should exist - are there sources to support the development of an article - I believe there are. It may be better that we have one article but I do not know if that can be done without breaching the policy on no original research. --Matilda ^talk 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, the article is a little more expansive than the quotes suggest at first glance. I'm not sure if there is enough meat here for a dedicated article though. One article for the lot of these ad hominems would certainly be better, I think. Brilliantine (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that one article would be better - but as I noted above, there was no consensus to merge to Liberal elite - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) . Then there is the qquestion of creating such an article without resorting to Original research and or breaching WP:SYNTH. Possibly could be done but AfD is a distraction. Moreover at the very least this and other related terms should be a redirect to that grouping ad hominem article.
In French the grouping article would be fr:gauche caviar and in German it would be Toskana-Fraktion, in the Netherlands Neo-gauchisme, in Sweden Rödvinsvänster.
The grouping is pejorative political terms currently a red link and perhaps deservedly so - however, I am not sure that the category Category:Political metaphors referring to people is quite on the mark - the Swedes do it better with sv:Kategori:Pejorativa politiska termer . Note at Champagne socialist - a larger list of international terms is provided. Our problem , compared with our other-langauge colleagues, is that there are many varieties of English and hence one person's champagne socialist, is another's chardonnay socialist, or limousine liberal - and there are possibly other terms - what does the Indian press in English use a similar term?
How do we create "one article for the lot of these ad hominems" ?--Matilda ^talk 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think chattering classes would be the natural title (especially since that article is extremely underdeveloped). but others may have different opinions. Brilliantine (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed chattering classes above but as BDuke observes: it "might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all". I think the best fit is Champagne socialist. The term Chardonnay socialist is clearly linked. I suspect Gauche caviar is too given the timing of its creation and use. Perhaps the book by Laurent Joffrin might help to verify. The article in the Daily Telegraph [ http://www.nysun.com/foreign/french-socialist-is-accused-of-failing-to-pay-her/46935/ ] asserts it is the French equivalent. --Matilda ^talk 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lot. The concept is notable and encyclopaedic but I don't think we need an article on every variation of name that has been invented. Nuttah (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword and crown (module)[edit]

Article topics should be notable. However, it appears that Sword and crown as a module has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Suntag (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete can find no evidence of independent notability. Brilliantine (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article starting with the product number looks a lot like WP:ADVERT. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. No references other than the ISBN of the product. Possible copyvio for ripping the back cover. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Birthright (campaign setting), or perhaps better yet List of Dungeons & Dragons modules#Other Modules (1992 - 2000). BOZ (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules#Other Modules (1992 - 2000) per BOZ. I disagree with Richard Pinch that this is an advert since it refers to a product no longer in print from a publisher that no longer exists. I feel deletion without redirect would be overly strong because I'd heard of this product in the past, and I'd expect to find at least some reference to it on Wikipedia.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to [[List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The article could be expanded if someone wanted to do the research to find secondary sources, but there really is nothing significant about this particuliar module (that I recall) to warrent a seperate article at this time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, edit/trim and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules#Other Modules (1992 - 2000) as per BOZ. Web Warlock (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, and very little content worth saving. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules#Other Modules (1992 - 2000) as per BOZ. Edward321 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collision (physical attack)[edit]

Article seems unwarranted, hardly a disambiguation page, scanty defintions, no sources, poor potential for anything useful. Article was previously PROD'ed, otherwise I would have simply done that now. meco (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the main Collision article is perfectly fine (well, actually it isn't). No need for this though. Brilliantine (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. States the blindingly obvious, and who is going to search for this title rather than just Collision anyway? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial WP:OR taxonomy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to ear shaping as a non-admin editorial action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Pointing[edit]

Unnotable variety of cosmetic surgery. Lacks sources. - Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. At least rename to Ear pointing. Improper capitalisation.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ear shaping, where it is already covered albeit poorly. No need for separate article. Ka renjc 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Karenjc. Pointless (pun intended) to have a separate article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Subject failsnotability guidelines for academics and people in general. Since the first time this was AfDed, several editors have made efforts to find reliable, 3rd party sources, and none could be found. Basically all there is on this guy are primary sources (his organization's website, various youtube videos, some discussion forum posts). The first AfD was closed as "Needs cleanup but ... Keep for now," but unfortunately without secondary sources the article remain a mess, and will probably stay that way. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims he makes are clearly bogus but there are so few reliable unbiased sources that we are left with nothing to say. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitively non-notable. The book in footnotes 1 and 2 is held by a grand total of two libraries world-wide (per a Worldcat search); it also has no Amazon ranking, meaning no Amazon sales (not normally all that relevant, but perhaps telling in this case). Describing this guy as a "scientist" damages wikipedia's credibility; including him at all has the same result. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:PROF. The only notability guideline he might concievably satisfy is WP:CREATIVE, per "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". If this theory were truly significant, it would be discussed in mainstream peer-reviewed publications and not in a bare smattering of self-published and non-mainstream sources. Until it is, then it cannot confer WP:N on its originator. Ka renjc 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an academic he's non-notable. As a 'guru', perhaps it could remain. But the article should be written to represent that. I would prefer that he not be able to claim that his work is being suppressed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. The validity or lack thereof of his ideas is not important here, but more important is that a Google search does not really come up with independent verifiable sources establishing notability. Hence also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:BIO. The main purpose of the article seems to be the promotion of his 4 DVD set, which is mentioned several times. --Crusio (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a rejoinder, I think somebody should have a critical look at the related article on Elizabeth Rauscher, too. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the comments of others above. Does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No evidence of substantial citability or reviews of his work in scholarly publications; much of his work appears to be self-published; no significant newscoverage. As noted by Nomoskedasticity, the subject's book is only held by a few academic libraries. No other evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO that I can see. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and delete every biography article linked to in this one (not Einstein perhaps). None of the actual refs look appropriate, though I haven't also looked at everything in the (odd) further reading section N p holmes (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject may be a crank, which is certainly by itself not sufficient to establish notability. At the very least, many of the hallmarks of crankiness are here: a self-trained individual who proposes a major advance in physics that the mainstream research community appears to have overlooked and which it refuses to recognize. Web of Science shows no hits in any academic area (searching on "Haramein N*"). I took a casual look at what seems to be the main result of this new theory (accessed here on 10-SEP-2008). The paper is filled with many equations found in undergrad science and engineering texts, e.g. definitions of torque, angular momentum, and such. More problematic is the fact that the authors seem to confuse the concepts of torque and energy (e.g. pp 162, where they say the units of torque can be expressed in ergs, which is patently incorrect). These are concepts taught at the undergrad level, suggesting that the paper may be mostly non-sense. Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Theserialcomma (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Patently fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, wee bit of a WP:COATRACK, no usable sources which would permit construction of a useful, neutral encyclopedia article, and the subject of edit-warring to boot. Previous AfD should almost certainly have been closed as "delete"; many of the same points were raised there, and have not been addressed. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:FYI on the above reference to Haramein’s calculations, that paper discussed the origin of spin/angular momentum as spacetime torque. Obviously such a paper would have fundamental classical mechanics equations discussing torque and angular velocity as well as tensor equations discussing these classical equations in the context of a tensor form. Haramein’s papers have both, including a group theoretical model for unification of the quantum level. As for the comment on ergs, maybe the editor should go back to undergrad school. Haramein’s paper expresses torque in dyne-cm where 1 dyne-cm = 1 erg, this is clearly expressed on Wiki’s own page on ergs referenced above. He could have expressed it in ft-lbs (unlikely for a physics paper) where 1 ft-lb of torque = 1.3558 x 10^7 ergs.

The difficulty I see with this article seems to be a lack of complete understanding of Haramein’s work to begin with, and a negative knee-jerk reaction to any alternative material he refers to, which further clouds any real understanding of his physics. I will vote that Notability can be established with his papers published at the Noetic Journal (which has NO affiliation with IONS, by the way). Many reputable physicists consider his work acceptable and valid [18]. Also, articles published by Elisabet Sahtouris mention Haramein’s work in numerous publications cited in the article. She is a scientist of note and is featured in Wiki as such. However I realize that for now the article is on thin ice, and may be appropriate when Haramein is published in further, more diverse publications.Avsav (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) — Avsav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment publishing papers is insufficient to establish notability; they need to be widely cited and/or attract attention in other ways. The web site you link to ("The Resonance Project", with "testimonials") is not effective in this regard: looking at their "personnel page" we see that Haramanian is first on the list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to respond to the above comment from Avsav, because I think it is illustrative of how some work fails to pass for legitimate scholarship. Several points need rebuttal: (1) "Obviously such a paper would have fundamental classical mechanics equations discussing torque and angular velocity..." – This is patently false. Research papers rarely, if ever will repeat well-known equations, but instead will cite other sources for such equations, usually a standard text in the field. Referees immediately flag this sort of thing in any submitted papers (I myself have done so), precisely because the equations are well-known and because journals cannot afford the column-inches to repeat established knowledge. With all due respect, this assertion suggests the commenter does not really understand how research is vetted and published. (2) "As for the comment on ergs, maybe the editor should go back to undergrad school. Haramein’s paper expresses torque in dyne-cm where 1 dyne-cm = 1 erg". This issue is much more serious and reflects a basic ignorance of mechanics. Specifically, torque is a vector entity, having units of force*distance (dyne-cm, if you like). While energy also has the same kind of units, it is a scalar product. So, for example, a torque displaced through a unitless rotation would then give you energy, and would only then have units of ergs. I'll refer the commenter to Wikipedia's own page on this point, which gives a good layman's explanation. I'm afraid this discussion gives further weight toward deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The units of torque relative to the stress energy tensor are dealt with appropriately in Haramein and Rauscher’s paper on page 160. The statement on page 162 is taken out of context. Having said that, this delete page is not the appropriate place for this discussion, rather this should be taken up directly with the authors. By the way, Google Scholar thinks he’s notable enough to list [19].Avsav (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I will be indulged one last response on this entry. Avsav is clearly very passionate about this article, which I think is commendable. I doubt that anyone in this forum has any intention of taking up mistakes in this paper with the authors. That job will fall to future referees, should the paper ever get submitted to a mainstream physics journal. (The paper is highly relevant to the debate on this article, because the subject's claim to notability appears to rest entirely upon the results presented in it.) I do not know how Avsav proposes to speak for the authors regarding their intent on pp 162. The paper says "The units of torque are dyne-cm or gm cm^2 / sec^2 = ergs". The context is very clear – the authors believe that torque can be expressed in units of energy. Avsav concurs, according to a comment above: "where 1 ft-lb of torque = 1.3558 x 10^7 ergs". No amount of argument will make this true. I think what is now established is that this paper has fundamental problems and is unlikely to ever be submitted to the physics community for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I don't see that the subject of the article has any real notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a keep decision only about 6 weeks ago. The closing admin said pending cleanup, but it's too soon to renominate even on that basis. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly until a desired outcome is reached. 23skidoo (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 weeks is quite enough to add some sources if there were any sources to add. Moreover, looking at the previous AfD, the closing admin's decision clearly went against the consensus for deletion. I am surprised that it was not taken to DRV back then. There were two delete, two weak delete !votes, plus the nominator's delete !vote and one keep !vote. Even a dedicated inclusionist like DGG !voted delete back then and that is saying something. The only keep vote was increadibly weak in terms of giving any kind of a policy-based reason for a keep argument. To have a few or even a lot papers published in peer-reviwed journals was never considered enough for passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. To pass WP:PROF one basically needs to demonstrate either evidence of high citability of Haramein's research in publications of other scientists or a significant number of papers where his work is discussed in detail. For passing WP:BIO one would have to show some substantial coverage of him personally by independent reliable sources. None of this was available then and none is available now. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To second Nsk93, I don't think this is a case of if-only-editors-would-give-it-more-time, but rather a case of there-simply-aren't-any-secondary-sources. Six weeks is plenty of time, and it's been tagged with {{notability|academics}} for the last 4+ of them. In those 6 weeks, 80+ edits have been made to the article by 9 distinct editors (excluding bots and IPs); and with 110+ edits by 10 separate editors (not counting bots and IPs), the talk page has grown by 70,000 bytes. On top of that, threads have been started on the talk pages of two separate admins. (1&2). A strong, good faith effort has clearly been made to salvage this article. Simply put: without sources, dozens of editors could put months of work into the article and the same problems would remain. This is exactly why WP requires that the subject of a BLP "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject"Yilloslime (t) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

Delete unless sources are presented which meet NOTABILITY. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not notable and hence fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF for starters. Shot info (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the great many above, Nsk92 refutes the only really reasonable argument (23skidoo's) in favour of keeping to my satisfaction. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I really can't believe how this has blown over to such a big deal. Nassim is by no means a pseudoscientist and I do not understand why some citations are not worthy enough for mention (see Concolour and Avsav's arguments on talk page although the ratio of editors totally outweighs the supporters). Wikipedia isn't paper: there are countless articles some of which deserve to be more scrutinized. So much time and energy has been put into this one (someone said the creator had scary motives?). Nobody noticed this page until I led them to it, and it gave the desired results of a debate until it blew into an edit war; however, I'm glad that I got the chance to witness the conversation on the talk page which I will be keeping and spreading for future reference. In any case, I concede that the article still doesn't meet notability guidelines which is why I'm making it a weak keep. Ace blazer (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since notability is the criterion for inclusion for a bio on wikipedia, your 'weak keep' should probably be a 'weak delete'. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd let Ace speak for himself about what conclusion his arguments come to. If someone thinks an article that he thinks might almost make the guidelines is a keep, there's nothing wrong with him saying so. DGG (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a big deal, its just a borderline spam article probably presented by people involved with the subject, who were using wikipedia to sell DVD's. The last AfD should have ended in delete, and this one certainly will.Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am only a "dedicated inclusionist" for articles potentially worth keeping, and i am equally dedicated to getting rid of nonsensical articles and pure public relations for nonentities and imaginary scientific hypotheses. I probably speedy-delete several times as many articles as i even try to keep. As I said before, no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist--they'll include even the non-conventional if there is any scientific merit whatsoever. True, I don't like over-rapid renominations, but the previous close though worded in a non-standard fashion-- "keep for now" was a non-consensus, not a keep, in the hope of additional material--which has not been forthcoming. As I said before, even the most absurd pseudo-science can be notable, if anyone has noticed it. For an article where one of the references in "personal letter from [the subject]", it's clear nobody has--in spite of whatever publicity exposure in Wikipedia might have afforded them. DGG (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

why?He's ideias deserver's a space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.137.155 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Harbor Marina[edit]

Delete nn marina per WP:ORG Mayalld (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and and WP:NOT - wikipedia is not a directory. Basement12 (T.C) 12:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1) (Non-admin closure). MuZemike (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap High School[edit]

Article created today, about a school. Doesn't look like it's very notable. Matt (Talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The links shown here [20] may be worth taking a look at. I don't have a newsbank subscription, an unfortunate omission on my part. Brilliantine (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day New York[edit]

No more notable than Good Day Tampa Bay which was AFD'd months ago. Microremote (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Is that enough sources to be going with? Brilliantine (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for deletion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compare as the East Coast equivalent of Good Day LA; definitely a notable program as part of Fox's morning television efforts in that market and competitve with the network morning shows. Good Day Tampa Bay was cited as a deletion reason, however that program airs in a minor market and was easily merged into the station article. This doesn't compare to Tampa. Nate • (chatter) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Weak Keep as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the only apparent rationale. Looking at the Good Day "family" though I'm thinking some merging and redirecting needs to be done. The dab page is predominantly redlinks, the L.A. article has nothing showing the show as particularly notable and without any sort of referencing, and the Tampa Bay one is just a redirect to the station. I suggest covering them all at the Good Day (newscast) article and referencing as appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided above refer specifically to the New York one. Probably someone should stick them in the article. I might do later if I have time, but this isn't my area of expertise at all - I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows anything about US TV doing it. Brilliantine (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I never said sourcing was the problem I said notability. And I agree with Jasynnash2. it sould be redirected to Good Day (newscast).Microremote (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that multiple full-length New York Times articles are enough to establish notability - at least two of them are whole articles on the programme and its history. Brilliantine (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not everything in the New York Times is of national and interational interest. We have to remember that the Times must also cover local news for the benefit of its readers, most of whom live in New York City. I haven't seen a source that shows that "Good Day New York" is the subject of a discussion outside of the New York area. The analogy to "Good Day Tampa Bay" is correct. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources discusses how its success led to several similar shows being started elsewhere in the country. In any case, local newspapers (if you are going to call the NYT that) are still reliable sources, the depth of coverage is quite good, and in the absence of any specific notability guideline for news shows, I think it is fairly clear that the article subject passes WP:GNG. Brilliantine (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that the New York Times is a reliable source. But I am going to call it a "local newspaper" as far as its section that's called "NY/region" [26], in order to balance the "It's in the New York Times, therefore it must be notable" argument. As all Times readers know, it contains "all the news that's fit to print", and fitness and notability are different concepts. WNYW is inherently notable, there being a policy on that, whether it's watched outside of the northeast USA or not; but a program on WNYW isn't entitled to the same pass. I've yet to see anything that says that a television show seen on one station is, per se, notable. Otherwise, articles about 18 Action News in Elmira would be automatic keepers. I know that you cited something from the publication Broadcasting and Cable, though it seems to be about the station's anchor rather than about the tation itself. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This crystal ball is sensing that the album non-notable and pre-mature. No reliable sources or much context,. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homesick (album)[edit]

Prod removed by author without improvement. Prod reason: "WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violations, as well as WP:V." Cliff smith ^talk 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Reliable sources discussing the album might change this. Brilliantine (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC, and WP:V arguments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources. Also, the author removed the afd tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The crystal ball is sensing that the article is a few years premature, and is pure speculation at best. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Presidential Election[edit]

Nothing but crystal balling. - Icewedge (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(expansion of rationale) While it seems such articles have been traditionally created a very long time before the election (United States presidential election, 2008 was created back in 2004) we should wait until after this current election as the results will drastically affect nearly everything about the next election. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt until after Jan. 20, 2009. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious crystal balling. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt~~ this scheduled future event ~~until after Jan. 20, 2009. No reason for this to exist until at least then.~~ Cliff smith ^talk 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper title for this is United States presidential election, 2012, which is already protected. Cliff smith ^talk 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article is redirected back to the United States presidential election page, which is funny since other future election articles aren't even treated with an AfD as long as they are immediate and approximated closely to the current date. --Toussaint (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spirit of WP:HAMMER applies to the WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe someone should extend it to cover situations like this. Brilliantine (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Disambiguate: Turn it into a disambiguation page for other articles about 2012 presidential elections, given that the title itself doesn't specifically indicate a country. --Toussaint (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTALing for a start. Not to mention the opinion piece nature of saying something and than sourcing it to an opinion piece. There is nothing from reliable 3rd party sources that actually verifies that Clinton will be the front runner, etc. This one needs to be deleted and the title used when appropriate (in a couple years time) as a dab page. The United States presidential election, 2012 article doesn't need to exist until after the 2010 Congressional Elections at the earliest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is based on speculation from the Huffington Post about Palin being the Republican frontrunner in 2012 Crystal ball prognostication is an inadequate bases for an article. But it would a mistake to protect against creating this article until 2010 as suggested above, since there will be teams hard at work grooming candidates and raising money and support as soon as the votes are counted this November, and by January 2009 there will be opinion polls rating various possible nominees and announcements by those interested in running. I propose deleting for now but if there are multiple sources with substantial coverage I see no problem allowing article creation after the November election this year, since it is the next election for that office. Does Jasynnash2 think there were inadequate sources for an article about the 2008 presidential election until November 2006? Check again. Going back to the history of United States presidential election, 2008, it is clear that on this date in 2004 the article [27] was speculative and everything hinged on who won in 2004. By February 2005 there were references showing that some of them had announced their intentions to run, along with opinion polls ranking the public preference for various candidates. A post-election article about the next election is completely timely and appropriate. Edison (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crystal ball-ery. RockManQ (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too speculative and WP:CRYSTAL ball-like. This shouldn't be started until after the election at the earliest, and probably closer to 2010 when presumably the losing party will begin the process to choose a new candidate (assuming the winning party expects their candidate to try for a second term). 23skidoo (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patareni[edit]

Serious WP:V issues. The band appears to have been around for a long time, with an impressive number of releases; however, without multiple albums on a notable independent label this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. If sources can be found to establish notability then fair enough, but I've looked and couldn't spy any. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have somehow messed up this nomination, but cannot quite work out where... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patareni for the previous AfD.--Eastmain (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present there is little claim of notability, and no sources. None of the releases appear to be on significant labels. Can't really see how the 'Keep' opinions in the previous AfD were justified.--Michig (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was at one point a claim that they pre-dated Napalm Death in creating grindcore, but nobody was able to source it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The group did get a review from Aversion, an online music magazine with a fairly wide readership. Though they have an article (substub) in Portuguese, they don't seem to have one in Croatian; there is no hr:Patareni. It would be worth having someone who speaks Croatian look for sources in the group's native language. Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe review is actually for a Paterani tribute album, featuring at least the likes of the highly notable Cripple Bastards. That they have a tribute album suggests some notability, but sources continue to elude me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:00, 5 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability. Brilliantine (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V concerns. We66er (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ok, so I realize no one actually said "redirect", but the "merge" stance below is what swayed me. I don't know the subject matter, I won't be merging anything, but this title will now redirect to the main Puyo Puyo article, specifically, the characters section. The history of this page will be intact, per GFDL, and for mining for information to expand the Puyo Puyo page. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo)[edit]

Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Puyo Puyo or a list of Puyo Puyo characters. This character is not the heroin or villain of game, doesn't need individual article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources in the article. No claim of notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. Sources have been provided in this discussion to counter the nomination/ sole argument for deletion. Decision accordingly is keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Avalon Collection[edit]

no reliable sources Jessi1989 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being picked up by multiple publishers, which is shown by the sources, seems to be an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not notability, it is the lack of reliable secondary sources as per wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lack of sources is grounds for finding sources. if none can be found then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lack of citations is grounds for improvement, and some primary sources may be ok for supporting uncontroversial statements. Nonexistence of reliable secondary sources is grounds for questioning WP:Notability (books), which seems to be a problem here but is not the issue raised by nominator. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reliable secondary sources are required to verify any information in the article. the issue i have raised is how to verify any of the information in the article without reliable secondary sources. notability is another issue, although still very relevant here. but as a guideline, compared with the wp:v policy, it is of secondary importance. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have had a quick look for reliable secondary sources, but cannot find any. If someone can add some then I will change my mind, but I don't believe there are any as of now. Brilliantine (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The Publishers' Weekly articles move me over to an on-the-fence neutral. I would like to see something a bit more substantial from a more mainstream source if possible, though. Brilliantine (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a lengthy look for sources. Substantial parts of the article are unverifiable even through primary sources. Fails notability due to lack of any reliable secondary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've had a quick look for sources and have so far found these: Publishers Weekly article, Publishers Weekly review, KidsReads review, Audiofile review. There are probably others, but these mean it passes the "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" criteria of WP:BK. You may wish to note that the first book or two were published under the name "Shelly Roberts", not "Rachel Roberts"; this may be why some of you had trouble finding sources. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good work, but the article needs to be rewritten based soley on information in the secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at this: deletion is not cleanup. Also, the article doesn't need to be rewritten based solely on information from secondary sources - the book itself is considered a reasonable source for such things as a plot summary, short descriptions of the characters, etc. - as long as there are sources that exist to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. Articles are allowed to be based mainly on secondary sources. (A small but important distinction, I feel.) But, yes, the article really really should be cleaned up. It's in terrible shape. I'll try and polish it up a bit... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw the PW items, but would not put notices there in the same category as critical reviews. I missed the KidsReads piece. It only contains plot summary, but I guess it counts towards notability. Audiofile is a good source. I have withdrawn my vote to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PW article about the publication history I thought would be an excellent source for referencing the current section on that topic in the article. :) (And I don't see why it shouldn't count towards notability - things are notable if they're noted, and reviews aren't the only way of noting something...) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Executive Air Charter[edit]

Has a number of google hits, but many simply as company listings and nothing in depth coverage as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). triwbe (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP and primary notability criterion. Huon (talk) 15:27, 5 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral + Comment News articles on the company in Western Mail on May 5 2004 as evidenced here [28], June 3 2005 as evidenced here. [29] One mention in South Wales Echo but no proper coverage. This is absolute borderline notability and I can't decide whether it should be kept or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantine (talk • contribs)

Delete. An air travel charter service with 2 planes seems an unlikely candidate for notability even if a newspaper wrote a story about 'em once. Besides, man will never fly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As not notable - As far as I can find out in CAA website it doesnt have a licence to carry fare paying passengers and does not have an Air Operators Certificate. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Oak Records[edit]

Contested prod deletion. Non notable music label, fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, IMO. does not establish sufficient notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many red links, not enough reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It appears the Kitchener-Waterloo Record had an article on the label in March 2006. In the absence of anything further, it has to go. Another piece of non-trivial coverage would sway me the other way. Brilliantine (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Coverage in The Record, Exclaim!, Echo Weekly. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on rotation on a major network meets criteria of WP:Music, and counters the claim by the nominator that the only claim of notability is the MP3 downloads. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Sun[edit]

Prod removed without reason. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Releases not on important labels. Only claim to notability is unreferenced claims of mp3 dowloads that does not make a band notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have serious concerns about the WP:COI. However, they do appear to be on rotation on XM Radio [30], which fulfils notability criterion #11 at WP:BAND, if XM is considered a "major radio network". justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:52, 5 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. jj137 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.B.I.[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; no albums on notable labels, no press, couldn't even find any reviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:52, 5 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:MUSIC Brilliantine (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no full length releases, band connected by members are not notable, no sources. fails WP:MUSIC Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssal Engine and Tools[edit]

Contested prod. (Currently) non-notable software / software company - fails WP:CORP. No third-party independent references. Article is almost an advert, and there is a potential COI with the author. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: game engine with no showing of notability. Badly written article full of peacock terms strongly suggest conflict of interest and spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang (t) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost? I fail to see how it is different from an advert in any respect. Created by an SPA using the product's name, full of puffery, self-linking, no reliable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the three Dimensions[edit]

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable albm. Timurite (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's claim, absent a link to the claimed Allmusic review, as failing WP:N and WP:V. If references exist, please present them. Edison (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Raumanmeri[edit]

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable albm. Timurite (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 9 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's claim, absent a link to the claimed Allmusic review, as failing WP:N and WP:V. If references exist, please present them. Edison (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Data (Star Trek).~~ Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soong Family (Star Trek)[edit]

Claims cited to unreliable wiki. (well, if there were a References section). Original research for topics' inclusion. Content is mostly plot summary. No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Unlikely search term. Quintessential example of well-intentioned but ultimately unencyclopedic content better suited to Memory Alpha or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no third-party reliable sources discussing this specific fictional family *as a family*. I don't see how the subject meets the requirements of WP:NOTE. --NellieBly (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the essence of this article is WP:OR. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thorough nomination. All major points are covered. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Fails notability due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search indicates that there are numerous sources which discuss these characters together. The article just needs improvement in accordance with our usual editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for the actual article topic -- "soong family" -- yields nothing related to Star Trek. Data and Lore, whom you appended to the search, of course yield results (which, though, rapidly degenerate into primary sources); your link is a quasi-argument (it doesn't actually point to a particular source) to keep Data (Star Trek), not the article under consideration here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse the title and the topic. The particular words used in the title are just a convenient summary. The topic is the group of characters associated with Data's history and my search was a sensible way of identifying sources pertaining to this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of your search give no indication as to whether the results actually support the article. All you have provided is a list of sites that happen to mention the terms. Nuttah (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the search indicates numerous authors who discuss the family relationship between these characters. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, which of those source the claim that Ira Graves is the technological grandfather of data? Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three sources which testify to this. The repeated contention that this article contains OR seems to be an unsubstantiated falsehood. No example has been given. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those do. You have two review notes that attempt to make the connection and two contextless excerpts from a novel where the data and graves parts are not connected. Nuttah (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we disagree upon the facts of the matter. My general point is that there are numerous sources for this which can be readily found and so the article just needs some cleanup not deletion on the spurious grounds of OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My general point is that there are numerous sources for this", yet you provide none. If these sources are readily available add them to the article. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided abundant sources. Adding such details to the article seems pointless when editors such as you refuse to accept them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, you've provided searches that return places where terms appear somewhere. If you provide a source with context I will reconsider my opinion. However, merely saying a book x mentions family, data and lore somewhere within its 200 pages is not providing a source. Not one of the 'sources' you claim from your search mention Data, Graves and family in the same sentence. Nuttah (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source The Computers of Star Trek states In a sense, Graves is Data's grandfather. - an obvious family relationship. Other sources make the same point and so it is no mere fancy. Construing this as OR is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, the reviewer is assuming that. If it came from the book the Google search would return the page number (as it does for the novel A Time for War, A Time for Peace: The Next Generation #9). Nuttah (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is a direct quote which appears in chapter 6, pages 105-126. The nature of this searching is indicative - I am not willing to expend great time and expense upon this while so many editors threaten to delete it. This is why deletion is quite inappropriate - it does not afford proper time for research and improvement over time in a calm manner per WP:IMPERFECT. Redirection to the article Data (Star Trek) would be a better way of putting the matter on hold. There seems to have been no consideration of such options per WP:BEFORE. There is not even a talk page for this article and so going straight to AFD is too impatient. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research with no indication of sources. Nuttah (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laviolette[edit]

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. releases not on important label. lacks significant coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:29, 8 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. All of the sources are eminently reliable and independent, but all but one of them mention Laviolette in passing, and the fourth is a short album review. Had he been interviewed or profiled in depth by MuchMusic, CKUA, or any equivalent media outlet I'd vote Keep, but he just isn't at that point yet. --NellieBly (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Coverage in Exclaim!, two interviews/profiles in a university paper , and placed 75th among Canadian artists on Canadian music charts. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am the article creator. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Martial Arts Academy[edit]

Advert for a recently created company. Sgroupace (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find any sources and link to local newspaper article is broken. Brilliantine (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Google has barely heard of this academy. Furthermore, the creator of this articles states in the infobox that the academy was formed in 2008. The academy has not existed long enough to have notability (from students who have won international championships). I can only find one source from the Oxford Press on Google News Archive, but this school is given only a trivial mention in the last paragraph of the article. Furthermore, since this news article was written on December 15, 2006, the article may possibly be about another academy of this name. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn; potentially Des Brackett is notable and if that page is created it could be redirected there. JJL (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Need Mine. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What It Do[edit]

Non-Notable song by Lil' Flip, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Songs. S_RX 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Brilliantine (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album I Need Mine as a plausible search term, for lack of notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs; "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". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To the album until song achieves independent notability. TN‑X-Man 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as an unsourced negative bio. I know the subject was supposedly dead, but I think it likely that there is an unknown, possible living target for this article. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tolbert[edit]

Suspected hoax. Google turns up nothing of relevance. Brilliantine (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references given in article do not even mention the subject. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (Cabbie Talk)[edit]

A recent book. Mostly copy & paste of the publisher's adverts. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per this article. [31] Brilliantine (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Asserts WP:N, which is confirmed by this, this, this and this (and they were just the first few I found). Ka renjc 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed above show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Kerry bogslide[edit]

This is clearly a silly article that does not meet any guidelines for a notable event. A natural disaster that destroys no property and kills no people is not notable, even if it does displace a moderately large volume of bog. Dzhastin 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
comment "...that destroys no property..." But there was damage to property--a road and two bridges were swept away. Freederick (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was significant damage to the road and to the two bridges, although the article does not include an estimate for the cost of repairs. The fish kill was significant. And the incident is made more notable by the possibility that it was caused or made worse by the machinery at a wind farm site, which may have implications for wind farms being built elsewhere. The article has 14 references, 12 from a local newspaper and one each from two national media, RTÉ and The Irish Times. --Eastmain (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep I am not sure what to say about this. It is impeccably referenced, has had quite a lot of news coverage, and there is even follow-up coverage over the last couple of days [32], [33]. My first thought was that this shows the futility of including local papers as reliable sources, but a lot of the coverage (for example those two links, and the Irish Times one on the article) is from major national media outlets. I can't see any valid arguments for deleting it, as silly as it might sound. Brilliantine (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) - Although, on second glance, an argument could be made for cutting down on some of the irrelevancies. The article is too long and detailed for an incident of this nature. Brilliantine (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Damage to a road and 2 bridges in a rural area does not a natural disaster make. The number of references is irrelevant. Please see wp:EVENT. "A news event reported by the media only within the immediate region is generally not notable, and does not justify an article, regardless of the number of reliable sources that can be provided." Dzhastin 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhastin (talk • contribs)

Sadly, the whole country is a bit bigger than "the immediate region". I think this just, but only just, fulfils "heavily reported damage", one of the criteria for nationally reported events (which this is). Brilliantine (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While well referenced, it is really not a natural disaster, nor is it a notable event per se. ww2censor (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean it wasn't natural, or wasn't a disaster? And what difference would it make to notability in either case? Richard Pinch (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced; well written; interesting ecological angle. Granted, there were no human victims, so the notability is borderline; but with national level of coverage, it is sufficient. It needs to be trimmed a bit though; especially the individual sob stories ought to be cut, or reduced to a one-sentence mention. Freederick (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The "well referenced" and "well written" points are true, but that just means it's worthy of moving to Wikinews. There are hundreds of worldwide road closures caused by landslides (with environmental impacts/etc) every single day of the year. Doesn't make them encyclopaedic in scope. Newsworthy: yes. Encyclopaedic: No. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete per nom, Dzhastin and WP:EVENT. Even if this occurrence could be tagged a as "disaster", the notability criteria for disaster is that they "significantly affect the region which they strike, resulting in heavily-reported death or damage. Not every earthquake, storm, or meteorite landing that destroys just a few houses can be worthy of an article." In this case, there were no deaths (except a bunch of fish). No injuries. No property damage (just a road closure). Etc. In short, it's not encyclopaedically valuable. Someone put a lot of work into it though, so move to Wikinews. Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage was estimated at 500000 Euros, according to one of the national press articles. Sounds like property damage to me. Brilliantine (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the estimate to fix the road/bridge. In my note above, I used "property" to mean houses/buildings/"properties". That is to say that, other than having to drive the long way around, there was no major impact to citizens. Certainly when one cmopares the actual material damage, injury and loss of life to (say) the flooding all over Europe recently.Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, DzHastin, and WP:EVENT although I'd have no problem if it was cleaned up. Locally notable, but otherwise ...? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How can it be that Beefart is the only one on the planet who can see that the author of this article is mocking you? The whole thing is a send-up from start to finish. Look at the background of the person who created the article. He is far too smart to have written this crap except as a joke. Why does somebody with the power to do so not ask him for his views? What he is saying, in a nutshell, is this: "Let me show you what is wrong with Wikipedia"...Captainbeefart (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Yes, it's blatant,~~ but that isn't a valid deletion reason. You may have noticed it from the tone of my earlier comments. Policies contradict each other, and one can include almost anything if one tries hard enough. It's a problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually guys, I'm not so sure of that. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple lack of awareness. I've had some "overlap" with the user who created this article over the years, and I'd be surprised if this was a joke. It's actually perfectly in line with his/her style of editting - focusing as he/she does on creating or editting articles on "current events", pop-culture topics that happen to be hot at any given time, and generally stuff he/she sees on TV. So, to put it simply, I don't think the article creator is pulling the piss. Rather I've never been really sure that they actually fully understood the project. (In terms of WP:WWPIN and WP:RECENTISM) Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, apologies, it is quite an odd article though. Brilliantine (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I totally agree with that. But have a look at the users history and you'll see what I mean. By way of example, you will note that the same user also created 2008 Irish flash floods. Equally better suited to "the news" (structured as it is as a day-by-day update with limited longterm "encyclopedic" context). And similarly dodgy in terms of classification as a "natural disaster" - certainly when compared to other events that are categorised as such. Both "articles" are a little (how to put this) "shortsighted". Given that flooding has been occuring for thousands/millions of years along every river in the world. And will for years to come (if the LHC doesn't collapse space and time in upon itself next month). Anyway, it just goes to my point that just because something was on the news doesn't make it worth an article all on its own- synthesizing content from multiple news sources. With no lonterm/encyclopedic context. That is actually kinda what Wikinews is for. Not for here. I think I'll actually let the user know about Wikinews. Again. Coz maybe he/she just doesn't appreciate the difference. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was not created as a joke. In fact I failed to realise that such a situation would arise. It only seems to have happened though after it was put up for DYK which surely shouldn't be the case. I created it after witnessing it broadcast on a national news bulletin. The news bulletin itself seemed more concerned about the ecological aspect of the disaster rather than the lack of loss of life. It seems irrational to ignore an ecological disaster if enough people haven't be killed to make it notable. And by coincidence just as I created it it was back in the news again. So it was fairly continual.

This is on the talk page but I'll leave it here again.

OK. First of all. A quote.

"Up to 30,000 people in north Kerry were left without a water supply due to polluted water courses and threatened reservoirs." [34]

That line is referenced by an article from The Irish Times, a national newspaper with no special relationship with County Kerry. 30,000 people is a lot of people, certainly by Irish standards. So a highly regarded national newspaper has reported that 30,000 people have been affected by this occurence. Another reference in the article is from national broadcaster RTÉ, whose news bulletin was how I first came to hear of this.

This article may not be up to everyone's taste but that seems to be because most of the inclination to use local sources which I thought would be a good place to start. There are many national sources available which I have not had time to complete but I thought the inclusion of at least one source from a national newspaper and a national broadcaster would at least appease those who are opposed such "local" events whilst serving to remind that there are easily other references available.

"A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope." Well it certainly received significant, continual coverage in sources with national scope.

Of course the article needs tidying up but I have never claimed that it was perfect. If I used any lines that appeared exaggerated or extreme they were marked with a reference number directly afterwards. After all, it is not a matter of my opinion, I was just referring to what was said in the aftermath of the event.

The idea that the bogslide (a word I have not made up - it is used in the references and is taught in geography classes in schools across the country) closed one road and therefore is not notable is wrong as, if the article were read again, it would become quite clear that much more damage than the closure of one road was caused. --Candlewicke (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that "The original bogslide extended to over four kilometres on August 22 and August 23, destroying an estimated 10 hectares (25 acres) of bog, engulfing two bridges and led to the closure of a section of road, resulting in motorists having to undertake a 16 km (10 mi) diversion. It was reported that it could take anything up to six months to fix the road." A 10 mile diversion in a road is not notable, 25 acres of displaced bog is not notable, and 30,000 people having to buy bottled water isn't notable. Just because the Irish Times reported it doesn't mean that it's notable. The Philadelphia Inquirer (the Philly metro area is approximately the same population as Ireland) prints dozens of stories that I read every day, but not every one deserves a Wikipedia article wp:not. There's also no evidence of continual coverage on a national scope, just a single blurb. This could be Wikinews and is actually an amusing, well-written article, all the hyperbole notwithstanding. It is not encyclopedic though. dzhastin (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Well that may be true but if that's the case can very many articles be created that refer to Ireland or say to other small countries? The Irish Times and other such newspapers are the highest placed newspapers in the country, you can go no higher from an Irish point of view on news delivery than being national. It seems perfectly irrational to compare a newspaper in a large country with the same population as a small country to a national newspaper of a small country reporting on an event which is considerably large enough by that country's standards. Of course not everything in appear such as The Philadelphia Enquirer would make it onto Wikipedia. Neither would everything from The Irish Times. But the use of sources is only part of the argument and does not take into account the event itself. From the point of view of a large country like the US of course these measurements are probably non-notable. But by Irish standards events like this don't happen every day. 30,000 people is a considerable chunk of the population. What I have to ask is whether events in smaller countries are taken into context by those who are situated and have lived most of their lives in larger countries? And if they aren't what are we left with? An encyclopedia that is dominated with stories of events that occur in large countries with large populations because there are more people to be affected and therefore the event is on a larger scale and whereby anything that is relevant to smaller countries is systematically removed due to only a tiny handful of people being affected? What are the encyclopedic quotas for "bottled water"? Would 300,000 suffice? That would be nigh on 1/10 of the Irish population... yet if 300,000 Irish people had no water supply (a fairly significant occurrence on a national level I would imagine compared to, say, in the US or China or even compared to the UK) that argument could still be used against it. Which seems a little overprotective. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are only three reasons to delete an article like this: 1) The article violates WP:Verify, 2) The article violates WP:NPOV and 3) The article violates WP:NOR. None of these apply to this article. Absent some new guideline that defines criteria for Notable Natural Disasters, this one should stay. All the other reasons for deletion are just POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment. Actually there is a notability criteria for natural disasters. And this fails it. See: Wikipedia:EVENT#Disasters. The simple fact is that the media totally over-blew and sensationalised this event. Giving as they did absolutely no global context for it. The quotes and sensationalist hyperbole in the Kerryman newspaper for example ""one of the most frightening and overwhelming events ever witnessed" and "It’s frightening. We dread to think that we’ll never see home in the future" are ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE when you consider that the only material impacts were that people had to drive the long way around to the shops, boil their water, and spend a few months repaving a road. We on the other hand are not a local newspaper, and should be giving a global and objective perspective. When for example you put the above quotes in the global/objective context of the 1999 Vargas mudslides - which killed TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOP -E, the sensationalism stands out as trite and embarrassing. We shouldn't inherit this sensationalism in a Wikipedia article. That's my opinion at least. Anyway, I'm going to shut-up now coz it sounds like I'm ranting against the article. I'm not. The writing/sourcing/construction is good. It's just that its inappropriately inheriting notability imposed by a sensationalist press. That we shouldn't inherit. Move to Wikinews instead. Guliolopez (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral sensationalism. The "sensationalist hyperbole" is used or is intended to be used alongside terms such as "was described by" and "was reported". Which is exactly what happened. It could not be compared to large scale disasters but the comparisons with large scale disasters are drawn from events that are completely different. A bogslide is neither an earthquake nor a tsunami nor a volcanic eruption and cannot be compared to incidents such as those. To say that thousands of these things happen - well evidently not that many, as at least one editor on the talk page has not even heard of an event like it ever taking place before. They certainly don't occur as often as hurricances yet each tropical storm receives an article upon its announcement before it even has the chance to cause any damage without any protest. No one here is claiming that the event is absolutely earth-shattering. The phrases that are viewed as problematic are quotes from elsewhere (and are constructed carefully in a way that is not intended to be misleading or to obstruct neutrality) with appropriate sources beside them. Naturally the local media would report most heavily on such an incident and extreme statements may be put across. But there is also evidence of this incident affecting people on a national level. --Candlewicke (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly irrelevant but interesting that the nominating editor has a total of 30 edits to their name, most of which have been on this article. Has inexperience provoked a rushed nomination? Praiseworthy all the same. End of. --140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on some of the rationale given to date both for deleting and for keeping, I've done some cleanup of the actual article in an attempt to see if our reasons remain the same after cleanup. The tone of the article has changed which might affect how we view it. Take a look. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well. That is now IMMEASURABLY better. With all the hyperbole, sensationalist quotes and other wikisource/wikinews stuff removed, it certainly appears to be a lot more encyclopaedic in aspect. I still think it fails WP:EVENT though and is more a news item than a standalone Encyclopaedia article/reference source that has independent merit. I struggle therefore with changing my vote to a keep. I've "downgraded" my delete vote accordingly though. Very good work though. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and re-copy edit it when I have time. It's a shame, cause the prose was wonderful but not so encyclopaedic before - now the article is more encyclopaedic but the prose may be in need of some work. Brilliantine (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a large number of independant, reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Arguments like "it didn't kill anyone" or "it didn't destroy enough property" are preposterous. Notability is assessed by looking at the attention received by a subject and the importance attributed to it, which can be easily evaluated in this case by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It definitely reads a lot better. See what can be produced through collaboration rather than one editor being responsible for updating an article? It's a shame about the hyperbole but I definitely agree on it being more encyclopedic in its current existence. It reads like I would have liked to have written it had I not been in quite a rush and had it not been nominated for deletion before I got back to it. I could perhaps move the hyperbole to elsewhere and tag it as Wikipedia:Humor if that wouldn't cause too much offense. --Candlewicke (Talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humor - Support Yes! Actually, the article in it's original form would be perfect for wikipedia:humor. It was a very well crafted article with good references, formatting and prose and was very amusing to me. I just didn't think it was encyclopedic. dzhastin (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hazarding a guess that there is no hope for this article? I would hope that I'm wrong but if I'm right could not bogslide be created and a subsection added to contain the more important info? It seems a bit of a waste. --Candlewicke (Talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the comments so far, there's certainly no consensus to delete. Everyking (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support suggested merge into a bogslide article (or alternatively, into a new Lyrecompane article). To me, lots of sources isn't necessarily evidence of sufficient notability for an individual article. I submit that there probably were plenty of equivalent bogslides in Ireland over the past 400 years that just got less coverage. --Rye1967 (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently important natural disaster. The usual excuse for deletion (BLP) doesn't apply in this case, so we will have to go by sourced notability. DGG (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems to be met. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Cosmic Engineers[edit]

This is..uh..this is something. This is a non-notable guild I guess, tied to some new-age spiritualism. Some of the individual members might be notable, but the guild itself, or organization, or whatever it is exactly isn't notable. Before anyone points to all the "sources" in the article, none of the sources outside of a blog from a science fiction writer, actually talk about the subject. Mostly they're citing real events which occurred, but its the article that ties them to the group, not the sources themselves. This was deleted and restored on the promise of sources, but this is a bloody mess. There is nothing here to justify keeping this article. The only thing that can be provided that references them is obscure blogs. Their one criticism comes from a comment that that science fiction author made on his blog post, not even the post itself. This is how obscure and far reaching they are to try and find sources which actually mention the group by name. We'll get this out of the way to start with: Afd is not a vote if you want to see the article kept provide some reliable sources which demonstrate significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non-notable (full disclosure: Charlie Stross is a friend of mine). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources that can be viewed online do not give non-trivial coverage of the article subject (apart from one, which I would not view as a WP:RS), and from the description of them neither do the others. Brilliantine (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources don't support the group. Looking at the members' bios, I smell a whole new crop of AFDs. I'll work a bit more on that tomorrow.Kww (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment starting with the COI author of the article and leader of the pack? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources that talk about the actual subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Emergent? Sometimes mighty oaks grow from small acorns, and this concept actually has some potential. Mensa started out the same way, as a group of intellectuals setting out to save the world. Give it six months and then re-nominate? Simesa (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just keep articles on a hope and a prayer that they gain notability. If they're notable now, please provide the sources. Otherwise if they ever gain sources in the future the article can be recreated. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We go on the sources that are available now, which are none.--Crossmr (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that's the old WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL, "up-and-coming," "next-big-thing" argument. We do articles about subjects which are notable, not about those which might be notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Simesa. The O.C.E. is a very young organization, and as such it has not yet had the time to build notability from many sources other than those managed by its founders. Therefore we will not object to the proposed deletion of this article on the basis of its lack of sufficient notability. The article will be resubmitted at an appropriate time with a unimpeachable list of citations, and I hope it will be evaluated fairly and objectively by reviewers.--(Eschatoon)
Delete. I tend to agree with Crossmr, if the group becomes notable then the article can be put back up when they do. I'd vote delete for now and see how our futurist friends do. nigell k (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks nigell k for your unbiased and constructive criticism.--(Eschatoon)
While making a backup for offline editing after this article is deleted, I noticed a strange thing that perhaps one of the more experienced editors could explain to me. A reference was deleted, and replaced by a flag stating that a reference was needed. I am unable to understand the logic of this, please explain. The reference in question (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20071204/) is a very critical one. It is a blog I wrote last year about the original 1981 work of William Sims Bainbridge, clearly quoting the source and trying to cast some of the ideas outlined in the source in a more current terminology.--(Eschatoon)
Its a blog I wrote last year... please read WP:RS and WP:V regarding self-published sources. In this case it seemed the source just sourced the existence of text (not that a blog can do that, but regardless) it didn't source the claim being made in the actual article about the text.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Crossmr, but I still don't understand. The actual article, which contains the sentences quoted: "We need a new spaceflight social movement capable of giving a sense of transcendent purpose to dominant sectors of the society... The human condition is one of extreme absurdity unless fixed in a cosmic context to provide meaning... A species which does conquer the stars will have developed a culture including a cosmic religious faith well-adapted to continue expansion indefinitely... I have suggested that only a transcendent, impractical, radical religion can take us to the stars", and the references therein, is meant to provide explanations. And it is not a self-published source: the first line says quite clearly "Subsequently published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201".--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think I see your point now. By "the claim being made in the actual article about the text" you mean "The foundation of the Order was inspired by a 1981 article of one of its founders, William Sims Bainbridge". Correct? This is, as it has been correctly pointed out, a fact whose source is not the reference quoted. But in this cases perhaps the reference should not have been deleted, but simply moved at the end of the paragraph, immediately after the excerpt quoted in my comment above.--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
No because its still a blog so it can't be used as a reference in the first place, but yes it wasn't sourcing that claim even if it could have been used as a reference.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it is not a blog but a published paper: "published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201". I happen to have a copy, should I xerox it and mail it to you? When we submit the article again, we will use a reference to the published paper instead of a reference to a blog that references it.-(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
To reference the quote, you should reference the original copy. not a blog which carries a copy of it. Regardless though its immaterial for anything to do with this group. You can reference all kinds of facts which may be loosely related to this group (things they believe, etc) but unless you provide sources which are actually covering them, and sources which are actually ties them to those facts, citing this information is of little value to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the phrase "When we submit the article again, we will use" also conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to get the group into Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my mother language, but I believe "will" is used to convey an intention. I and others do, indeed, intend to resubmit the article at an appropriate moment with a list of citations and references in total compliance with Wikipedia formal rules. I believe any user has the right to submit articles, whose suitability for Wikipedia will then be evaluated by the community at large. This should, I believe, be evident. So, I am unable to see why you are emphasizing this point. To me, and please correct me if I am mistaken, this conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to keep similar groups out of Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. By all means, please feel free to delete this article if you can neutrally and objectively show that it does not yet meet the Wikipedia notability requirements (and I have already conceded this point). At the same time, please appreciate that I will not take orders from you regarding whether or not to resubmit it when it does meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. I or another Wikipedia user will resubmit this article if and when we think it is appropriate. Period.--Eschatoon (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a philosophy of preferring to have non-involved people create articles about subjects. It helps to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to avoid any inherent concern about NPOV, etc. There is also a feeling that if your organization is truly notable enough, e.g. its generating coverage in reliable sources, someone will read those and create an article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rimon Law Group[edit]

Non-notable company, per WP:CORP. Available information is all promotional. The references in Reuters and Marketwatch come from press releases. Also, previously deleted under name Rimon Law Group, Inc. John Nagle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I agree that the Reuters and Marketwatch pages cited in the article are press releases (the same press release, in fact), but there is one legitimate newspaper story which appeared in j. the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California. Is the one newspaper story enough to demonstrate notability? I'm not sure. --Eastmain (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently sourced, independent press and notable. Bstone (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only one piece of non-trivial and independent coverage. WP:N specifies multiple. WP:HEY would be at least one more of these - preferably one that is slightly higher profile (specifically less local). Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just had a look at WP:N and it does not stipulate multiple sources in order to pass the WP:N test. Bstone (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take the use of plural throughout to imply that one single source isn't good enough. This is how I've always interpreted it and that's not going to change, as it seems like a perfectly common-sense way of looking at the policy to me. In any case, it does specify that multiple sources are preferred. This is not a particularly mainstream news source, so to rely solely on it would be an extremely silly interpretation. Brilliantine (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - we have two copies of a press release and a church newsletter. This is supposed to be a significant international law firm. Where's the coverage in the legal press? Reports of cases won and lost? Significant law firms are usually more visible than this. They have 45 hits in Google, but most of them are that same press release. This looks like advertising. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Church newsletter", huh? Besides from the fact that the Jewish News Weekly is most certainly not a "church" it also is not a newsletter but rather a real press. Bstone (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. An eleven-lawyer law firm practicing US law while physically located in Israel, apparently. Attempts to bootstrap itself into notability by declaring itself to be "part of a trend." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was the independent press which described it as "part of the trend" and the press makes it survive the notability test. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I remain unconvinced of notability. Besides the press releases there's only one source, and I'd expect a notable law firm to make a bigger splash in the news than this. Reyk _YO! 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not require multiple sources in independent press in order to establish notability. This firm has press in an independent source and thus it quite easily passes the notability test. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Smerdis. This is a bunch of press releases and self-promotional bits about a law firm that according to its own press releases is less than two months old. RGTraynor 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there is one press release cited there is also an article firmly establishing notability in independent press. Thus, it passes the notability and reliable source test quite easily. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your (in my opinion) rather eccentric interpretation of the notability criteria, there could be an article about pretty much anything. I hope you're not offended, but I do have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Brilliantine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I, an EMT who lives in Boston, have an conflict of interest with a law firm in Israel? Do you always suspect a WP:COI whenever you have differing opinions with people? Please remember to assume good faith about contributors. Bstone (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only asking on the off-chance, as you created the article and have been defending it very consistently on here. It is possible for people to have conflicts of interests relating people or things in different locations - through family, friends etc - this is common sense. As you can see from my contribs, this is the only AFD I have commented on for which I have even considered the possibility that there might be a WP:COI involved. Lastly, a conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute bad faith. I am not questioning your good faith - I was merely enquiring. Brilliantine (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. One source is not enough IMO - especially given the fairly niche focus of it (presumably the north Californian Jewish community). My take on the notability guidelines is to require multiple sources unless the single source is really exceptional, as having a single source might be a "fluke", whereas multiple sources helps to establish a pattern. Silverfish (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single news article is insufficient to establish notability. The only other substantial coverage are all press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's subject simply does not rise to the level of being "notable." A few press release describing the firm, but no secondary sources detailing accomplishments. This is not an attack on the writer, merely an opinion based on the article itself, and the sources supporting it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence or even assertion of any actual accomplishments. Founding a firm does not make it notable, nor does suiccess in getting an announcement of the fact in the press. DGG (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like others I agree with the WP:NOT statement 'Multiple sources are generally preferred'. This is especially true for businesses where a notable company should be able to provide plenty of press coverage. The single source in local/regional press does not convince me that this company is notable. Nuttah (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Effective Governance[edit]

Procedural nomination (PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD). First PROD stated: "Unclear notability, written in overly promotional tone". De-PROD (by me) edit summary stated: "further reading section added with link to 'media about Foundation'; items here can be brought into this article to support notability as reliable sources". Second PROD stated: "notability". Second PROD permalink is also the version current at the time of nomination here at AfD. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, tending towards delete - Some digging will need to be done to find more sources that aren't just reprints of press releases. So far, there is only one. If the article is left in its current state, it should be deleted. [35] at least gives a mention (but mentions aren't good enough). More sourcing is WP:HEY for keeping. Brilliantine (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I added the initial PROD, and looking at the source that has been added, I can see the potential for keeping the article. But all substantial edits have come from the PR agency representing the organization, so I'm not optimistic that an independent editor will improve the article any time soon. --Mosmof (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notability is established I think but I would like to see more independent sources. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't seen any notable reporting which is actually about the Foundation rather than about the guy who founded it (mentioning it as his side line). That doesn't make WP:NOT in my view but obviously a consensus may disagree. --BozMo talk 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable mentions despite the recent addition of a link to a fawning article. A short description could be added to its founder's article if appropriate, but until there are sources that show notability for the English version of Wikipedia, there's no reason for it to exist. Flowanda | Talk 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the Foundation has only been around for a year I think it isn't surprising that there is limited news coverage. The coverage that does exist though is enough IMO to establish notability. RMHED (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references at all for anything it has done except receive donations. "currently is working on 3 projects..." can best be interpreted as "Has not yet done anything notable" DGG (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche caviar[edit]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chardonnay socialist

Seems to lack notability, seems like a simple dictionary definition. — Realist² 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as French dicdef. JJL (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the other ad hominems ~~and have a long hard look at whether all of the English language ones be deleted as well, as~~ they are also dicdefs and few of them have sources that adequately describe the notability of the concept. Brilliantine (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The concept is notable, the individual phrases used to describe it are not. Brilliantine (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't just a dictionary definition, it also looks WP:MADEUP to me. JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c.80,000 google hits suggests it might not be made up - but in any case, it isn't worth an article. Brilliantine (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as per Chardonnay socialist - it is an ad hominem term that is not a mere dictionary definition. Reliable sources can be found to support the term. For example a New York Sun / Daily Telegraph article concerning Segolene Royale. Furthermore the article at French wikipedia is quite extensive (and referenced though not extensively) indicating there is potential for further development. Note for example it has been the subject of a book by Laurent Joffrin (about whom the French have an article but we don't seem to yet). --Matilda ^talk 05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The interwiki links are interesting: de:Toskana-Fraktion, eo:Toskani-frakcio (not that Esperanto is really significant - just meant it was created by a German speaking practitioner of Esperanto I supect), nl:Neo-gauchisme, sv:Rödvinsvänster. There had been some discussion previously about a merger at Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) - there was no consensus but I think the issue should be pursued and some article that encompasses the ad hominem attacks on wealthy people who lean to the left . The article on Liberal elite might not be right - but there has to be something where we bring it together and it does not breach WP:NOR --Matilda ^talk 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Segolene Royale article is not really a good source as it does not give coverage of the article subject. All it does is prove the phrase exists. Good sourcing for this would need to consist of articles on or scholarly philological coverage of the phrase itself. Brilliantine (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brilliantine's comment seems to have overlooked the references in the French interwikid article which show that good sourcing is available. S/he also ignores my reference to the book by fr:Laurent Joffrin. For everyone's benefit I will provide the citation:

Joffrin, Laurent (2006). Histoire de la gauche caviar. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont.

The publisher also has a French wikipedia article at fr:Éditions Robert Laffont - ie notable publisher . The link to the publisher's blurb The Amazon link to the book . The blurb states:

La « gauche caviar »… Est-ce une fausse gauche qui dit ce qu’il faut faire et qui ne fait pas ce qu’elle dit ? Une tribu frivole et tartuffe qui aime le peuple et se garde bien de partager son sort ? Pis encore, est-ce qu’elle n’introduirait pas, en douce, les réflexes des classes bourgeoises au sein du mouvement progressiste ? Ces gens-là seraient des traîtres, tout simplement.
Dans un pamphlet polémique et historique, Laurent Joffrin analyse ce phénomène apparemment superficiel qui a joué un grand rôle et souvent fait la différence dans le jeu politique, en France comme ailleurs. La gauche caviar irrite, certes, mais constatons qu’elle a toujours reçu les renforts de nombreux bourgeois riches et éclairés. Qu’ils ont souvent dirigé des partis de gauche, servi la classe ouvrière, œuvré pour le progrès et qu’ils furent constamment pour les socialistes un éclaireur, une aide, un compagnon. De Voltaire à Zola, de Victor Hugo à Kennedy, de Philippe d’Orléans à Keynes, la gauche caviar a été composée d’hommes et de femmes de qualité, d’une efficacité décisive et qui eurent une fonction essentielle dans la marche des événements.
En 2006, qu’en est-il ? L’argent-roi depuis les années 1990 a entraîné derrière lui et dans les tourbillons de la mondialisation une gauche caviar qui s’est peu à peu coupée des réalités. Le reste de la population s’est replié dans la condamnation d’une modernité toujours plus injuste. Et la gauche caviar a abandonné son rôle de charnière, c’est-à-dire son rôle historique. Il faut sonner l’alarme pour fermer la porte à tous les populismes et séparer clairement les partisans du progrès et ceux du conservatisme. C’est le but de ce livre.

Which in English translated by bablefish :

The “left caviar”… Is this a false left which says what it is necessary to make and which does not do only it says? A frivolous tribe and sanctimonious hypocrite who loves the people and take care well not to share its fate? Worse still, wouldn't it introduce, into soft, the reflexes of the middle-class classes within the movement progressist? These people-there would be traitors, quite simply. In a polemical and historical lampoon, Laurent Joffrin analyzes this apparently surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere. The left caviar irritates, certainly, but note that it always received the reinforcements of many rich and lit middle-class men. That they often directed left parties, served the working class, works for progress and that they were constantly for the Socialists a scout, a help, a companion. Of Voltaire with Zola, of Victor Hugo in Kennedy, Philippe of Orleans with Keynes, the left caviar was made up men and women of quality, of a decisive effectiveness and who had an essential function in the walk of the events. In is 2006, qu ' in? The money-king since the years 1990 involved behind him and in the swirls of universalization a left caviar which cut realities little by little. The remainder of the population was folded up in the judgment of a modernity increasingly more unjust. And the left caviar gave up its role of hinge, i.e. its historical role. It is necessary to sound alarm to close the door with all the populisms and to clearly separate the partisans from progress and those of conservatism. It is the goal of this book.

I won't clean up the translation - it is enough to to give the gist for the sake of this discussion. A reference in English to the book in the context of Ségolène Royal's failure to win against Sarkozy is at http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/royal_4110.jsp :

As Laurent Joffrin, former editor of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (and soon to take over the ailing daily Libération), explains in his Histoire de la gauche caviar (History of the Caviar Left): these bobos (bohemian bourgeois) have all but forgotten about the people. Meanwhile, her probable opponent Nicolas Sarkozy seems only to know how to boss the people around in the name of security, order and controlling immigration.

AfD is not supposed to be a call for improvement to articles, it is to discuss whether an article should exist or not. On the basis that reliable sources exist to expand the article beyond a mere dicdef, the article should be kept. --Matilda ^talk 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think that this source does much more than prove the term's use as a synonym for all of the other ad hominems being discussed. It certainly doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background, rather it merely applies it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but I am not sure I comprehend - we have a book by a notable author entirely devoted to the term gauche caviar - how do you think it "doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background" ? How is it that a phrase that according to a prominent French political commentator is "apparently [a] surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere" is unworthy of an article. Other sources - in French are http://pluriel.free.fr/gauche_debat10.html A bebelfish translation (unedited as this is merely a discussion not a ref for the article) of the lead indicates the definition is available from this source:

There had been the intellectual left, the left criticizes, the moderated left, the radical left… Since the Eighties, it there with the left caviar. This n' is more from now on one political positioning which colours l' membership of the left, c' is a sociocultural and economic marker. The Left caviar would be these rich, anonymous or known people who would have their entries in the circles of the capacity qu' it is economic, media, cultural or political, without necessarily in being and which would have a level or an easy way of life. This definition of course does not satisfy because, it does not comprise the moral share which is appropriate. The left caviar is inevitably middle-class with the warping direction of the term, it knows misery only d' in top and thus, for it, being of left, c' is to revolt comfortably. In fact, one reproaches those which l' one affuble of this nickname not to resemble those enough qu' they claim to defend and to miss sincerity and d' authenticity in their engagements.

Alternatively from La Libre Belgique - essentially a review of the book but a disussion also: http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=288175

The lawsuit of the left caviar
Eric de Bellefroid
26/05/2006
The fall of the elites progressists Frenchwomen magistralement dismounted by Laurent Joffrin
Director of the drafting of “Nouvel Observateur”, Laurent Joffrin enjoys for this reason d' noble and worthy expertise in what looks at the left caviar. This left which reads its newspaper d' access, and that this one observes very near in return.
Left in a remote exploration the phenomenon, it brings back qu' to us; there existed already in ancient Rome, and qu' a certain middle-class elite - even aristocratic - s' is attached for a long time to the cause of the popular classes. Thus it was seen with Voltaire, Fayette, Talleyrand or the duke d' Orleans, but still with Victor Hugo or Emile Zola, and even in the United States with president John F. Kennedy or in England with the brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes.
A USEFUL CASTE
If French socialism s' d' is ever prevailed; a less tradition ouvrierist, it owed it with proletarian masses which were pleased d' to have at their head of the chiefs able to dominate the line until over the plans cultural and intellectual. Also the left known as caviar caused it the vindication of this line as much as the hatred of l' extreme left. “Bringing the reinforcement d' one entregent and d' a competence, it was useful.”
But this n' is more the case, objects Laurent Joffrin. “The left caviar n' had ever lived with the people but it served it, what qu' one says. It l' gave up. It s' is put to think without him and even against him.” And that because, in the years 1990, l' money took its fol take-off. The financiarisation of l' economy, doped by the liberal internationalization, involved all the leading class in its morbidity.
Admittedly the left reformist, according to Joffrin, n' it does not have demerit of the working class and socialist values; it will have even humanized capitalism. While its historical assessment is sometimes brilliant, sometimes disappointing, but always honourable, the things thus are spoiled after 1990. Left of luxury, which was found so well in l' example of Pierre Mendès France, radical middle-class man, then will be found committal for trial.
THE TIME OF THE RIGOUR
The first years Mitterrand n' had however not been bad. “Technos” of the second left, Mauroy, Delors or Rocard, s' they s' were d' access évertués to implement the 110 proposals of the candidate-president, had negotiated since 1983 the salutary one “turning of the rigour”, ceasing cultivating the myth of the rupture with capitalism and fastening France with l' rather; Europe and with l' market economy...

It is quite obvious that the term exists and has been defined and discussed extensively - including its history and usage. There are sources available - the article should be kept and developed. --Matilda ^talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) What I'm trying to say is that the phrase is no more than a synonym or a translation of, for instance, "Champagne Socialist". Do we have the French word for "libertarian" as an article? Of course not. How should this be any different? I wouldn't mind noting it as a French language expression of the concept if a unified article is created, but it has no particular notability as a separate article. A notable phrase, especially a foreign language one, would be one for which the phrase itself is discussed - i.e. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which has been discussed specifically as a phrase in terms of its meaning, usage and from the point of view of linguistics as a tripartite slogan. Brilliantine (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you are perhaps proposing is a merge to Champagne socialist? A merger is not deletion. --Matilda ^talk 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the options I have given in my !vote above. Brilliantine (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want to merge things, there are quite a lot of other similar terms that could be merged I believe. We could create a list "terms used to annoy liberals" lol. Sorry, nothing wrong with a bit of humour in these heated debates. — Realist² 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with humour :-) My issue with the merger would be breach of WP:SYNTH. We can find sources that link them but ...--Matilda ^talk 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep probably enough material for notability on its own, but possibly a merge to champagne socialist on the basis of the references. DGG (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lot. The concept is notable and encyclopaedic but I don't think we need an article on every variation of name that has been invented. Nuttah (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable per the references from reliable sources, interesting and relevant to current affairs. It could expand in the future. The French wikipedia article is fairly well-developed. It may become a dictionary definition but it is not in the 2008 Hachette. Mcewan (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is in Larousse - see ref - search for caviar --Matilda ^talk 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow'ed in. No assertion of notability. CSD'ed twice, PROD'ed once. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester city ligers[edit]

No evidence that this pro dodgeball team is notable. Being mentioned in an article about a charity event doesn't cut it. Was speedied twice, with one contested prod.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete inadequate evidence of WP:N--would be hapy to reconsider if more news sources or evidence of professional level added. JJL (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pro team? It would help if there were notable awards, and citations to confirm this. Synergy 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that they're considered notable. Do any news sources exist? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of professional status. There is no notability guideline for sports teams as far as I can tell. There needs to be one. Applying WP:GNG shows no evidence of notability - one news article has a one-sentence mention. Brilliantine (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely 0% chance that any professional dodgeball teams exist in the UK, where the sport as a whole is pretty much unknown other than from that movie. This is clearly just an amateur recreational team of no note - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe Dodgeball is at a level where any teams in the UK merit an article. There appears to be no significant coverage of this team around. --Michig (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they raised "£25'000"? No assertion of notability. Maybe they do exist, but all done by one editor [36],smacks of conflict of interest. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Life/Bathwater (The Remixes)[edit]

Articles are for songs, not singles, and both of these songs already have articles. Very unlikely search term. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Notability is definitely a factor here, seeing that both of the songs have their own article. Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable remix album; unless the remix topped the original song, remixes are universally unnotable. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term for failing notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge info into the articles on the songs. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Dalby[edit]

Possible conflict of interest, author is Emilia's own father and has only ever edited this article. "Emilia Dalby" gets 114 Google hits. Proposal for deletion was contested, so going to AfD instead. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved relevant comments by the author from the article itself to the article talk page. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [37] is the only notable source I can find and it isn't a particularly good one. Probably delete for now. Brilliantine (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan, and WP:COI. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only 25 unique hits on the UK Google, and the only thing that even looks like a reliable source amidst the handful of blogs and Wiki mirrors is that Hello "article;" I qualify it because the article is, in fact, all of four sentences long [38]. She does have a very professionally done personal website, though, although bikini shots of a 13-year-old are in the way of creepy. RGTraynor 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless cite found - Article says that at age 13 she's the youngest classical recording star; provide a reputable third-party cite confirming that and it can stay, otherwise I'm afraid she's just not notable enough yet. Simesa (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she looks to be an up and coming artist, but there's no coverage right now to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independant sources can be found. Seems like a nice kid, but not notable. Edward321 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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