Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 13 September 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Non-notable athlete/Non-notable seicer | talk | contribs 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Trew[edit]

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

Fails WP:Athlete as he never made an appearance in a professional league. He only played reserves football which doesn't make him notable. Crickettragic (talk) 13:31, 10 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Failing WP:N is enough reason to delete. If someone in the future wants to rewrite an article, with references to all the books, magazines and articles dedicated to this guy's achievements, they can resubmit the article. As the article stands now, it contains only unverified unreferenced claims that don't show the subject's notability. The current article is not worth keeping.--Lester 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that you agree with WP:N. For your reference, it does not agree with you, however. It says "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." This means that the onus is on those requesting deletion to search for sources to satisfy WP:N, before declaring that such sources do not exist. I looked quickly for some (Aussie newspaper archives only), and found these:
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jerry, a few here but when you filter out the false positives, they just confirm that he has been unable to find a permanent team. Has not played. While WP:ATHLETE may not hold to non-athletes, it has been accepted as a general guidelines for non notable athletes to keep Wikipedia from turning into a directory of athletes who have never played. If they're not notable as athletes adn aren't notable under any other guideline, why keep? TravellingCari 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is when people misapply the supplemental notability guidelines as if they are an additional filter that subjects must fit through in order for their article to be kept. Prior to my objection above, nobody had even mentioned that they attempted to determine if this subject was notable under the general notability guideline. For all we knew, he might have been a former child sitcom star, or could be a famous chef or architect. All we saw above was "this subject fails WP:Athlete, so delete". Even athletes who have extraordinary lackluster careers can be notable if they are the subject of numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. I was just trying to steer this discussion toward relevant argumentation that would make closing easier. I don;t care whether this article is deleted or not; I just care that the process is executed properly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be just me, but I would find it frustrating to have to jump through 40 hoops if an article asserted notability in one field, we'll use athlete here, that at AfD I'd have to judge it not on that but also all the other notability guidelines. Where's the limit. If he had published one article, would we have to judge him against WP:PROF as well? Hell in this case the article itself essentially said he wasn't notable. There are athletes who are notable, amateur ones who receive press coverage, minor leagues who are notable for s omething else. But there was no evidence he was notable. And yes I googled before I !voted. I didn't link the lack of results because the article itself said exactly why it wasn't notable. That's just my .02 TravellingCari 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed find it frustrating, but also understand that for the people who wrote the article, it may be equally frustrating. The answer to your question is absolutely no, there is no limit as to how many notability guidelines may be applied to a given subject, and none of them bypass WP:N. If a former child star becomes an opera-singing, tennis-playing lottery winner and discovers the cure to gallstones while teaching chemistry at the local university and writes it in his memoirs right after writing a screenplay for a Jaws Meets the Jetsons movie, we would indeed have alot of work to do to prove he was non-notable. Perhaps the reason would be that such an interesting person is actually notable. Think of it this way: each notability guideline is a filter, by which an article can be saved from the deletion process. all of these filters are additive. It only has to be saved by one such filter to avoid being flushed away. Just about the only area in wikipedia where we have difficulty with this is soccer-related articles. It seems the wikiproject members for soccer-related articles want to define their own notability criteria that is more deletionsist in nature, and they seem to want their local consensus to overrride the community consensus on the deletion process. And perhaps this is not a bad thing. But the way to do that would be to make a proposal in WP:N to make WPAthlete and/or WP:Footy an exception to the rule. I seriously doubt such a proosal would pass, but I am sure that to try to force such a policy change through local consensus one AfD at a time is not the way to do it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jerry is just arguing for the sake of arguing, he certainly isn't being helpful. Luke Trew has seen more clubs than Tiger Woods and even when he wasn't signed up by a fully professional club he did nothing of note. Seeing as he wasn't a child sitcom star or a famous chef, which I knew before nominating him, I see no reason not to have him deleted. In future though, before I nominate someone, I will be sure investigate whether or not they were the Mayor of Paris on the 0.0000005% chance that he or she was. Crickettragic (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, nay, my fine wikipedian friend, I am not arguing for argument sake. I am defending process. We do not want wikipedia to become a place where editors cluster in masses voting to delete that which they do not like. We don't want wikipedia to swell and shrink to ebb and tide of recent sentiment. We have laid down some simple lasting processes which ensure that a fair cautious approach is used to consider deletion of content. That process requires for target pages to be deleted on the basis of notability, that an honest effort be made to accurately determine if the subject is notable. This means that we first scrutinize articles by WP:N, if the subject proves to be notable by WP:N, then whammo! We are done. If it fails WP:N, or is a marginal case, then we can look to see if a one or more specific supplemental notability guideline(s) are applicable to the subject. If so, and if the subject passes such a supplemental guideline, then whammo! We are done. Far too often, especially for some reason in soccer-related articles, we find participants want to throw WP:N out, and go straight to WP:Athlete or WP:Footy, and if the subject fails it, kill the article immediately and ignore any reference to WP:N, as if supplemental guidelines somehow trump WP:N. In this discussion, NOBODY even mentioned any cursory attempt to determine if the subject passed WP:N. I was duty-bound, as a prospective closing administrator, to comment on that deficiency and relist the discussion. So please do not impune my motives and ignore that the arguments you and others made were not effective in reaching an acceptable consensus to close this discussion. Please instead do your due diligence and search google and newspaper archives, and see if this subject is notable and comment on your findings. That is the only way this discussion can be correctly closed. IMHO. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO & WP:N, lacking significant coverage and never having competed in a fully professional league (I PRODded him initially). --AmaltheaTalk 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his most notable act appears to being characterised by the West Australian as a notoriously poor recruit for West Coast. Most references appear to detail his playing time in the Diamond Valley Football League, several rungs below AFL, suggesting he falls quite short of meeting notability guidelines. Murtoa (talk) 06:00, 16 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Lucy Power. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable marina seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Landing Marina[edit]

Chinook Landing Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging the prose to Puyallup (tribe) is also an option. This marina gets non-trivial RS attention as a tribal enterprise. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 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 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Marina[edit]

John Wayne Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mix of advertising and blatant copyvio. The marina gets some gets some RS attention as a locally significant landmark, but not enough to salvage the article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Bay Marina[edit]

Elliot Bay Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Brilliantine; multiple, independent sources seem to verify notability per WP:ORG. Article does not appear to be a directory -- does not appear to fall under any category of WP:NOTDIR, 1-5. Not sure specifically which criteria of WP:ORG and WP:NOTDIR the nominator thinks the Elliott Bay Marina does not satisfy. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article as it stands now is significantly less spammy that it was when nominated, due to the deletion of the infobox template that used to appear on it. I still don't think it notable though. Mayalld (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To me, the The Seattle Times, Fox News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the EPA, and the Washington State Park System sources qualify as significant coverage, from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (per WP:GNG). The mentions at Fox News, the EPA website, and several independent national publications (which have, admittedly unverified notability...but they are undoubtedly national independent references) here, here and here seem to satisfy the WP:ORG stipulation that "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sure there are sources that mention the marina, but they don't seem to be ABOUT the marina Mayalld (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep enough sources, but appears to be minor. We66er (talk) 21:19, 17 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 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medway Mariners[edit]

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

My initial hope was to find sources and expand this article, however on further investigation it seems that this baseball team would fail notability guidelines. There is very little in the way of 3rd party sources and it also seems the team is not in the top few tiers of Baseball in the United Kingdom, where the sport is amateur. Improving the article to the required standards seems difficult, but if anyone else can find suitable sources to prove notability I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Basement12 (T.C) 15:43, 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, Xclamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If correctly described by nom as an amateur team, it is likely to be NN, and should thus be deleted (or -possibly - merged with its league. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 10 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into Maidstone if unable to Keep the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea whether it gets deleted or not, i've added a sentence to Maidstone#Sport but there is little of relevance in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - after attempting to salvage the article, I couldn't find anything to add that would make it notable. The best source I could find was from the BBC but it was merely a sport review. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:22, 16 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 under WP:CSD#G7, as the only significant contributor has below agreed with deletion. GRBerry 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parker (Red Faction)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect; spinouts happen because of WP:SIZE issues, which is obviously not the case here. Nifboy (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. I was planning on expanding it but it really is just for the first video game, no other media, so go ahead and delete it. I'll just add a small characters section to the first Red Faction article. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:33, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Clarence E Walsh[edit]

USS Clarence E Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure plot rehash. Nifboy (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plot summary/OR. Not covered in sources independent from the game. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. If we keep it for some reason at least rename "historical background" to something else! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has no significance, is only a plot and therefor is cruft and it lacks notability. Salavat (talk) 18:32, 18 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 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. BJTalk 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)corrected by – Toon(talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Echelon[edit]

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (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 delete. Will userify if someone wants to attempt a merge. — Coren (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (Ape Escape)[edit]

Spike (Ape Escape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:52, 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. MBisanz talk 16:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake J Presents Word Up[edit]

Blake J Presents Word Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was already PROD deleted. It's clearly promotional and no evidence of notability is given other than claiming that 3000 people (a tiny figure in global terms) have played episodes online. It's also very poor quality and possible not fixable, especially if no one around here knows anything about the topic. Largo Plazo (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete It's being kind to AfD the latest in the same fake articles and multiple wikilinks created by these clumsy hoaxster wannabees. A search on this subject shows no notability and no verification. I'm still removing internal links from the last batch of deleted articles. Flowanda | Talk 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome to speedy-delete it if you have a basis for it. I couldn't based on notability because it isn't a person, company, club, band, or website and I don't know enough about it to make any of the other judgments called for for speedy deletion. Also, I'd only seen the previous PROD, and you can only CSD based on an earlier deletion if the deletion was an AfD. If there's already been an AfD for this article, then certainly, go ahead and speedy it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Previous version of this article was already deleted but this does not satisfy WP:CSD#G4 because the prior deletion was due to WP:PROD. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete pure unencyclopedic advertisement with no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for obvious reasons given. TheMolecularMan (talk) 04:30, 18 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. Why the heck was this relisted? Nobody called for a delete, really, and the nom withdrew. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Jansson-Zambra[edit]

Sophia Jansson-Zambra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy for "not notable" got declined, although both editors agreed it was a borderline case. Suggestion was to take it here, so here it is.
Delete - My reasoning: I don't think WP:BIO is met at all. Sophia Jansson's father and uncle are fairly notable, and indeed most of the article and refs are actually about them. Sophia gets two sentences. Basically she appears to be just another office manager, working in her father's company. I don't see how that makes her notable. With all due respect, of course.    SIS  22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. The current version[10] is a huge improvement compared to the one I tagged for deletion[11] four days ago. I think notability is now shown and well sourced. I suggest to close this discussion and keep the article.    SIS  22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her father and aunt are both dead leaving her as the "heir" to the popular Moomin merchandising created by her aunt. She has contributed work with her father (prior to his death) to oversight of some of the most recent projects related to this series and she now provides the sole oversight for several projects related to the series. As a member of the Jansson line, she is afforded a legitimacy in her projects which is lacking for others (like the Augsburger Puppenkiste group, Masaaki Osumi, Rintaro, and a number of other typically Japanese "office managers") who have created "non-canon" products. In this way she can be compared to Roger S. Baum, the grandson of the creator of the Wizard of Oz. -Thibbs (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (article creator) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)(sl. clarif.)[reply]
Note - It is quite inaccurate to suggest that only 2 of the 10 sentences in the stub discuss Jansson-Zambra. In point of actual fact, Jansson-Zambra is explicitly discussed in 7 of the 10 sentences and is implicitly referenced in 1 more. Only 2 sentences are given her aunt and 3 sentences discuss her father. Both her father and aunt are only discussed in connection to their relation to Jansson-Zambra. -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)(sl. clarif.)[reply]
I still don't see how that satisfies WP:BIO (or WP:NOTINHERITED), sorry. She's mentioned in the Moomin article already, and I'd say that's sufficient. All my searches turn up not much more than that she's a manager at Moomin.    SIS  12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it appears that you are unfamiliar with the series in question here. Evidence points to the fact that your review of the stub was little more than a cursory formality and that this is simply part of the well-intentioned but poorly executed campaign of a self-proclaimed deletionista. I agree that deletionism is a valid viewpoint and that there are certain concrete benefits deletionists (and deletionistas) provide to wiki as a project, but in maintaining a position of deletion based solely on personal first impressions and sticking to it in particular instances contrary to the views of one's peers (see [12] and [13]) strikes me as taking things too personally. Wikipedia is a community and one's pride is never at stake. Sticking strictly to the matter at hand, it is helpful here to review the repeatedly referenced WP:BIO.
According to WP:BIO:
Basic criteria - checkY - There is a presumption of notability in cases where "[the person in question] has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Here Jansson-Zambra is the subject of a number of reliable independent sources (I believe this is the reason the speedy-delete was twice refuted).
Additional criteria - checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY - "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."
  • "The person has received a notable award or honor" - checkY - Here Jansson-Zambra has been asked to speak at numerous events including invitations from the Finnish consulate in Washington. There is at least an argument that this is something of an honor.
  • "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - checkY - Here Jansson-Zambra provides supervision and oversight for the comics made after the Moomin series and maintains artistic control over the output related to the greater Moomin series (including print, film, and graphic media). She is widely cited in relation to the product line (See below).
  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." - checkY - I already have provided 6 reputable cites. See the following additional examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Although arguably not a peer, her aunt also gives her mention in her novel, Rent Spel, and she is the hero of the book Sommarboken by implicit reference. As discussed in the rationale for invalidation of the proposed speedy-delete, the high caliber of many of these citations is above question.
  • "The person has played a major role in co-creating, a collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" - checkY - As artistic director in charge of oversight she contributes to the development of the greater Moomin series. This series is widely popular in many (33+) countries (See ref). An incomplete list of scholarly works on the series can be found at the fi.wikipedia article.
  • "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention." - checkY - (a) Jansson-Zambra's work relates to the Moomin series and as the main author of the series has died Jansson-Zambra's work may be considered either peri- or deutero- rather than proto-canonical. This is significantly monumental in nature. (b) She has taken part in the 31st "Dreams & Visions" Annual Children's Literature Conference and will take part in Helsinki Design Week 2008 in a week or so. She has also been a major part of at least one documentary on her aunt ([14]). (c) evidence of critical attention may be found throughout the sources on the page and those provided here.
To address your concerns that your personal research has not yielded any substantial results, please note that (1) her maiden name, "Sophia Jansson," is more commonly used, and (2) the last name is spelled with one "n" and two "s"'s. (Note: I say this not to be patronizing but because this is a common misspelling for non-Scandinavian people). My personal research yields some 1,270 Google hits.
-Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←You seem to assume I'm trying to delete for the sake of it. I'm not. I brought this here out of genuine concern. Since you feel the need to throw WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:EGO at me, can I just say WP:AGF in return? As far as your link to my page goes, would you mind linking to the current version and not to a version that was already outdated (by 14 revisions) when you wrote your reply? I'm sure the older one suits you better, but unfortunately it only tells half the story. The same goes for the links to "my peers". They both suggested taking it here. They did. If you quote, quote properly and fairly, please. Thanks. Back to the article: if you have 3rd party sources or other texts that asses her notability and that are not in the article, I strongly suggest you add them to it. That would help a lot.    SIS  21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith I believe that you've spotted a short stub and have made the hasty decision that it should be deleted as some form of WP:SPAM. I applaud your efforts to keep advertisements off Wikipedia. As I said before, deletionism as a policy has a place in maintaining good order (if not essential to maintain the respectability of the whole project). That said, it is patently clear that your review of the stub and the issues surrounding it was done in a sloppy manner and I submit that the intention of removing the article as fast as possible is apparent among other things from your repeated speedy delete nominations. To give the briefest possible of dirty laundry lists by way of explaining myself:
  • You stated that "Sophia Jansson's father and uncle are fairly notable, and ... most of the article and refs are actually about them." In fact Jansson-Zambra's uncle was never mentioned in the stub although her aunt was. This is clear from the language of the stub.
  • You stated that "Sophia gets two sentences." In fact (as I previously suggested) Jansson-Zambra is discussed in 7 of the 10 sentences and implicitly referenced in 1 more. The remaining 2 sentences lead directly and significantly to further discussion of Jansson-Zambra.
  • You stated that "she's a manager at Moomin." In fact Moomin is the name of the series (or character to be most precise) and not the name of the various companies she provides oversight for or the permission for whose artistic creations she has granted.
I realize you might not have much time to evaluate in detail each of the many stubs you delete, but surely you would agree that it is a tactical mistake to allow the creator of the article such a clear insight into your haste. Anyway I'm glad you're not simply trying to delete the article for the sake of it. I must admit some confusion as to your continued interest in it post nomination but if I've assumed bad faith then I apologize. For all I know your concerted efforts may simply be designed to highlight the need for expansion of the stub or to gain consensus for its existence that may be referenced in later matters. Whatever the case, as far as I can see so far there have been no objections to the stub except from you whereas two peers (I'm not sure why you would have placed quotes around them... they are peers are they not?) have been instrumental in blocking deletion, I have found an editor who appears to give implicit approval of the article (Note: I have moved this to the bottom and outdented it again as a pseudo-3rd party view), and of course I am in favor of keeping it. The AfD has been placed on the Business, Finland, and Comic AfD lists and has thus far escaped any calls for deletion. It might be worth considering placing it on the Sweden AfD list as well since the relevant series is Swedish-Finnish and may in fact be more popular in Sweden. I recognize that both peer editors who blocked the speedy delete also suggested AfD but considering their attention was only drawn to the article as a result of your speedy delete nomination I'd say the presumption of deletability was pretty strongly in your favor at the time and their blocking a speedy delete speaks louder than their suggestion of a compromise AfD.
Finally, as far as your suggestion that I have selectively misconstrued your userpage, I can assure you that you've completely missed my point. The diff I provided as a link to your page contained the line to which I had referred just prior. Specifically the diff I linked was the edit in which you added the line that currently adorns your current userpage: "The trophies of a deletionista. (Hey, other people put moose heads on their walls.)" I may have offended you by suggesting that ego shouldn't play a part in AfDs, but your accusations that I had violated WP:AGF coupled with your lack of good faith concerning my references to your page and your suggestions that an older version suited my purposes better seem to constitute a POINT edit.
To answer your topical complaints that 3rd party references should be added I will gladly comply. As it stands the 10 sentences that make up the stub are already referenced by 7 strong 3rd party citations (one is used twice for a total of 8 citations), but if it will support the validity of the article in your eyes then I will add them all. There is, in fact, more substantive information to be added as well and I will try to add all of this tomorrow. The reason I had held back was to allow an un-tampered-with version for public scrutiny but you are correct that my case could only be enhanced by greater citation and a filling-out of the body of the stub. I will address this as soon as I can and hopefully I can convince you of the merits of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your continious comments about my other WP contributions and my userpage are becoming a little tiresome, to be honest. I fail to see how they contribute to establishing Jansson's notability. Don't shoot the messenger and let's stick to the subject, please. If you want to discuss my work, please do so on my Talk page. Thanks.    SIS  10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith and I hope you are as well. Consider it from my perspective: The whole thing seemed to come on much more strongly than I am used to considering the stub had only been up for a few days, was reliably cited, and appeared to have been gone over hastily with a pre-conclusion of "delete." I think we can both clearly see where we're coming from now and I agree to return strictly to the subject. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another minor point, I think it is safe to say that there is an implicit keep from this editor who had originally redlinked "Sophia Jansson" (the maiden name) in this edit. It should be noted that this editor has a clean log. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your arguments, but now you're stretching it a bit. A red link is an implicit keep? Let's wait until that IP comes here and gives an opinion, shall we?    SIS  10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that much of a stretch. What does it mean to you when a person redlinks? To me it means that either they expect there to be an article on the topic (implying a meeting of WP:NOTABILITY requirements) or that they wish there to be an article on the topic (implying a sense of notability). -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- fails WP:BIO, as per nominator. Change to Weak keep. None of the sources used in the article treat her as the main subject; she is only mentioned in passing. Also: the article itself reads like a self-promotional CV, with several typical (unsourced) phrases often found in such documents, such as "provided direct oversight together with her father for the 1990 Moomin animated series", "became an active help in management", "represented Finnish children's literature during an engaging lecture and presentation".) Afv2006 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asked user to reconsider. -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that her notability is extremely marginal and that info on her would be more appropriate as a section included in the article about the trademark or about her better-known relatives, but in light of the effort extended to establish notability, I'll withdraw my "delete" - in anticipation of better sourcing. Hopefully, she has at least one article where she is the subject, not mentioned solely as "the niece" in an article about her aunt? Also: Blogs and message boards (such as the Yahoo groups) have no place among the references - the many substandard sources now inserted (including a comic shop advertisement and posts/blog entries from http://rubycafe.s32.xrea.com/blog/cat21/ , http://groups.yahoo.com/group/moominvalley/message/1556 , http://katewombat.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html) look really desperate and urgently need to be replaced with reliable sources appropriate for use in biographies of living persons). But the article has more substance and since a few of the sources used indicate that she will be/has been represented at different Scandinavian events, it can't be ruled out that she might soon be well-known enough that people might actually want to search WP for info on her. Afv2006 (talk) 23:38, 18 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, — Coren (talk) 02:40, 19 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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Sharma[edit]

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

After the last discussion was closed as no consensus, Stifle, myself and Mukerjee debated this article significantly on the talk page, with Stifle and myself wishing to redirect it to the article on the murder, claiming the subject was notable for only one event and Mukerjee believing Sharma warranted an article of his own. I have no doubt that the case was very significant, but the notability of the subject seems to derive primarily from the case. Note that there are also significant BLP concerns- the article is mostly rather negative, and there are some accusations that have remained unsourced for a while. Take, for instance, this line- "Shortly after he was released on bail in 2003, there was a fight between employees of Blue Ice and some customers; Manu too was reportedly involved, but his name was dropped from the case and the disco’s manager was booked instead." This is unsourced, and implies Sharma's guilt in an unrelated bar-brawl. As discussion on the article talk page got nowhere, this nomination should help settle the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notability seems quite clearly established --Matilda talk 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The person is notable. ONEEVENT does not apply here as he is the subject of legal and media scrutiny over several years. He is notable enough as deemed by the media events pertaining to his father, a state politician are titled "Manu Sharma's father..." =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Matilda talk 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – to Murder of Jessica Lall. The murder was notable as the victim was an young model and murderer was the son of a politician. If the assassination had not turned-out, the murderer would not have become notable through the media events. Therefore, the subject is ONEEVENT and I suggest a redirection is better in this case. --Googlean (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ONEEVNET is a guideline. To be fair, why is a person participating in the 1900 Olympics notable because of a ONEEVENT incident? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX comes to mind and Jimbo Wales comment in this AfD. I echo Wales comment in this case also that He's still notable only for one event. --Googlean (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I'm not citing WAX. I'm citing the relevance of ONEEVENT that should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. ONEEVENT is often overridden by so many biographies such as the one above. That was the point I was trying to make. If ONEEVENT is to be strictly enforced, we will lost a sizeable chunk of bio articles, namely relating to sports and public office holders. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have commented per ONEEVENT policy only. In this case, Manu Sharma was not notable. His father Vinod Sharma is indeed notable. Manu Sharma is notable for a single event only by killing Lall. As per WP:1E that If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. --Googlean (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one event clause contains this text: ...but essentially remains a low-profile individual... The key words are "low-profile" and "essential". There are over 500 reliable news stories [15] including one just this Saturday. I would be puzzled as to how Sharma can classified as a "low-profile" individual to qualify for the ONEEVENT criteria. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am still not convinced that he is a notable person and most high profile criminal. The clear fact that he has been in the news does not in itself mean that he should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. All the reliable news stories are merely pointing out that with the single incident that he killed Lall. Anyone who takes a look at the article can see that there is no need of keeping this article as the facts are already covered in the main article. --Googlean (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So on a scale of 1 to 10 how notable do you say he is? To avoid individual replies, I've posted a new thread below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable indeed. There are hundred of murders in India every year. All such murders are not notabe. Only if the murder victim or accused are notable then such murders become notable. The muder victim Jassica Lall was not notable. The involvement of notable Manu Sharma made the murder notable. --Shyamsunder 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Murder of Jessica Lall, the one and only incident that made him famous. ONEEVENT applies.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Manu Sharma pops up every now and then in the national news. Not a person of low profile. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stupefyingly pertinent question: Why is this person notable, and why am I the only one who can see that this is a BLP nightmare? This could reasonably be speedied. The conduct of those wishing to keep this has been frankly appalling- claims that the subject is 'just notable' and claims that the actions of those redirecting a BLP nightmare to the article on the event the person is notable for are making some kind of awful, "unilateral" decision when they actually outnumbered those wishing to keep the article? This is fucking abysmal. What is this, the straw that breaks the camel's back? Will someone please just delete this? And whoever described BLP as a "guideline" above really needs to stop taking part in AfDs until they have the first idea of what this is. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am appalled by your outburst, and the fact that you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Please keep the discussion CIVIL. AFD is not a vote may I remind you, it's a debate. If I do not agree with your viewpoint, accept it instead of making remarks about those who have opposing views. Comment on content, not on the contributor =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't patronise me. Why don't you actually provide some evidence that the subject is notable? No one has done that yet, so I think I should actually remind you that this is not a vote with everyone shouting their own opinion. Please provide some proof that the subject is notable outside of the murder. Alternatively, why don't you deal with the serious BLP problems? J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't patronise me. – Is that your reply to ad hominem attacks? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, I refuse to bite your request that I need to provide proof that the person is notable outside the murder. I dispute the ONEVENT criteria being applied for this article. Secondly, Why don't you deal with BLP problems? Please be less vague. People who !vote keep are not obligated to fix issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To further the debate

On notability criteria: 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.

  • Logical deduction:
  1. Significant coverage = yes (and undisputed)
  2. Independent of the subject = yes (by the media)
  3. By reliable sources = yes (media and the Supreme Court Judgement Information System (site is available a google cache, due to link rot of the original)
  4. Presumed = open to debate

Going through the article, I concede a lot of content is duplicated on the Manu Sharma page that belongs to the Murder of Jessica Lall. Intricate details of the trial must be kept out, and only summarised information on him be left on his biography page.

  • The nominator mentions two BLP concerns, one that it is negatively written and two, it is unsourced. I believe J Milburn is confusing two separate issues here. Articles that have a negative tilt needs to be corrected to conform to the neutral point of view. Similarly, uncited claims should be either removed, or marked with the {{fact}} tag so that a source can be added. The two issues should not be confused with the deletion criteria debate here, that is WP:ONEEVENT. =Nichalp «Talk»=
    • Again, do not patronise me. A negatively written biography is definitely reason to delete, if you believe otherwise, you have completely missed the point of our BLP policy. There are two reasons to delete this page- the fact the subject is notable for only one thing, and the fact this is a BLP nightmare. Could you please just accept that BLP is a policy, and one that we should be following, and stop with your ridiculous Wikilawyering? J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A negatively written biography is definitely reason to delete – 1) I would like to see the page where a negatively written article is the raison d'etre to delete in the deletion criteria. 2) Articles that have already been deleted because of a negatively written viewpoint and 3) Sentences in the Manu Sharma article that you feel are negative. As nominator, the onus is on you to provide the details. As for wikilawering, I'm requesting you to keep the discussion civil. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the biography of living persons policy and the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not going to dig out examples of articles deleted, but as it is one of the speedy deletion criteria, I don't think I really need to. I have already provided an example of a negative unsourced line, and anyone who looks can see more.Actually, I see it has improved rather a lot. It's still a little negative in character, but is far better. If this AfD closes as a keep, if I can actually stand to keep any commitment to BLP policy/the project, I will remove every offending line and no doubt leave this as a stub. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that those policy pages exist. I would request you to please be less vague and quote the relavent sections for the benefit of all. If you are alluding to WP:CSD > General > 10 > ...serve no purpose but to disparage their subject, I repectfully disagree with your assessment. The article is now pretty much well cited. As a third party resource, we quote reliable sources; if his name was dragged into a brawl, it's not out of line to report the bare facts. I must say that your replies are most unhelpful. Not only are they vague, but you insist on not coming to the point to help us determine which of the following sentences in the text still need to be flagged as BLP violations. If you continue to avoid quoting the offending text or specific policy, I must conclude that your assessment is purely subjective. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the news for events outside the murder (this might include content that would be suitable for the Manu Sharma page, but not the Murder of Jessica Lall page. This would lend further support for the fact that we can do with an independent Manu Sharma article that does not fit in the murder page.

=Nichalp «Talk»=07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the Jessica `killer', who knew Manu Sharma before that? A section on the background of the accused in Jessica lal case is enough. Anyway the current article discusses a lot about the case, than Manu Sharma the person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is but obvious. An article on a cricketer will discuss cricket, an article on a high-profile murderer will have more content on the act. I have watered the article down to leave it in summary form. If ONEEVENT is applied, it should be applied uniformly across Category:Indian murderers and Category:Murderers by nationality. Also, using the same logic, only serial killers will pass through the sieve of ONEEVENT. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be noted, the model Jessica Lall, like Manu Sharma notable just for the murder, does not an independent article. It is merged into Murder of Jessica Lall.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The key aspect of this debate not pointed out above is that the murder itself became notable because Manu committed it. Many upcoming models are murdered, but this one became prominent because Manu committed it.

The murder was committed in 1999, but news reports keep coming up. I found this report from day before yesterday on Times of India [16], which discusses Manu Sharma's jail stay. The Manu Sharma article itself cites another report from Sep 2 08, dealing with the legal effects of his imprisonment. There are some twenty newspaper reports that talk about him in this month of September alone.

If a person keeps appearing with this frequency wouldn't one normally consider him notable - for heaven's sake, it's nine years since the murder, and nearly two years since his conviction even. I mean, how much more notable does a person have to be? The vast majority of LPB's on Wikipedia have far fewer media mentions.

And anyhow, he does not fit the ONEEVENT model.

The section on WP:ONEEVENT states:

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

I think we all agree that the subject, a murder, was not larger. It became large because actually Manu, the son of a big political leader, an ex-cabinet minister at the center. In India, children of politicans are deemed potential leaders - Rajiv Gandhi, for one, or for that matter, Indira Gandhi. Manu was far bigger than the news of the murder alone. The ToI article cited above describes him as a "young politician on the make".

I think all of us would agree, even Milgram did in the debate on the Manu Sharma discussion page, that he is not a standard ONEEVENT case - by no means is he a "low profile person" involved in a "larger subject".

Thus a) he does not fit ONEEVENT, and b) he is NOTABLE based on reports. mukerjee (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep ONENEVENT has its limits. In particular, as I often point out John Wilkes Booth would be famous for onevent if he were alive today. This is a similar case(not as extreme as the Booth case but the same principal). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A principal actor in a famous case who's past and future are now open to study (independently of the murder itself). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete - I have to disagree with Nichalp here. Manu Sharma's only claim to notoriety is that he murdered a bartender. And inexplicably, the murder became national news. For years. Outside of this, he has no claim to fame, notoriety or notability. For an entry in an encyclopedia, apart from notability, there has to be such a thing as 'encyclopedicity' too. Quite simply, every thing or individual that has made the news does not automatically become worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Sarvagnya 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The event is not "inexplicable" - had the murderer been a common man it would not have made news. The explication lies in Manu's status. The encyclopedicity of Manu Sharma lies in his legacy (albeit, negative) in the machinations done for him at the trial and in the legal changes that it precipitated. His notoriety will survive in posterity, hence he is encyclopedic. User:Mukerjee|mukerjee]] (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So too Dhananjoy Chatterjee, John Wilkes Booth and several other murderers. Famous murderers are usually known for a oneevent, unlike serial killers, or celebs who also kill. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one, I do not think the murder became news just because Manu Sharma committed it. It also had to do with the fact that it happened in the hi-profile Delhi socialite circuit which is frequented by hi-fliers of all stripes and the very fact that it happened in Delhi - which is home to several hi profile media establishments which took it upon themselves to make it national news.
  • For that matter, anything that happens in Delhi makes the news far more easily than something that happens in lesser cities and towns in India. How else would you explain the fact that a nameless, faceless Aarushi could become news? The main suspect for a long time, after all was the servant (?) - hardly a Manu Sharma with powerful contacts.
  • For that matter, even the Jessica Lal murder shouldnt/wouldnt have been article-worthy - but for the fact that the media took it upon themselves to bestow 'notability' upon it and the unfortunate fact that, we on wikipedia interpret WP:N without any regard to encyclopedicity. It was not like an O J Simpson's allegedly killing a nobody or a nobody killing an Abe Lincoln/Gandhi. It was a nobody killing a nobody. Jessica Lal herself was no Abe Lincoln or Gandhi for her murder to deemed inherently notable.
  • Several articles on wikipedia exist solely because editors equate GNews hits with notability. A better yardstick would be to pause for a minute and ponder over whether these articles would ever make it to, say, Enc Britannica. Not in a million years! Not even if they didnt have to contend with their traditional constraints of the finite space between their covers. Like somebody says above, everything newsworthy does not automatically become article-worthy. Newspapers and 24x7 channels have their own (lesser) standards for 'notability'/newsworthiness. We are an encyclopedia and we simply cannot import a news house's standards lock, stock and barrel. What's next? An article on Aarushi? Or her servant?
  • Everything from WP:PERF to WP:WAX is cited to get away from the fact that an article might not be encyclopedic. I am not sure how or when that will change, if ever. It might never change unless we, as a community are able to thrash out a WP:ENCYCLOPEDICITY guideline atleast, if not policy. Sarvagnya 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. Although I still disagree in principle, I think your reply is more cogent and logical than some of the other responses on this AFD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagya, I completely agree that news hits is not encyclopedicity. The reason why Manu Sharma is important in the sense that posterity would want to look him up in an encyclopedia, is ultimately not because of the murder per se, but because of the machinations done in the trial, and ultimately, in the impact it had on the Indian legal ethos. This is his (unfortunate) legacy, and this is why he will be important in posterity. However, I wasn't citing just news hits. Unlike recent event (e.g Arushi), it is ten years since the crime, and two years since the conviction, and already it is not the spotlight, but the cold eye of posterity that is looking at Manu Sharma. The articles on him in the last few months - at least 50 in the English press, probably 3x in the vernacular - are not talking about the murder or the trial, but his conviction, despite the machinations, as a harbinger of change, as opening up the possibility that it would not be as easy for the rich and politically connected to escape the processes of law. Would Encyclopedia Britannica take him? Probably not. But an Encyclopedia Indica would. And Wikipedia needs to encompass both. mukerjee (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Murder of Jessica Lall. Newsworthy, but not articleworthy. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum-up my comment – Because of the following reasons why I am totally against keeping this unsuitable article. These are my simple reasons to oppose it: 1) The fact that the subject is notable for only one thing. In short, Manu Sharma is notable just for the murder and he is not a high-profile murderer. 2) The other details such as his jail life and his relation with former president (Nichalp’s wikilawering points) and all those stuffs are unencyclopedic and against our policy, WP:NOT. 3) The article further fails in the following guidelines too: WP:N (note that Wikipedia is not a news source), WP:BLP, WP:1E and WP:NPOV. --Googlean (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen an updated draft that addresses POV, BLP and so on? Do have a glance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Timothy McVeigh also exists in WP (even the surname McVeigh redirects there). --GDibyendu (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX again. As per the article that you have quoted, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of 11 United States federal offenses and was sentenced to death and executed. His act, which killed 168 people, was the deadliest act of terrorism within United States borders until the September 11, 2001 attacks. How the dare you can compare that person with this low-profile criminal?. I feel so pity for you. --Googlean (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have read WP:CIVIL also; you could have written the last two sentences as "You/We should not compare that person with this low-profile criminal" which would have been CIVIL. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I know about CIVIL, but couldn't apply while hurry in typing. --Googlean (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Googlean,
do think what you are saying. your argument, if I may rephrase it is:

McVeigh is ONEEVENT, but it was a BIG EVENT. Hence it's OK.

So just ONEEVENT'ness is not the issue. I agree. Even Charles Lindbergh was basically one-event. Tim McVeigh is OK not just because it was a BIG EVENT, (which MS's trial also was). In the end we judge a topic's encyclopedicity by its notability. The point about Manu Sharma is really the same. As pointed out many times above, he is extremely well covered, talked about, and relevant, and given his impact on the Indian legal system, he will remain so.
Indeed, the following are some more instances, of people who are clearly ONEEVENT, yet they are now notable enough and are clearly encyclopedic:

John Hinckley, Jr. and Reagan assassination attempt
John Allen Muhammad and Beltway sniper attacks

I think both belong on wikipedia, though they are clearly oneevent. In my opinion however, the following should go:

Christine Beatty and Kilpatrick and Beatty text-messaging scandal

The difference between CB and JAM is in their notability. I think those who know abt these things should put an AfD on CB. But the other two are sufficiently notable that they should stay.
Dear Googlean, this is precisely what we are saying about Manu. mukerjee (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No intent to create a distraction from your argument, but Charles Lindbergh can hardly be classified as a oneevent case! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, as only one event per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the revised version. I accept that the subject had some notoriety prior to the murder. It does appear that the subsequent trial and retrial, both significant events themselves, have an imprint in the public awareness of that community such that the spirit of WP:BIO1E does not properly apply. The BLP aspects (as opposed to notability concerns) are to my mind less important in a case like this where there has been very public discussion of all aspects of the incident, and the worst claim (being a murderer) has been confirmed by a public verdict. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:06, 17 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green e-commerce marketplace[edit]

Green e-commerce marketplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An essay without any references: WP:OR Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, nothing else to say really. OR and is an essay of somewhat, definitely not encyclopedic enough to be warranted in the pedia. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. original research by synthesis without reliable sources to back up anything except the parts of the synthesis. In other words, the pieces are referenced but the conclusion is not sourced. Possibly this will be the subject of expert opinion in the future, but not yet that I can locate. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:50, 17 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. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin[edit]

Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are similar articles for some other politicians, but they have been magnets for controversy among editors, and magnets for useless material. The scope of this article is vague, and other articles already cover this subject's political positions and the like. So, much of the material here is redundant, and the rest is not notable enough. See WP:N and WP:BIO. This type of article easily becomes a content POV fork, as this one already has, and it’s just not suitable for an encyclopedia. Material about Palin's religious views, insofar as they may affect her political positions, can go into the article about her political positions (and her personal religious beliefs do not require a sub-article in addition to the brief description in the Sarah Palin article).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ferrylodge, I think you meant POV fork, not content fork. Kelly hi! 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge content to Sarah Palin keeping the redirect.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Theosis4u (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (or, should it fail this AfD, MERGE its content elsewhere). The fact that providing encyclopedic coverage of this kind provides a POV magnet can be dealt with via normal editing, as can be inclusion of material failing notability standards or stuff that's redundant. The scope of this article concerns Palin's background and resume in a political and cultural context, much as Mitt Romney's subarticle of the genre concerns his religion; McCain's, his temperment; and Obama's, his religion and level of experience.   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article is rife with problems, including but not limited to POV issues, and has, apparently, been a sandbox for some people with political views opposed to Ms. Palin. Collect (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Every notable politician involved in national controversy should have a page like this. Opinions positive and negative should be represented at such a page. When people of all types of expertise and POV get involved, good articles emerge. At present the article is heavier on critique of Palin, but this will/should change over time.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until content is merged. I believe the creation of this article today was the result of an unresolved dispute regarding the religion section and content at the main Sarah Palin article. I agree that some of the religious content can be merged into Political positions of Sarah Palin and the more notable issues should be in the main article. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merges can be done through AFD if that's what you're suggesting. Admins do them routinely in closing AFDs. I think what you're suggesting is a complex "merge" more than keep".--chaser - t 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These sections/articles seek to describe and measure aspects of the interaction between a political figure and the American public that aren't apparent in straight history-oriented biographical material. Since Palin has single-handedly turned around a presidential election, something that vice-presidential picks almost never do, such description and measurements are definitely warranted. But the article should be narrowly focused on this; the religion stuff I see in there now doesn't belong. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it belong? It's about perceptions of her religious positions. Please respond at talk page LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTR, can you think of a different name for this article that might narrow its focus? There is already an article on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 that discusses her impact on the campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content fork per nom.--Hughgr (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This appears to be an attempted end run around BLP policies. It is redundant with the other articles mentioned and will serve as a COATRACK for all kinds of controversial POV material that should not be included.WTucker (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations. Ultimate determination of notability is currently in heavy flux. It will be as relevant as the outcome of the next eight weeks. I would suggest keeping this article for now, and review it again after November. If I were forced to vote right now, I would say keep, but after November 4th, who knows. Duuude007 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge our best chance of keeping this NPOV is one good article. DGG (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Changed my comment from keep to merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the redundant material that is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin? DGG, are you saying that we should "merge" the redundant material from this article into that article?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the title of the article has now been changed to "Public image of Sarah Palin". But I think the title is still kind of fuzzy, and that means there will be lots of fights about what should go in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title change is not only inaccurate, it buttresses my opinion on removing it forthwith. It currently contains almost 100% negative elements. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I supported other subarticles where there was a valid topic but the title and topic is not well-defined here. "Political image" sounds partly redundant with "Political positions" an article that we already have. Delete this now but keep the door open for other subarticles that cover a valid topic with a well-defined scope.Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT
  1. The subject of this article is, of course, the Public image of Sarah Palin, or, "Palin's life..." (her (1)personality (2)lifestyle, and (3)background) "and its reflection in her public image."
  2. An article's being POV is not a rationale for deletion, per WP guidelines, since it can be brought to NPOV through normal editing.   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "background", that could mean anything: educational background, employment background, family background, et cetera. Same goes for "image". Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision): "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article." The title "Public image" is too imprecise.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the concept of someone's "public images" would be and is distinct enough for encyclopedic purposes. It pertains to the pubic and opinion makers' second-person takes on somebody's life. Sure a life contains one's educational and employment background, and on and on and on, yet the the plain fact remains that the "life of the X," whether that person is a politician or some other profession, is something that is distinct. So here we have one distinct category, that of "public image," being applied to another, that of Sarah Palin's life: "the Public image of Sarah Palin."
So also with the distinct political event "the French Revolution." Sure, this includes the Revolution's theoretical background, its various stages and forms, and so on and so forth, yet Wikipedia has in addition to an article on the Revolution itself, a subarticle that covers notable, second-person, historians' views upon the Revolution called "the Historiography of the French Revolution."   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of couse, it's too soon for an article about Palin's historiography. But if you want an article about her media coverage, then I would suggest a title like: "Interaction between Sarah Palin and the mainstream media", or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why single out the media? What about scholars? Various partisans? And also popular opinion? Their inclusion in our formula would brings us to "Sarah Palin and the public": which title is just fine! (although I believe the word image would lend our topic, as we've just delineated it, a bit of additional precision).   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. How about "Sarah Palin in American culture"?   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sarah Palin in American culture" is still kind of vague, because there's all different kinds of culture: political culture, religious culture, popular culture, et cetera. How about "Efforts to shape the public image of Sarah Palin" or something like that? When a new politician arrives on the scene, everyone is trying to paint them as something, including the politicians themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, anyone who says anything about her is trying to shape her public image, so I take that back.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is taken. "Efforts to shape the image of Sarah Palin" seems a little too pointed, however. How about elements of her image that almost seem to have spring organically from the Alaskan earth? (As did Venus from the waves? And, lol, for example, say that the image of Sarah Palin should become notable within religious culture in some way, why not allow this to be treated in the article, too?) How about "The image of Sarah Palin in the media"? Or, shorter, "Sarah Palin and the media"?   Justmeherenow (  ) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at what the article currently has (minus the religion stuff which I agree with Wasted Time R is already adequately covered elsewhere): there's a critique of Palin by some feminists, there's discussion of her physical appearance, and there's stuff about how comedians have dealt with her. I'd suggest trying a title that maybe covers some of those things without going much farther. Like, maybe, "Physical appearance and comedic use of Sarah Palin."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, Ferrylodge. You're saying that the current article (that is, within other than its religion piece) is only about Palin's appearance and a few notes about what ways her image is used in satire, and that it's pretty light fare for this to make up a whole article, therefore we should fold whatever is of value back into the main article or other subarticles until such time as enough material of a such a nature (or a slightly expanded one) materializes. However, what's close to full agreement with your premise is the premise that since material of a similar sort is guaranteed to materialize, we might as well allow well-sourced material to organically flesh out a stub on the topic.
IMO the topic itself is valuable to document and examine since -- the fact is, public figures' have images: a writer's, a celebrity's, a politician's -- as these images are promulgated through the individual's "work." And a great part of this work is to create and show to the public characteristics of the public person's self, which reflections of reality are then sort of batted back and forth by commmentators attempting to digest and analyze or, as you say, shape them, emphasizing appealing aspects and deemphasizing unappealing ones, and on and on. It has got everything to do with popularity, of course; and such popularity often has got to do with the public person's background and identity -- including intangibles connected with how the pubic relate to the celebrated person -- so that tons of ink come to be spilt on this stuff. Depending on what type of public person it is, it's not only in the popular press and news reports but in partisan statements, pundit pieces, and scholarly analyses, all touching on the public person's image.
(Two examples that come to mind with the current political campaign : Bill O'Reilly said, in his recent interview of Barack, something like, "Barack, people don't relate to you because you hang with ultra lefties." (Or, so O'Reilly alleged. Um, so apparently it's not necessarily being alleged that Barack's own views are themselves extreme but only that those Barack has associated with have views that are extreme, and these associations must be thought to rub off on him -- all in an "identity politics" kind of way, sort of?) Or notice this recent survey from the ultra swing state of Ohio that gives the percentage, currently, of Ohio voters that said they "related the best" to Sarah at 31%; that related the best to Mac there at 20%; to Barack, at 20%; and those that related the best to Joe Biden at 10%.)
  1. Religious debates over Harry Potter
  2. Ronald Reagan in fiction
  3. Media Coverage of the Iraq War
  4. Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
  5. Santa Claus in Northern American culture
  6. Mark Twain in popular culture
  7. Wikipedia in culture
  8. Criticism of Noam Chomsky   Justmeherenow (  ) 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This just follows WP:SUMMARY. Besides, other politicians like Obama and McCain all have their own <<Cultural and political image>> articles. Also, the main Palin article is already huge, and if we merge this article into that one, then it will be even bigger. Regards, Tempodivalse (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice: This is yet another unecessary content fork on a topicwhich we already have great difficulty in policing. It seems to be serving largely to degrade our sourcing standards even further from the encyclopedic. It's a WP:COATRACK and always will be, by design, for one set of partisans or another. Make it stop. MastCell Talk 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see * Public_image_of_Barack_Obama, and Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain. There is no reason why this article cannot be as good as these two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I'm not that psyched about either of those two articles either. But in both cases, the parent articles (Barack Obama and John McCain) are relatively stable and longstanding affairs. That sort of situation lends itself well to spinouts. The Palin article is still in a major state of flux and there are dozens of active disputes at any given time across a lot of subarticles. I'd rather prune some of them in the interest of funneling efforts into the main article first, and this seems like one of the less encyclopedic and more problematic content forks. But that's just my opinion. MastCell Talk 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more with Mastcell here. He is absolutely 100% correct. You have no idea what endless arguments we had at the McCain article trying to figure out how to summarize that lousy subarticle. It was a complete and total nightmare, and that was a stable article. By contrast, the Sarah Palin articles are extremely unstable, and will likely remain so. We're just begging for trouble here.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge, you made exactly the opposite argument in defense of the Mayoralty of Sarah Palin spinout, saying that its existence would allow a smaller group of editors to get the material right before summarizing it in the main article. I also think your characterization of "complete and total nightmare" for the McCain case is gross hyperbole. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTR, it should go without saying that Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is an extremely precise title for an article. In contrast Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin is extremely vague. And dealing with the corresponding McCain article might not have been a complete and total nightmare for you, but it was for me.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the idea that this article is necessarily a coatrack. Why does one's cultural and political image necessarily carry POV? Just because you're worried that it could be a POV problem or even if you think it already is a POV problem, that itself is no rationale for deletion. This only makes sense if you think that an article about one's "cultural and political image" must be inherently POV. Given that you think the POV could go either way, to me that means that there's certainly a middle ground of neutrality possible. No inherent POV, no coatrack, no POV fork. Oren0 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that virtually anything anyone could possibly say about Sarah Palin qualifies as part of her "political and cultural image". So, it is virtually impossible to get consensus to remove just about anything. People who want to fill the article up with crud will have a very easy time of it, and the only way to counter that is for others to fill the article up with flattery.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:RS value scholarly/academic journal sources above all else, and that ideally is what would make up this section. See Hillary Rodham Clinton#Cultural and political image for a good example. If that is not yet available, then the kind of "serious writers" that are used in parts of Cultural and political image of John McCain should be used. The standard Hannity & Colmes or blogger bashing back and forth type sources, ignore completely. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTR, if we look at the present article, and subtract the non-scholarly/academic journal sources, do you think that the article is justified at this point?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially care what the present article looks like ... AfD is about whether an article is allowed to exist at all ... but were I insane enough to work on Palin articles, yes I believe I could find enough "serious writer" content now to make a decent article, and surely enough scholarly/academic content in the intermediate-term future to make a good article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging that this article is written by insane people.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, while you might consider Palin critics insane, we feel the same way about her extreme pretense of normalcy;) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is true that there are similar articles, but they are for the Presidential candidates themselves. So far as I am aware, there are no similar articles for Dick Cheney, John Edwards, Al Gore or Joe Biden. That suggests that this is not an intrinsically important topic. Moreover, while it might be possible to find good information, the current stage of the page is atrocious. Since the page both lacks direct precedent, and lacks any information would obviously justify a page, I think it falls under WP:N. For the next two months, Palin will be just a vice-presidential nominee, so her notability for encyclopedic purposes is actually rather low--look at the comparable content for Lloyd Bentsen. Should Palin become the actual VP, perhaps such an article would be merited, if public opinion had coalesced more. As it stands, there seems to be little rationale for the article. JustinBlank (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks like the current vote count is 9 "delete", 9 "something else". Sounds like no-consensus to me. Duuude007 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been two days. I think the typical period for something like this is five days.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over and over, material has been excised from the Sarah Palin article on the stated grounds that it is allegedly excessive detail. The daughter articles (political positions, governorship, image, etc.) are the only place where properly sourced information can be presented without being subjected to such expungement. If the "image" article tends to have more material on one side or the other, that can obviously be balanced, as is done with the other politicians' "image" articles. The tougher problem is balancing the main article. JamesMLane t c 07:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and neutralize The fact that her hunting, fishing, and Midwestern accent give her a folksy rural kind of image is interesting and can be presented in a NPOV way (which, by the way, is not the current state of the article).--Loodog (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another reminder that the article should stay on topic: I deleted all the random facts that ended up in here in the last few days, none of which had to do with Sarah Palin's image. This article should deal with interpretations and perceptions. In other words, think popular culture, think opinion pieces, think reactions to campaign statements. I added a section on perceptions of Palin's take on teen pregnancy and on clinton - I think this helps to clarify the relevance of the entry.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article is not written per Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Keep the objective material in the article on Sarah Palin, and have contributors put their perceptions of Palin's public image on their own blogs or in comments on newspaper articles.wleman (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and make it better. See precedents below. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of the article meets all Wikipedia Standards, including BLP. Remove information in violaton of BLP, and leave the remainder. Atom (talk) 21:56, 18 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. I would expect, however, that unless the page gets a makeover it would not survive another AfD — Coren (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Donington Superleague Formula round[edit]

2008 Donington Superleague Formula round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this article as a whole satisfies the notability criteria when comparing it to other forms of motorsport, i.e. Formula One and MotoGP. There is insufficient, third party reliable-sources to satisfy firm notability in the wider range. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge I believe the series (this is the very first race of the series) is too new and too unknown by the public to really deserve its own separate race entries. The information can be worked into the 2008 Superleague Formula season. The359 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but only on the condition that more text is added to bring context to the statistics. If it is to remain just a collection of tables then delete. If text is not provided then the main season article can more than adequately cover the statistics of the racing. --Falcadore (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that Wikipedia is the great chance to have an unique motorsport database. A few years ahead the fans will have the possibility to find information of how many categories as possible. (if you find language problems on this text, feel free to edit me, please) (Edmurbobby (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • It shouldn't just be raw stats though. These should be articles not numbers. Suggesting Wikipedia should be a database is selling its potential very short. How did Borja García win the event? Was it dominant? Was it a huge fight? Four cars are listed as 'accident' in race 2 - how did that happen? There are lots of stats databases Wikipedia would be one amongst many in the role, certainly not unique. --Falcadore (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, if I update the page with an article, until wednesday, explaining how the races happened, the accidents, the way that Garcia won the race 2, Rigon won the race 1, how rain affected the round, the arcticle can be kept? I think you misunderstood me when I said unique database, I mean, the best of. (Edmurbobby (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • I did not misunderstand. The best database is still just a database. Wikipedia is categorically not a database.
        • I personally do not have the power to delete, merely the power to influence the consensus. I cannot say "add these details and I won't delete it", I cna only define the parametres under which I would support keeping the article. I would like to see articles accompany pages that consist of pure statistics, and I know I am as guilty of any in this trend, but I am attempting to fix this. A page of pure stats without context is just the same as so many other websites out there that perform the roles of motorsport databases. Wikipedia should not be duplicating work being done capably well by others. If all we are doing is creating stats pages that many others are also doing then Wikipedia should not carry stat pages but instead provide links to motorsport databases websites and link them as references. That is my opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, now I got. I respect your point of view about only-stats pages and I'll try to write embased articles to try to convince all of you that Superleague Formula races should be interesting. (Edmurbobby (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
            • As an aside, if you want to create a motosports stats wiki then head on over to Ten-Tenths' wiki. Wikipedia is, as the name suggests, an encyclopedia and not a database.Pyrope 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "general scope of things" as D.M.N. put at WikiProject Motorsport should not be the criteria for deciding if an article is notable enough. I don't agree that a race needs to be major international event such as Formula One to be notable. This one actually is an international event, with this the first race being televised on an estimated 62 countries. Series FAR less notable than Formula One should be notable enough to warrant enough third-party reliable source coverage. My keep is based on the assumption that third party coverage is found, which should be easy in this case. What exists now needs to get expanded with race coverage, but cleanup is not a reason to delete. Royalbroil 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be easy, but not many sites would of covered it, I doubt BBC, The Times, ESPN or any like that would have anything whatsoever on it. You might find a lot of motorsport websites talking about it, yes, but nothing in the general media aspect of things. D.M.N. (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm sure there are probably enough sources to cover the notability aspect (coverage in specialist press (Autosport etc.) would be considered just as good as an article in The Times for referencing) but really unless someone's willing to spend the time expanding it beyond mere tables of results I don't see the point in keeping this. AlexJ (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only express an opinion on how the page stands at present, and I'm not going to go down the route of "well maybe I'd support it if...". The page is currently a stats dump completely lacking in any form of discursive content or any assertion or proof of notability. If Autosport etc. didn't cover this series then I would have been very surprised, but then they also cover local banger racing and I don't see anyone arguing that their coverage provides a notability basis for extensive results articles from those series. The series as a whole has attracted some national media attention, but this race itself went almost entirely unreported. Pyrope 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It's a new racing series, so you have to give it some leeway before race reports will be up to the proper standard of other series' such as F1, IndyCar, A1GP etc. It needs references to establish notability, but for now give it the benefit of the doubt. See if those who created it can improve on it, and if not then Merge into the overall season's page. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 11:33, 18 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 09:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

András Gregorik[edit]

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

This person is not notable. This article created by User:Gregorik/ User:Gregorik/András Gregorik and this articlewas deleted in the Hungarian Wikipedia second time, for not being notable enough. --Alacoshos (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saved András Gregorik article)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linden[edit]

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

Raised at WP:COIN, where passing to AFD was advised on grounds of lack of notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article is clearly advertisement for Linden Method. Charles Linden himself is the major contributor to the article. Article does not include impartial references. Questionable notability for encyclopeadic entry. Colliver55 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Only remotely independent reference the Birmingham Post article has been copied in large chunks so article also has COPYVIO problem. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - distinctly promotional, and doesn't seem notable. NewsBank (UK newspaper archive) finds only a handful of references: the 2004 Birmingham Post piece, and half a dozen mentions in superficial "Stress Tips" type articles around Christmas 2007 that clearly stem from the same press release about the launch of Stress Free in 30 Days. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that I worked with Mr. Linden extensively on this article, with the help of bureaucrat Deskana, to create a neutral, non-biased, non-advertisement version last year. Unfortunately, it would appear that there has been much back-and-forth editing since I was on a break, and the version that is up there now is quite different, and does make it sound much more promotional. (This is the version that was approved by all months ago). All that being said, Mr. Linden himself, months ago, asked for the article to be deleted. He was not the one who first put up this second article after it was initially deleted following the first AfD, and would prefer it were not on Wikipedia. I would agree that as far as notability in the media, the article barely meets the standards, and see no reason that it could not again be deleted. Perhaps the title needs to be salted to prevent yet another re-creation. Ariel♥Gold 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That version does look fairer, and more power to you for your patience. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say one third-party source was sufficient, and the "in response to these claims" bit looks distinctly like original research or WP:SYNTH (the statement is just a copy&paste from www.anxman.org - guess who chairs the International Association of Anxiety Management? - where there is no mention of it being a response to anyone's claims).
He was not the one who first put up this second article after it was initially deleted
Though one might suspect an involved party, as we've never heard again from the SPA Super Saddle (talk · contribs) who re-created it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt - See above. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see how the sources are adequate to show any appreciable notability to for him or his method. DGG (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though the Birmingham Post article seems like an independent source, it does not appear that the reporter did much more than interview Charles Linden about the methods he uses, and obtain a one-sentence testimonial from another psychologist, Dr. Allan Norris. All the other material is the work of Linden himself, so is not independent of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another egregious example of entrepreneurial types exploiting Wikipedia to promote themselves.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 11:35, 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 speedy delete. csd g4 Cirt (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark James Van Woert[edit]

Mark James Van Woert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination. I declined a speedy deletion request as the article attempts to establish notability (but whether or not it is successful is debatable). There is a WP:COI issue as the author is apparently the subject himself, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to delete. Aleta Sing 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was speedily deleted once before. There's pretty much no sources at all, and as stated, there's an obvious conflict of interest. A google search for "Mark James Van Woert" turns up 8 pages, 4 of which are IMDB and Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, possibly if you could do a Google search of VanWoert Entertainment, Inc. and or Markus James, then many more pages will surface that will sufficiently prove creditability and should allow the article to stay. Thank you. User:Mark James Van Woert 18:39, 14 September 2008

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian S. Gibson (musician)[edit]

Ian S. Gibson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. A Google search for "Ian S. Gibson" returned only 52 hits, most of which did not refer to the musician. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:33, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) as the articles in question for the disambig. have been created. RockManQ (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WDXE[edit]

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

This disambiguation page refers to two pages that do not exist. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we don't need a disambiguation page for two articles that do not exist. RockManQ (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Speedy Keep RockManQ (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. Licensed radio and TV stations have generally been held to be notable, and the page disambiguates two licensed radio stations. Without claiming to see into a crystal ball, these articles will eventually be created — this is only one step in a long-term initiative. Mlaffs (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: *sigh* Gimme about 5 minutes and I will create two pages. I don't know alot about Tennessee stations, but I will take a crack at it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No need homer, dab page has been replaced with stub article.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just created WDXE (AM) and WDXE-FM, reverting (in AGF) Rtphokie (thanks dude) changes to WDXE (the disambig page). - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two links have been created. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: per Ilikepie2221....and yes, pie is good. - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles now exist, so the article should be kept. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:08, 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 delete. Entirely promotional. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intoscape[edit]

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

Spammy article on an e-commerce software product with very few news articles, most of which are press releases. Sofware was launched in Feb 2008 and appears to have attracted little in the way of interest - It has won some sort of award but does not seem to meet the corporate notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 05:12, 10 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, Mr.Z-man 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more an advertisement for a product then an encylopedic article about a product. It seems written towards getting people to go to the company's website rather then explaining what the product actually does Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:08, 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 'Soft redirect' to Wiktionary.. — Coren (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kvetch[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition attempting to masquerade as a disambiguation page; it fails in this because it doesn't link to any ambiguous articles. I don't see what could be written about kvetching beyond the dictionary definition which Wiktionary already has an entry on. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:01, 10 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, Mr.Z-man 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary as it is currently a dicdef. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICDEF. Is a great dictionary entry, but no terms are linked to any relevant Wikipedia articles that directly tie to that meaning. Many disambig pages double as dicdefs, which is frowned upon but accepted. But this is not even a page that lists Wikipedia articles that one would be looking for in relation to the word "kvetch." Sebwite (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a article at wiktionary that is better than this, so I don't believe there is any content that it would be beneficial to transfer. Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 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 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hartigan[edit]

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

Unsourced article describing a future TV character for which notability cannot be verified until the TV episode airs on Christmas. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 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 01:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Colreavy[edit]

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

Person fails WP:Athlete as he has only played in a semi-professional league. An exception could perhaps be made if he had a notable career but this person has not won an major award. Crickettragic (talk) 02:56, 10 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, Mr.Z-man 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't help that the article has only one online reference, which only mentions the subject in passing, and then only because he was absent from the game. It seems this player is not playing AFL any more, and his past seems minor. If he was notable, you'd expect there to be some articles specifically about his achievements (rather than his absence).--Lester 22:02, 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. Primary sources and press releases do not notability indicate. — Coren (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XX/1 Transaction Server[edit]

XX/1 Transaction Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable software / service. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been trying to cut out the advertising-type language from this. I have a gut feeling it might be notable, but it needs sourcing to establish this. Brilliantine (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your gut feeling it right! I know for fact that it is used in the industry. However, since it is a backend system I guess many times it is “hiding” behind the better known brand names. Nevertheless I assume many developers who have to “deal” with this product appreciate more information about it. I just searched two of the primary travel news sites in Europe and the US and the product is mentioned on both of them (http://www.eyefortravel.com/node/2180 or http://www.travelweekly.com/Article.aspx?id=129106). I’m sure there is more once you dive deeper.
  • Comment I tried to get some more references for the XX/1 but it is used by all the GDSs for sure. As well as by lots of Travel Management Companies, (like the first 3 in the Travel Weekly Power List of '08). This makes it a notable product since all the biggest players in the travel industry rely on XX/1 as backend server system. I would be glad to get further help with this article since it is my first one. I would definitely like to help people with this article and avoid "advertising-type language" Thanks Brilliantine by the way! I am interested in further suggestions for improvement. Thanks! --Yellowbox (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely not an article to delete! I found out about XX/1 thanks to it - and I was researching exactly how to work with GDSes programmatically. Surely an article to be corrected, though. Please, don't remove it. -- AndyBrandt (talk) 19:02, 16 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, Mr.Z-man 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability and lacks reliable sources. Reads like spam. Wkipedia is not a how to site. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 17 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hover car[edit]

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

Implicitly contested prod. Unreferenced article about a concept vehicle, notability unasserted. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hovercar which covers this topic as a futuristic, science fictional concept. If this particular concept vehicle is notable, it can be mentioned there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scoff scoff The concept is worth a mention in the hovercar article, but this is essentially a website by someone who has seems to have no formal training in engineering, chemistry, physics or other science necessary in realizing the concept, nor any financial backing. I can't tell whether the eight jet packs are supposed to run for two hours on 24 gallons of peroxide and hydrogen gas apiece (192 gallons), or 24 gallons in total, but historically, those jet packs that we've seen in the past use up their entire supply of fuel in less than a minute in order to sustain flight. If you've invented a hydrogen fuel delivery system that can operate that efficiently, don't burn it up on the thrust necessary to raise a heavy car off the ground -- use it to move the car on the road. You'll become a billionaire, after which you can spend the money necessary for the hover car. No need to thank me for the tip. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search for "the hover car"+"noel taylor" yields 3 hits: a blog and two other sites, neither of which would be considered reliable sources. The same terms applied to Google News, Books, and Scholar yield nothing. Believing this may be notable, I was looking for anything I could to support keeping, and I could find nothing, so therefore, I must support deletion. Sebwite (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable non-invention. William Avery (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hovercar, but be selective in what information is actually transferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam - the article is structured as an intro to the link to what is presumably the author's own web site. No WP:RS and therefore no WP:N. The web site reads like either a school report or a hoax because it claims it "reduces global warming" (implying reduction of CO2 and methane) while considering possible choices of fuels which all produce CO2 when burned. Note that powered lift is the most energy-intensive and least fuel-efficient method of flight. Also note that it isn't an invention if it hasn't been built and shown to work. May still be a candidate for speedy deletion under G11. Ikluft (talk) 05:34, 18 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. MBisanz talk 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonists of Tales of Vesperia[edit]

Antagonists of Tales of Vesperia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of characters does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:06, 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 merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bison[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the list as usual for this. In practice, thats the guideline we follow for characters in all sorts of fiction, including these. DGG (talk) 01:53, 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 merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain LeFwee[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:03, 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. MBisanz talk 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwerk[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the list as usual for this. In practice, thats the guideline we follow for characters in all sorts of fiction, including these. DGG (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to redirect to List of Sly Cooper characters. All important content about Clockwerk is already there. No merging is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 17 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 Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Tsao[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a video game character from the Sly Cooper series, why redirect it to an article about a historical figure? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General Tso. Nifboy (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tsao also has a redirect to General Tso's Chicken, as does General Tso. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list as usual for this. In practice, thats the guideline we follow for characters in all sorts of fiction, including these. DGG (talk) 01:50, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz (Fuxi) Fuchsberger[edit]

Franz (Fuxi) Fuchsberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a national-level champion. Needs cleanup and sourcing. Royalbroil 15:57, 17 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 Godzilla: Unleashed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krystalak[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video games in which it appears. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:56, 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 merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor M[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the list as usual for this. In practice, thats the guideline we follow for characters in all sorts of fiction, including these. DGG (talk) 01:53, 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 redirect to List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series. — Coren (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Nefarious[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:49, 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 merge to City School District of New Rochelle. ffm 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Barnard School[edit]

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

Article about a school (prekindergarten to grade 2) that is not notable. Claim of notability in the article is "recognized as a Sharing Success Program by the State of New York," but the "recognition" is only that the school is listed in a booklet as an example of a school that utilizes a special program created outside the state of New York.
Some contents of this article could be merged into City School District of New Rochelle. In that school district article, details about individual elementary schools have been deleted (repeatedly) in the past for copyvio and/or advertising-like and/or extremely trivial and/or contributions of a banned user, but that history would not bar inclusion of reliably sourced nontrivial, nonpromotional content. Orlady (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - really? Sorry, it seems a confused nomination to me - if the article is deleted then content cannot be merged for GFDL reasons. I agree that the school doesn't merit a separate page but that is a reason for merge not deletion. The problems that the nominator has had with the school district page are an editorial matter and not relevant to the fate of the content of this article. TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The history is relevant because I believe that the contributor reasoned that separate articles about elementary schools would avoid the fate of the content that has previously been added to (and deleted from) the district article. However, there have been diverse reasons for the deletion of content from the district article (notably, see User:Jvolkblum), and deletion of past contributions does not mean that content is permanently excluded from the district article. Also, recently other articles have been created about elementary schools in this district, then converted to redirects to the school district article, then created again by the original contributor. A discussion here seemed to me to be a productive way to arrive at a consensus regarding the best way to handle this and other New Rochelle elementary school articles that I predict will be created soon. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but all that will be determined here is the fate of this one article. The broader discussion that you wish should take place at Talk:City School District of New Rochelle. Reading the various talk pages I don't see further wholesale creation of nn elementary school articles since I think that the point has been taken. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hurst-Euless-Bedford article is not an ideal example. The listing of individual schools in that article consists of external links, contrary to WP:EL. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it's the best school district article we have. It treads the line between both violating WP:EL and WP:NOT and satisfying Wikipedia:El#What should be linked, but at least it's relatively well-sourced and organized. And in this context, it highlights unique, non-trivial information about its elementary schools. --Jh12 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that's the single best school district article here. Here are two more "pretty good" candidates: Burlington Area School District (sourced, includes reasonable details about the schools; this is my pick for the best one I have found) and Wells-Ogunquit Community School District (the only source seems to be the school district website, but it includes good information about the district in addition to a list of schools that has appropriate details about the schools). --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 16 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial books[edit]

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

This is a list with dubious inclusion criteria. The definition of "controversy" is vague and the list is WP:OR because it does not elaborate why the books listed here are "controversial" by providing reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too open-ended and biased, and obviously has no definite criteria for selecting which books make the list. It is also full of inaccuracies. For example, it states that "Of Mice and Men" promotes "euthanasia," instead of animal cruelty, which is essentially what a man ripping apart another animal without cause or reason, regardless of his mental capacity, should be called. This book, including The Grapes of Wrath and Animal Farm must not have been too controversial, as I went to an extremely conservative high school and these texts and others on the list were requirements, as opposed to say Lolita or a Clockwork Orange. The book also transcends U.S. standards and lists books that were not banned in the U.S., but in other countries, so why not include authors like Colette or Leonard Cohen in that list? Or, better yet, why not list ALL of Michael Moore's books or all books denouncing or supporting the war in Iraq, WWI and II, Vietnam, etc because they have all been considered controversial. Where is "Rabbit Run?" Madonna's book depicting S&M and homosexuality made the list but not Marilyn Manson's bio? It should be deleted and rewritten with more definite criteria, and specifics as to why each book is considered controversial (including time and culture at the time it was written, author's background, whether or not it was banned and why, when it was redistributed, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandieadams (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Change to a category This sounds more like a suitable topic for a category than an article. Sebwite (talk) 21:49, 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA club competition winners[edit]

List of UEFA club competition winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list covers only a part of the UEFA competition records and furthermore that part is much better covered in that article. There is no need for this list. Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This list elaborates on the list of winners section, covered in the UEFA competition records article, it is my belief that the table of winners in the competition records list should be removed an a link placed to direct to the list in question. That article focuses on more than one subject, and does cover as much ground as the winners list does. The list is also the parent rticle in a planned featured topic containing the winners of UEFA club competitions, so deleting it would put that in jeopardy. Also the record article should be structured to a list like this, to improve the article's reliability and to keep it in line with the policy on record articles at WP:FOOTY. The list in question follows the principle set here, which is a featured topic, and therefore I feel it should be kept as ultimately a featured topic would come out of this. NapHit (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rather pointless adding up of various competitions, making the Intertoto Cup and Super Cup seem equal to the European Cup/Champions League etc., and ignoring the Fairs Cup just because some sources indicate it wasn't a UEFA competition before the renaming. - fchd (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not pointless, especially when there is a similar list for managers, I'm only going by what the UEFA website states are their club competitions, which includes the Intertoto Cup and Super Cup. NapHit (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making the Intertoto Cup and Super Cup seem equal..." Hey, you've just made an argument to delete about 90% of lists on this site! I suppose a list of poisonous insects (I don't know whether or not that even exists) should preemptively be deleted because it makes it seem like all insects are equally poisonous! What about list of football clubs in Italy (which I know exists) - evidently Serie D and Serie A clubs are on equal footing too. ugen64 (talk) 02:38, 17 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. — Coren (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Sharma[edit]

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

Article has been authored by the subject of the article in violation of conflict of interest guidlines, leading one to question the subject's notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete. The article makes numerous claims, yet there are no citations to back them up. I'm sure Archana is a delightful person, but I personally agree with the nominator when he says, not notable enough. I would have asked this to be kept for expansion, but there are simply too many lists, and not enough text. A Prodigy Sign Here/Contact 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As written, this is an unreferenced bulleted resume-style list. There's presumably notability here, and I'd consider change of vote if anyone cleans it up into an actual article, but it can't stay here in this state. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain As written, this is a PR handout, containing none of the information necessary to show notability for a research scientist. It's not talks and seminars that show recognition of significance as a physicist by one's peers, but peer-reviewed journal articles--I can';t seem to find any, but there must be some given the other degrees--the name is fairly common, which does not help. She seems essentially at the equivalent level of Associate Professor, though her latest degree is an MBA, which casts some doubt on the nature of her actual work. The only thing she's an editor of is a section the CERN in-house newsletter. A reviewer for a single 2nd tier journal is not particularly impressive either. DGG (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even still -- as you said, she's not notable, regardless of who wrote it. Her additions only make for a more dubious claim, not to mention that there really isn't any article other than the intro. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She, or her friend, has added a large number of external links to the article. The problem being that her contributions to these linked articles are essentially PR-type comments. I really can not understand why it's so hard to show her notability. Perhaps that's just the fate of staff physicists. She's still working on the article so I hope I will eventually be able to vote keep. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her employment at CERN does not equate with notability. Highly trained NASA physicists aren't necessary notable because of their employment. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although a respectable job, not everyone on the permanent staff at CERN is automatically notable, it requires more than that and i am not seeing any evidence of it in any sources. Also the article reads more like a CV then an encyclopedic article. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editing issues aside, there is a possiblity of notability (that I don't have the resources or time atm to ferret out). There appears to be a biologist of the same name, which muddies things. However, 437 hits in google books and 368 hits in google scholar lead me to think that we need to dig a little further, which only one of the editors above appears to have done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "has given invited seminars and lectures at numerous institutions", but I cannot find any peer reviewed research among the Google hits. There is this review of Micropattern Gas detectors. The links to mainstream media that I have examined are quotes from her about LHC, rather than coverage of her. "The only Indian permanent staff member of CERN" is not sufficient notability. William Avery (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Annual Reviews are rather prestigious and invitation only. Of course, with two authors, it's difficult to know who got the invitation.... --Crusio (talk) 22:18, 18 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. Zero sources, zero verifiability — Coren (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Tour Live[edit]

Reality Tour Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced tour. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:29, 10 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, Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm sure sources and pictures can be found, hopefully meaning that the article can be expanded information-wise. A Prodigy Sign Here/Contact 18:05, 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 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cubbie occurrence[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Delete.

Also nominating

  • Cubbie occurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) of which this is merely a copy. already speedied g7  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable neologism. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of mainstream usage; only one article about a single quote from the Cubs' manager. — C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, doesn't make much sense when skim reading, can't see why this should be kept any longer. A Prodigy Sign Here/Contact 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "Lou Pinella coined this term in the 2008 MLB season" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this article - it's a new saying. It has already caught on with fans (of which there are millions of Cubs fans around the globe), even though it's a new saying. It will continue to become a used reference, and eventually will be part of pop culture. Just because I was the first to note in it Wiki is not a reason it should be deleted. - 9 if by Darkness
    • You say it's a new saying. You say eventually it will be part of pop culture. Those are reasons why now is not the right time for an article on this in Wikipedia. But if you can find a reliable source to back up your claim that it is already widespread with Cubs fans, the article may be kept. You might want to look into WP:SCRABBLE. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 9 if by Darkness who unwittingly provided the perfect Delete rationale. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 7 gnews hits + 48 non-wiki ghits add up to not widely used. (And this from a rabid Cubs fan). If it has legs beyond this season and becomes notable, recreate then. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Blanchard above. Not notable enough yet, and if the article stays, it needs some clean up. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 23:40, 17 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 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng-Siang Chen[edit]

Cheng-Siang Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS, no improvements in a year+. Wizardman 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the sources were actually integrated in the article, but i am satisfied at what's been found. Wizardman 01:11, 19 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 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blum[edit]

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

nominating for deletion as the subject appears to be non-notable and non-verifibable in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project. The WP:COI creator and main contributor removed the PROD tag and all the tags for improvement without addressing the issues and according to[this] has doubts himself whether he is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:46, 10 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, Mr.Z-man 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No information about sales figures, awards and etc. In fact, there arn't even any inter-wiki links to his books. Maybe this means the novels themselves are so non-notable, that no-one has bothered making an article for them?! A Prodigy Sign Here/Contact 18:10, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of blogs[edit]

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

Was PROD-ed as "Unmaintainable list - current entries seem random and unjustified, probable violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY", but then removed by creator. I believe an AFD is appropriate, as this seems redundant to Category:Blogs, which already acts as a repository of all notable blogs on WP. ZimZalaBim talk 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete indiscriminate list that is redundant to a category. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - redundancy between lists and categories is normal and beneficial. We should not sacrifice one of Wikipedia's navigation systems for another - each of them needs to be complete. See WP:CLN. The Transhumanist 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is absolutely nothing Unmaintainable about this list and what pray be are entries that are random and unjustified. I maintain lists all the time as new information and sources becomes available. If this list is Unmaintainable, the every article that's not currently perfect in WP is equally unmaintainable. Everyone of the blogs listed appears to have a WP article, making the Blog notable in its own right. They are essentially in alpha order (a reasonable organizational precept) and the additional columns provide useful information about the blog content. The argument for deletion that a Category already exists is simply not consistent with WP:CLN and should not be even considered.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete Mike Cline, this list is utterly unmaintable, it's too open ended, it's the same as a "list of dogs", how are we supposed to list every dog that was ever owned? "List of notable yorkshire terriers" or something like that is maintable because it discriminates, we would list ones owned by famous people and some yorkshire terrier than dragged a child out of a burning building would also be listed. We wouldn't list my friend Bob's terrier. Loads of people have blogs, there's got to be millions of them, why should we list them all? Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate collection of information.--Serviam (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doth protestest a bit much! You've interpreted the title to be: A list of every concievable blog that ever existed notable or not, whereas I interpret the title to be: A list of notable blogs. The fact that the word Notable is not in the list title is pretty consistent with: Wikipedia:Lists#List_naming meaning that the notability of entries is assumed either because the entry is a WP article or sourced to show notability.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whilst I am not sure this article should be kept, I have to agree with Mike Cline's response - this is clearly a list of notable blogs (where notability is defined by the site having a Wikipedia article, so there is no uncertainty there). See some of the lists linked from Lists of websites for other examples. Mdwh (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to Wikipedia being neither an indiscriminant collection of information nor a web directory. The fact that there's already a category just makes this doubly pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Until the WP:CLN guideline that plainly states that categories and lists provide complementary and redundant methods of organizing navigational information is changed, I find no compelling reason that A category already exists a valid reason for deletion of a list.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indiscriminate list that could easily encompass millions of blogs. Dayewalker (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hundreds, judging by the size of Category:Blogs, but there's nowhere near millions of blog articles. Millions is comparable to the total size of all Wikipedia articles! Mdwh (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Without strict guidelines, every single blog hosted at blogspot, blogger, etc. could conceivably make a case for inclusion, thus making this article a list so large as to be useless. I'd think establishing notability for blogs would be much easier than establishing notability for a full wikipedia article, so this list could quickly become impossible to use effectively. Dayewalker (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Lists has this to say: "words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles, and instead the lead makes clear that that list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members." Thus, while "notable" should not be in the list title, this actually is (or can quickly be edited to become) a list of just notable blogs. The millions of non-notable blogs floating around online neither should nor would be included. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: As of right now, there are no guidelines for establishing notability of blogs on the page. Are the criteria for blog notability more stringent than for general wikipedia articles? For example, the ESPN website features dozens of blogs from writers encompassing everything from pro football to women's college basketball. Would all of these be notable? Dayewalker (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Fixed - there is now. The requirement is that the blog must have an article. This is the same way that we deal with other Lists (e.g., List of social networking websites). I don't see any problem here, and the same arguments would apply to long-estalished lists like List of social networking websites. Another example would be Lists of atheists - clearly this isn't intended to be a list of millions of people who happen to be atheists, it's restricted to those with Wikipedia articles. And even though that list is still quite large, that's not a reason to delete it. The only issue I see is whether the List is redundant (since we have a category), or whether the list adds extra useful information (in this case, the list includes language, subject and author). Mdwh (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a perfectly valid list that organises information in a way that facilitates navigation between related articles by providing informative context to supplement individual entries. The reasons for deletion given thus far are either unclear, based on misinterpretations of policy provisions, or downright inaccurate; see below:
    • current entries seem random and unjustified - This is an unexplained and difficult-to-understand statement. The article is supposed to be a list of (notable) blogs and the current entries are notable blogs ... how is this either "random" or "unjustified"?
    • indiscriminate list - WP:INDISCRIMINATE notes: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". How is this statement/provision relevant to this list of notable objects, with a clearly-defined scope?
    • probable violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - WP:NOTDIRECTORY notes: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". A list of notable object is not "a directory of everything that exists or has existed". WP:NOTDIRECTORY is designed to exclude lists of trivial intersections (e.g. List of (notable) golden retrievers born in 1987 within 25 kilometres of 10 Downing Street) and lists of non-notable people or objects (e.g. List of all people born in 1943), not this type of list.
    • redundant to a category - I could understand this argument if this was just a plain list without any other content. However, this list provides a great deal of information beyond just the name of the blog, including language, subject, and author. While I generally favour using categories in place of lists (when possible), this list is hardly redundant.
    • utterly unmaintable - This argument is based in a misunderstanding of the title. Wikipedia guidelines discourage the use of "notable" in article titles, but this is ultimately a list of notable blogs. While it does require more effort to maintain a list than a category, the list is not unmaintainable. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationale seems to be coming up repeatedly in this nomination, yet I honestly don't see what's meant by it. So, following the adage that it's better to ask and appear ignorant than to remain ignorant, could you (or someone else) please explain how this list qualifies as "indiscriminate"? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, seemingly indiscriminate. It appears that blogs were selected for this list based on whether they appeared in Category:Blogs without regard to any other objective or subjective criterion for addition or any criterion that makes reference to any third-party evaluation of the blogs. I note this primarily because of the inclusion on the list of Is This the End?, which had an article on Wikipedia and was in Category:Blogs until a few hours ago. Is This the End? had no independent, reliable sources; the only sources provided were the blog itself and a page on the blog author's employer's site. Upon further investigation, it turned out that "Is This the End?" was not a blog at all. Rather, it was one post on the author's blog, a post which had received a grand total of 27 comments. So it doesn't seem to me that the creators of this list were evaluating the listed blogs based on anything other than being in Category:Blogs, which is indiscriminate. I'm not sure what purpose the list will serve in its current format, alphabetical by blog name. If someone is looking for blogs to read, and doesn't have a particular blog in mind to start with or to look at its blogroll for ideas, they would probably be most interested in blogs sorted by topic rather than alphabetically by blog name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a list of all blogs would be unmaintainable, but a list of notable blogs (like the article states) is certainly maintainable - per mdwh. Also, per everything Black Falcon said - there is useful content here and no violations of policy that I can see. Stu (aeiou) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list is arbitrary or unmaintainable or both. Witness there are almost twice as many notable blogs in Category:Blogsas in the list. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list, like most of Wikipedia, is incomplete. That is not the same as being arbitrary or unmaintainable. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article only existed for three days before it was nominated for deletion! I'm sure if this is kept, people can get round to adding the other half. Mdwh (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename - Notable blogs should certainly be kept -- inherently encyclopedic topic; maintenance concern simply a red herring. Ombudsman (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Simply a red herring" seems to imply some kind of ruse or agenda, which seems counter-productive. However, I will agree with you on the renaming, this category seemed very poorly defined at the start of this AfD. Dayewalker (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made the list, and am currently expanding it, so eventually I should have more of the notable blogs at the blogs category. As to it being arbitrary, I am only including blogs which have been deemed notable enough for their own article. I have not included every blog on the planet, I have not even included blog articles which are currently being considered for deletion. Co-existing categories and lists also exist, see List of online encyclopedias and List of websites. Scapler (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:Lists also states: "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit more than 200 entries to appear on a single page." Scapler (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The implication is, list of notable blogs, those with WP articles--just the same as for all the other thousands of similar lists of Wikipedia. Maintainable by removing any others. Not indiscriminate, because it discriminates by listing only those with articles here, a very small percentage of the total (0.001%, perhaps--the very opposite of indiscriminate), not a directory because a directory would include them all, which is why we don't have that here. I wish people in voting about list articleswould actually read the guidelines and look at the article. DGG (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the one condition that MuZemike's Blog be included on the list :P MuZemike (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all seriousness, the article should be not only kept but also moved to another, more specific title, like List of notable blogs for instance (there goes my PoS blog!). I can foresee this list becoming very large, very quickly, at that point it can be split into other discriminate lists like List of political blogs, , List of entertainment blogs, List of video gaming blogs, etc. MuZemike (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The word "notable" does not have to be in the title, and indeed, this is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Lists#List_naming). The criterion for inclusion should be specified in the lead, not the title, and the article has already been updated to restrict this to solely notable blogs (this is how all the other "List of" articles are done). However I agree that splitting into Lists of blogs with several sub-lists is a good idea once this list grows large. Mdwh (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Cline, Scapler, Stu, Black Falcon, Ombudsman, DGG, oh and MuZemike too.John Z (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is not indiscriminate, unmaintainable, nor "random and unjustified". The only concern here is if it's redundant compared with the category. The extra information added here is rather minimal I think (language, subject, author), but no one has persuaded me that this is insufficient for a separate list. I am also concerned at the number of delete votes based on the misconception that this is intended to be a list of all blogs ever. Mdwh (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - redundancy between lists and categories is not a valid reason to delete. Wikipedia has several navigation systems, and lists are one of them. The list system is highly redundant when compared to the category system, and vice versa, but each system has its advantages. Even unstructured bare navigational lists should be kept, because removing them creates a hole in the list navigation system, and because they are an essential starting phase for improved lists (remember, all adults start off as children - if you kill off all the children, there won't be any more adults!). For more details, see WP:CLN. The Transhumanist 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a navigational list, for the defining characteristic of the items on it. AndyJones (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a list of Wikipedia articles about a particular type of subject. The list's contents are very specific: blogs that have an article on Wikipedia. Non-blog pages are not listed. There are no non-notable blogs listed. Articles on cat and dog breeds are not included on this list (but a blog about them could), nor articles on any topic other than blogs. I find the claim that the list is indiscriminate is completely false/mistaken. And the concern that the list will grow too large is absurd: Wikipedia and all of its subject areas continually grow/expand; Wikipedia and every subject within it (whether in the form of articles or lists) are scalable. Just like articles, lists can be structured into subheaded sections, and split into further lists as they grow larger. See Lists of philosophers and List of geography topics for examples of list expansion. Eventually, we may have a Lists of blogs. Cheers to a job well done. Keep building Wikipedia and its navigation systems! The Transhumanist 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 17 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. — Coren (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Jewish Arabism[edit]

Anti Jewish Arabism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mass original synthesis and content forking, gross pov issues. Perception of Arabism is OR, on the verge of fringe Soman (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While not denying that strands of Pan-Arabism may and/or do, to varying degrees, contain elements of anti-Semitism, this article effectively constitutes soapboxing (it would take a lot of work to rewrite it from a neutral point of view) and is undoubtedly original research: "infamous anti-Semitic 'protocols' libel", "Hitler's buddy", "just another Arab Muslim intolerance", "as part of a culture of hatred, the racism that denies historic roots of the Jews to Israel", etc. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: doesn't this referenced "Masteringwiki" webpage, cited by the user, constitute meatpuppetry, as part of the User:MarthaFiles sockpupetry case? T L Miles (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom, and I would suggest IP checks for Little penguin 613. The point about meatpuppets is that posting on a another website a "how to" recreate verbatim versions of a deleted article is "teamwork", as in WP:TEAMWORK. T L Miles (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may require a bit of cleanup, however it contain large amounts of reliable references to support it, including news agencies and organizations --Superflewis (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty much a textbook example of original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:SOAP and WP:SYNTH. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the very citing the source for material [22] that was spread in the internet to anyone that can use it freely shows that the "sockpuppet" claim/s were/is false. As to the material itself it has all links and sources to provide how Nasser the almost fopunder of Arabism used Hitler as a model for his hatred so is Bathism's Arabism's bigotry.

Garlingos (talk) 09:41, 16 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. ffm 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which cannot be found. Thus, this article fails our general notability guideline. Past AFD stated that sources existed and to give this article time, but in due time the article has not found sources, giving weight to my finding that the only coverage of this topic is insignificant, or in inappropriate/unreliable/non-independent sources. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 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 per WP:SNOW; upon further investigation (and an odd yet timely Facebook friend request from this person), this is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing joke article created by a current student. --Kinu t/c 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ni[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:HOAX and/or WP:COI article. Poetry claims are not verifiable, as this individual is not listed on the Bridport or Griffin websites. Ultimates fails WP:N and violates WP:V. --Kinu t/c 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Is not listed on any of the official sites of the prizes the article claims he has won. A search for Daniel Ni poetry turns up 81 results, none of these establish notability. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:53, 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. — Coren (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Ransom[edit]

A.C. Ransom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge with Alured Ransom. A. C. Ransom also known as Alured "Slim" Ransom. Ransom was also a football, basketball and track coach at Washington and Jefferson and Dickinson College. Washington & Jefferson used to be a National Power with many noted coaches including John Heisman and Sol Metzger. Ransom coached W&J (not very well) at the very end of the school being a national know football program. I did a quick Google News search on him and found 4 articles from the New York Times:
One when he took the W&J coaching job [23]
One when he was promoted to W&J AD. [24]
One when he left W&J to take the job at Dickerson. [25]
One when he quit Dickerson. [26]
Merge sounds great to me. Same person, coached at multiple major colleges. At least from 1941-1954.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition there were numerous articles on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other local newspapers on his career as a player as well as a coach.09er (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not locked you just have to pay to see them. I would type them out for you but it would probably be a copyright violation. All 4 articles are short (less than 100 word each). If there is just one article of that length I would say he was not notable. The point I have is that this person switched jobs 4 times over several years. Each of those times the National Newspaper of Record believed it was news worthy. To me that would say that this person was notable during that era. The main difference between him and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, is that no one could point to any third party sources with any biographical information other than his win/loss record. As I stated above there are quite a few articles that mentions him or about him in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Together I believe that there is enough reliable, third-party, published material on this person. 09er (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: And what do those articles say? Do they involve, as WP:V requires, that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Especially where athletics are involved, a mere "Soandso has been hired to replace Suchandsuch as head coach of the Miskatonic University Fighting Cephalopods" is pretty ubiquitous and certainly trivial. So far, nothing in WP:BIO supports an article on the criterion of switching jobs frequently. (By the bye, I've already typed over 100 words for this comment alone.)  Ravenswing  20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Move Discussion All of a sudden, there are a large number of college football head coach articles being considered for deletion. There has always been a trickle--one or two at a time, but my current count shows 28 [Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion|articles for deletion]], and I'm sure I'm missing many. One editor has achieved a deletion of Walter J. West and is now claiming "precedent" to delete coaches. I suggest (and have been suggesting for some time now) moving these argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability so that we can have a uniform and open discussion about what truly makes a notable college football coach. This will prevent arguing article-at-a-time and help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It will prevent a "scramble" on both sides of the argument and make for a single place to come to a true consensus instead of a hit-or-miss end result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: People having general discussions is a good thing, and when and if WP:ATHLETE is amended to explicitly grant prima facie notability to coaches of even the lowest possible levels of college ball, of course we ought to rule on black letter policy.  Ravenswing  02:46, 19 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. ffm 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical Hits Remixed[edit]

High School Musical Hits Remixed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The album in question doesn't seem notable. iMatthew (talk) 16:24, 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. — Coren (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camberford Law[edit]

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

Fails Notability requirements. Contains almost no inbound links. - Superflewis (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the deletion in this case as I could not find any sources on Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Note - account since indefblocked. Black Kite 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above sock missed these 78 returns in Google News? 50 year old Lloyd's listed broker - almost certainly notable. Black Kite 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs I understand the significance: According to Lloyd's of London#Structure, a Lloyd's agent is the firm a purchaser of insurance deals with to obtain a policy at Lloyd's. there are, from our article, 164 of them. Are all of them notable? I do not know, but it is probable from the G News results that this is a leading firm among them, though I would like some quantitative data about turnover and market share. (This, even though about 9/10 of the hits are to press releases, which abound in G news -- Europe Intelligence Wire is a RS only to in the sense that it reprints them reliably, just like its US counterparts. Many of the others are simply interviews with the principals of the firm, reliably sources for whatever they choose to say. By precedent, they are usable for uncontroversial facts, but should not be confused with independent RSs--we use them because there is often no easily available better source for company information.) DGG (talk) 02:57, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn after article improvement — Coren (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Moustakas[edit]

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

    Non-notable minor league player who has no other claim to notability. Fails WP:BASEBALL#Players Grsztalk 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - While referenced from a couple sources, the majority of the article deals with his high school baseball career and is sourced by the high school web site. IMHO, fails notability. Hardnfast (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sourcing is currently inadequate, but he was the #2 overall pick in the 2007 draft. There are kajillions of articles out there about him, and to be blunt, "I'm too lazy to fix it" is a lousy reason to advocate deletion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in what world is the article's statement that he was Baseball America's National Player of the Year not an assertion of notability? Did the nominator even read the whole article? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - From WP:BIO: Notable are "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" From WP:BASEBALL: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." The article cites no independent sources that provide evidence of notablity. Grsztalk 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core of WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Reliable independent sources: Sports Illustrated, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Daily News x2, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, etc. His profile in this year's Baseball America Prospect Handbook is also quite good, from a more scouting-oriented perspective. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of which I found, I might add, in about three minutes of research on Google. You could easily have done the same, if you were so inclined, but instead you decided to nominate it for deletion. Well done. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So then source it, instead of acting like a fool. Grsztalk 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think it would be nice if you did it, as a way of apologizing for wasting everybody's time by nominating an article that's blatantly notable for deletion? You evidently have plenty of time to insult me... why not put it to more productive use? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) on the basic criteria by virtue of numerous independent reliable sources, as User:Hit bull, win steak provided, meaning not having played in a fully professional league is irrelevent. Being the second overall pick in the draft isn't inherently notable, but the sources that inevitably come with it are enough to establish notability alongside that fact. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn nomination, providing the sources given are inserted into the prose. Grsztalk 18:44, 18 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 (CSD g1). GDonato (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    God shave the queen[edit]

    God shave the queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:MADEUP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It's apparently about a fellow named Luc Muylaert, who considers himself to be a notable comedian. Wow, substituting the word "shave" for "save". Nobody ever did that before!!! Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete I'm rather disappointed somebody felt it necessary to remove my speedy tag and waste people's time bringing it here. We are not uncyclopedia. The Bald One White cat 16:14, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Famous people with speech disorders[edit]

    Famous people with speech disorders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnecessary list, which may never be complete. Also fails Notability requirements, and contains no notes, references or inline citations. The title is also misleading, as the article does not state what exactly constitues a "Famous" person. Superflewis (talk) 15:46, 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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christos makris[edit]

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

    Fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:38, 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 redirect to Jak & Daxter (series). MBisanz talk 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jak (Jak and Daxter)[edit]

    Jak (Jak and Daxter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the namesake character of several video games, in accordance with the treatment of similar video game characters. Is this the best name for the article? JJL (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Several video games' in real numbers equals 4. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:06, 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. BJTalk 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daxter[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:25, 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 redirect to Jak X: Combat Racing. BJTalk 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rayn (Jak and Daxter)[edit]

    Rayn (Jak and Daxter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:24, 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 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Erol[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:23, 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 redirect to Jak 3. BJTalk 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Veger (Jak and Daxter)[edit]

    Count Veger (Jak and Daxter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:23, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Darksol[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:17, 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 Redirect to Little Big Adventure. BJTalk 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Funfrock[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hibachi (DoDonPachi)[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    El Diablo (Freedom Force)[edit]

    El Diablo (Freedom Force) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of the video game. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Nifboy (talk) 16:16, 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. Ultimately, this is a non notable constructed term of very little use. No prejudice against a redirect if someone can find a decent target. — Coren (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Megagon[edit]

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

    A non-notable figure. Most importantly, mega- simply means great. Its use to mean the number one million is as an SI prefix ONLY. Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree there is nothing notable here. Mathematically a 1,000,000 sided polygon is of trivial interest. A quick web search suggests a few other trivial usages, none of which merits an article. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — this can be confused with a video game character of the exact same name in the game Amagon. MuZemike (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — nn geometrical figure. MuZemike (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article author - it was a red-linked requested article. I certainly wasn't aware there was a notability definition for math concepts or geometric shapes, considering the equal fame of some other shapes. The concept is geometrically notable. It appears in two widely published texts of geometry as well as being the "largest" defined geometric shape. However, if you wish to delete, might I instead suggest a redirect to polygon -- and remove it from the Polygon template.--Logical Premise (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, this is as valid as the Myriagon and Chiliagon pages, neither of which have been tagged for deletion. I feel it is important to have this page, as there are few other sources on the web which provide information about the Megagon, which is just as valid as any other polygon. Possumman (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Remember that myria- means 10,000 in Greek. This was the largest number name until the 14th century when million was coined. mega, on the other hand, was never used by the Greeks to mean a million; it was coined as late as 1874 by someone who felt it was time for an SI prefix for a million. Mega for one million, remember, is an SI prefix ONLY. Georgia guy (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fail to see the importance of your bringing up the point that it's an SI prefix. Zebibyte refers to a SI prefixed name we are no where near achieving, that does not , unfortunately, have anything to do with the merits of the article unless this is listed in some policy or guidline somewhere (which it may be -- I've been out of circulation for a while). --Logical Premise (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • To clarify, because it is an SI prefix, it means we use it with SI units. For example, a megameter is 10^6 meters. When used with something that is not an SI unit, and the -gon suffix is something of this kind, all mega- means is great. Georgia guy (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To enlarge on some points I made above, mathematically none of chiliagon, myriagon or megagon is notable enough to deserve its own article. The relative merits of "mega" and other prefixes have little to do with the notability of the derived polygon names. If any of these articles were to remain, then it would need to seek notability elsewhere - in fantasy gaming or some such - though my earlier web search suggested nothing worth a Wikipedia article. These words might be worth adding to a dictionary, but that is not what Wikipedia is. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I don't know whether this figure is widely enough referred to to make it notable, but I would like to point out that its suitability for an encyclopedia article is nothing to do with any ultra-pedantic view as to whether or not the prefix should be used. I'm sure there's no copyright on "mega" that prevents its use outside of SI units. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You don't use SI prefixes to extrapolate sequences that use numerical prefixes mono-, di-, tri-, etc. Georgia guy (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. This reminds me of my favorite non-notable polygon, the exagon, which has 1018 sides. In Spanish, some people spell the word for hexagon exágono which could theoretically cause confusion. --Itub (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who says it's okay to use SI prefixes as general numerical prefixes?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I say it. It's not as if the prefixes are trademarked! Seriously, people use these prefixes all the time with non-SI units and with other "unit-like" concepts. Of course, it's not an Officially Approved Use™. But in any case, my comment about the exagon was meant as a joke. I just support the redirect proposed by Logical Premise. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see anything on WP anywhere saying "don't use SI prefixes". Go make a essay on why it's bad, Georgia Guy, so we can avoid this issue in the future. Otherwise, the first question will be "Why not use SI prefixes? They're used in lots of other things!" -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect is a good solution. If it's mentioned in a few texts, as Logical Premise point out, then it deserves a mention on Wikipedia. I have added a (shortened) description in Polygon, so that a redirect will make sense. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:55, 18 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.

    Digeus Inc.[edit]

    The result was Speedied per WP:CSD#A7. Notability not established. seicer | talk | contribs 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Digeus Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable, article still orphaned after 5 weeks Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carol Adams (Australian politician)[edit]

    Carol Adams (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article was created on the assumption that Carol Adams had won election to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. She didn't; which calls her notability into question. Bush shep (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete I supported its creation at the time (a few days ago) but circumstances have now changed and she hasn't been elected. There's only a few of us watching this one editor-wise. Orderinchaos 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Keep per subsequent work and sources unearthed by Moondyne. Orderinchaos 05:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep. There does appear to be some notability as Mayor of Kwinana.[27][28][29] This part could be expanded with a passing mention that she unsuccessfully stood for the 2008 state election. It (just) meets WP:POLITICIAN ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion"). McWomble (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as creator. A mayor is generally notable, as supported by WP:POLITICIAN, and election preselection issues[30] only add to that. It is normal Afd courtesy to notify the creator, BTW. Moondyne 14:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak keep - given the ABC News article provided by McWomble coupled with her position as mayor. In its current state, the article itself would fail WP:POLITICIAN, and to Moondyne, I would say that your interpretation should be slightly tweaked - it is that mayors are likely to have significant coverage, not mayors are generally notable in themselves. – Toon(talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou Toon05. I'm comfortable with my wording. Moondyne 01:19, 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 merge to Characters in Outrageous Fortune. Canley (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheryl West[edit]

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

    Procedural nom. Contested prod. Unreferenced stub about a fictional character with no context or real world relevance.

    I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason.

    McWomble (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone moved the pages, which doesn't make any sense. Enigma message 12:42, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Statistical consultant[edit]

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

    Non-notable and non-encyclopedic topic - do we need an article on every possible type of consultant? —G716 <T·C> 12:36, 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. BJTalk 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrestlemania win loss records[edit]

    Wrestlemania win loss records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Trivial page that is not needed. iMatthew (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge into the Wrestlemania article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no need for merge, information is List Cruft.--SRX 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per SRX. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Assuming the list is complete and accurate, I see no reason why not to keep this around, either at its own article or as part of Wrestlemania. It seems fair to list all the wrestlers who have competed at the event, along with their relative levels of success there. That's not what I'd call "cruft"; that's just basic, useful information. (Of course, some sources would be good.) Zagalejo^^^ 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC),[reply]
      Coment The dude makes a wicked point, if it can be sourced, merge it. Altenhofen (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Wrestlemania - no need to lose the existing work. Maybe cut out those with less than five matches for space. Not cruft, is actually rather useful, discriminate, and tailored to a particular set of information. Stu (aeiou) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Merge May be trivial, but it could very well enhance the Wrestlemania article. The article itself is infact very pointless, but as a section in a larger article, it would probably, as I said before, help the article. Altenhofen (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with Merge votes - No it can not, for one because the list is incomplete and the list can go on and on, do you know how many people have wrestled at 'Mania? Over 100,000. This will just make the article longer and the information would just be trivial. Citing WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT--SRX 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I wouldn't be surprised if some names are missing, I'm curious where you come up with that number. The WWE website only provides results for about a half-dozen matches per year. (I'll admit that I don't really follow wrestling, so if your number is correct, I'll vote delete.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I doubt we really need an article about wins and losses. If we did, we would need a list of that for every major sport and event. So, I say it's best if the article is deleted. Merging won't do much good anyway. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:08, 18 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. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolio and Friends[edit]

    Coolio and Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This album seems to be extremely rare, possibly a bootleg. Google search gives nothing useful. Billboard.com doesn't even mention this album on Coolio's discography. Reverend X (talk) 11:25, 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. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    National Football League in Toronto[edit]

    National Football League in Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom - was nominated for SD as a recreation of a previously deleted article. While it is (superficially, at least), the article is different enough that I didn't think speedying it was the way to go. Perhaps the biggest difference is that the current article is fairly well sourced, whereas the previous article was nothing but WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Still, I figured it was a close enough call that another AfD was called for - I have no strong opinion on whether it should be kept. faithless (speak) 11:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep While anything before 2008 could not have been much more than crystalballing, things have changed since the last article. The NFL is, for the first time, playing a regular-season game in Canada (though it has played preseason games in Canada before) and leasing arrangements for games in subsequent years. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Concur with Mandsford. - BillCJ (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Mandsford. I have nothing to say which is not repetitive. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In addition to Mandsford's comments, I'd like to add that the article also discusses the NFL's previous involvement (which is fairly extensive) in the city, and not just a speculation on future games. The article is worth keeping. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep article with reliable sources. Throw out league. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:23, 18 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. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Myxer[edit]

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

    nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:18, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zscaler[edit]

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

    nn company John MacReen (talk) 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. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Total Combat Wrestling[edit]

    Total Combat Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn wrestling John MacReen (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    also add Violet (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Darrenhusted (talk)
    and School of Pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Darrenhusted (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flava Works[edit]

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

    nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: I take it that John MacReen's lapidary note ""nn company" means "not notable company." To counter this critique, just have a look at the list of references in the article. The company was covered on television (NBC 6) and in numerous blogs. I am sure that more research would show that it also received coverage in Miami-area newspapers. And here is another reason not to delete the article: The Wikipedia contains numerous entries on companies that produce gay pornography featuring mostly Caucasian men. Why is there much less coverage of companies that work with men of color? The Flava Works entry attempts to remedy this lacuna. GBataille (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article needs a rewrite for tone issues. However, what I see in the article is a business with enough notoriety to have been drummed out of one city, banned in another, and featured in an investigative TV report in that second city. I'm going to say that's sufficient notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Has sufficient coverage to satisfy notability. It does need some cleanup, though. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In response to critiques regarding its tone, the article has been purged of some language that could be read as sensationalist and non-neutral. GBataille (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Further documentation (namely, references to two Miami Herald articles) has been added to show the notability of Flava Works. GBataille (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found only three articles on Factiva mentioning "Flava Works", the two from the Miami Herald and "Man sues over 'depictions' in porn films: Claims pledge of anonymity when he directed them " from the Chicago Sun-Times so I can understand notability concerns - that is not much on which to base an article. Keep in mind that all of the information in Wikipedia article must be able to be verified from reliable sources.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to Commander Keane's comment, I would like to point out that the entry is based on numerous reliable sources, not just the articles in the Miami Herald. NBC 6 should count as a respectable source, and the newsletter of the Chicago Department of Health surely falls into that category as well. There are many entries in the Wikipedia that are far less well documented than the one on Flava Works. GBataille (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am just a little worried that there is original research (eg 'The "House Next Door" Controversy' - are there third party sources discussing that the DVD that pokes fun of the controversy?) and that some of the sources are not reliable (blogs are not reliable, and I don't think press releases are reliable unless they get picked up by the press).--Commander Keane (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note that AVN, perhaps the premier and most reliable inside news source on the adult industry, covers Flava Works regularly. You would have to dig into these sources to make sure they're significant mentions and not reviews or press releases (which is why this is "note" instead of "keep"), but here they are:[31] - Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 18 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 per request of creator. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Animaland[edit]

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

    nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless rewitten from scratch. I'd say the company itself is notable (their list of locations is just huge), but the present article is a wholly unfixable mess. Reads like a first-draft sales brochure, complete with irrelevant details about the history of stuffed animals, etc. No objection to keeping if someone rewrites it totally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Five Greatest Warriors[edit]

    The Five Greatest Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    un verifiable fails WP:CRYSTAL only return on google search is this article Brilliant trees (talk) 10:31, 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. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alberto S. Gallerani[edit]

    Alberto S. Gallerani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can only find one source for this person, "Business Update; Makeover corporation delivers on site medical services at Florida facility" that lists some of his qualifications. I do not know whether that is enough. Are there more sources out there, or should this article be deleted? Commander Keane (talk) 09:59, 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) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unreferenced, overly advert-like, obvious COI (see article history) and presents no actual notability. The "medici star breast lift" gets all of 2 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Agree with this position unless proper references can be found, as stated above. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 18 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 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paula Watson[edit]

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

    I don't believe that a bikini model is notable for coming 3rd in a Miss Australia pageant. Grahame (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, despite being an ambassador for a hair dryer. WWGB (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no secondary coverage as far as I can tell. Running third in a beauty competition and a having a product endorsement aren't the sort of things that would push someone over the notability threshold, in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete Looks like a promotional exercise to send people to her MySpace page.--Lester 09:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete could not find anything on Factiva about this particular Paula Watson, and without newspaper coverage I think this article will be impossible to source. The closest thing I found was a one-line quote from an Australian zookeeper of the same name, I am not sure that it is the same person.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable. "Some girls hate me cause i wear the shortest skirts, some revealing my panties when i bend over or sit down. I don't worry about what other girls think of me. I sometimes where a black bra with a white top or even better, no bra at all. They're jealous. That's why I spent 10k on my tits." Nice. Moondyne 08:34, 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 keep. Seems like most everyone agrees these two are notable. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Gillespie[edit]

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

    I am not convinced that science fiction fans are notable even if they get nominated for awards for best fanzine. This could lead to articles on soccer or Neighbours fans. Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is similar.[reply]

    John Bangsund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Add that Gillespie has an entry on p. 137 of the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature by Brian M. Stableford, (Scarecrow Press: 2004) ISBN 0810849380 N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This person was not nominated for any kind of prestigious award and turns up no results in search engines such as google news (just a bunch of people with his last name). Because of these factors, I think that the person fails human notability criteria. — ^.^ [citation needed] 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep (both) Three Hugo Award nominations, a 2007 Chandler Award win, and a whole bunch of Ditmar Award wins for Gillespie? Three Hugo noms, three Ditmar noms, plus a Ditmar win and a 2001 Chandler Award win for Bangsund? These are all notable awards and thus both subjects clearly meet notability. (And these nominations should have been split.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - Bruce Gillespie, clearly passes WP:CREATIVE, at a bare minimum he meets the requirements of: has won significant critical attention and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in a case like this one I suppose it always comes back to: can we write a verifiable article based on reliable sources? Although winning awards can help indicate if reliable sources are bound to be available, it does not mean that an article can be written. Where can we find third party reliable sources about this person? I am not sure where the best place to look is, the only relevant resource I have available is a newspaper database (Factiva). I found some mentions of this person, but nothing substantial enough to write an article:
    • About the 57th World Science Fiction Convention: "Guests of honour are [...] Australian critic and fan Bruce Gillespie", Canberra Times, 22 August 1999
    • About The MUP encyclopaedia of Australian science fiction & fantasy: "Graham Stone [...] receives a relatively truncated entry, as does editor, writer and publisher Bruce Gillespie, Canberra Times, 12 September 1998
    • He has a quote and is introduced as: "Bruce Gillespie, publisher of SF Commentary magazine since 1969" in the Courier-Mail, 27 April 2002
    Someone should follow up the entry in The MUP encyclopaedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Stableford reference I gave above provides more or less exactly the thin data that the Wikipedia article has (minus the award details). You can see it on Google books. Searching Google books with search terms "Gillespie", "Brian" and "Science Fiction" turns up a huge mass of references – it's just hard to sort out casual references or non reliable sources. Another reference work (one of several) which seems to have an entry (though you can't look at it on Google books) is Peter Nicholls, Science Fiction Encyclopedia Doubleday 1979, p. 253. N p holmes (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for Google books tip :-) There more I look at the article the more it seems a short entry based on these sci-fi encyclopedia entries is suitable for Wikipedia (and hopefully someone will come along and source the article as soon as possible). The list of awards may not be found in a source and may have to be removed though.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added refs for the Hugos, the Chandler Award was already there, the Ditmars can be referenced here [32], though there's no convenient point in the article at the moment on which to hang the reference. N p holmes (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, article satisfies relevant notability standards. Ottre 15:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - both have won enough awards to be notable.PamD (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both. This had me at Hugo Awards. Just because someone is a "fan" that doesn't disqualify them from notability. See, for example, Bjo Trimble. I feel doing a double nomination is inappropriate for these sorts of individuals. Fortunately in this case their notability is satisfied through similar means. 23skidoo (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep being nominated for an obscure Hugo 3 times is like being nominated for an obscure Oscar 3 times. Clearly passes GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, clearly notable through award wins. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week keep. Barely scrapes through. Those awards haven't themselves been demonstrated as notable, and the award articles don't carry significant reliable sources. Gillespie himself was once asked for comment during an ABC radio interview regarding the death of Arthur C Clarke (link). However, it barely shows Gillespie's notability.--Lester 02:44, 17 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 think it's snowing outside... Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nong 7[edit]

    Nong 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No release date and unconfirmed: clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 08:00, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Baxter House[edit]

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

    Non-notable band. A google search throws up nothing but Myspacey type things (and stuff about unrelated things that are also named Baxter House). They've self-released a single album. There are a handful of sources, but I don't think they meet what WP:SECONDARY asks for. Reyk YO! 07:58, 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 speedy deletion. Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Jhon Minths[edit]

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

    Clearly fails WP:BIO. Article has had multiple {{hangon}} tabs placed, suggesting that any speedy or PROD would be contested. Also recommend creation protection (WP:SALTing). MuZemike (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note — User:Tralalazxers, who has repeatedly created this article, has a history of vandalism and reposting of deleted material. I went the AfD route since this user keeps placing {{hangon}} templates everywhere. Hence, I also request further administrative action against this user, as this user has absolutely no regard for basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 08:03, 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. Article has been cleaned up. Contains 8 External Links and 4 references. This discredits WP:N (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Samer al-Masry[edit]

    Samer al-Masry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contributing editor unilaterally removed speedy delete tag. Subject fails notability standards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep- Well, there is this article: [33] and this one here [34] that show some individual notability. Incidentally, his name can also be spelled Samer al-Masri, which brings up a whole boatload of ghits. Page needs a massive amount of work, but it does seem he's notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Trying both his name as written by the article and the version suggested by the above user in Googe news turn up 1 relevant result. I would not consider the two sources provided above as reliable sources. Because of this I think the actor fails human notability guidelines. — ^.^ [citation needed] 09:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Googling "Samer al Masri" turns up plenty of quality hits. Also, WP:RS is not restricted to the Western press. Al Arabyia is a reputable news agency and I don't see the problem with Radio Sawt Beirut. He has extensive coverage by Al Babawa and even a passing notice by the AP [35]. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The reason you only get one Google News hit is because you only did the default search for articles in the last month. To get useful results you need to click on "all dates" on the left. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Don't see why Umbralcorax's sources are not reliable, and sufficient. I get 11 gnews hits.[36] and one passing reference gbook hit [37] saying he co-founded a theater in Damascus, and of course there's a lot on google.John Z (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources shown above show clear notability. I also note that this article was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion within 3 minutes of its creation despite saying that the subject had played important roles in theatre, cinema and TV. Is this the way we should be greeting new editors? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The formatting in the article was so poor (and still is) that notability claims seemed to be unfounded. In fact, they are still unfounded. While sourcing may be available, the point is that it is unavailable in the article. What do you suggest, placing a citation needed tag to every line? Every word? Every assertion? This is such a mess, and quite frankly, it is ridiculous that it's going to pass. What is even meant by this so-called list of names following the media listings -- are these the characters he played? Why aren't they listed within the context of a show or a play? If a subjects notability can be established and isn't and the article looks like a hoax or the product of a 5th grade reading level, why is it surprising that it was nominated for deletion? That's why it was put up for speedy deletion. If we have to Google for sources, let's Google for information as well. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notability has been shown. Article needs expansion and sources... which is not a reason to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Nom is quite correct, as the article is attrocious. I have found the notability and the sources, so in about 12 hours I will be able to spend some quality time making it presentable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have begun cleanup per mos. Expansion and sourcing begins next. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In just a couple hours, this will be a pleasent enough article. Thanks for the patience. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't expand as I do not read Syrian. However, I have cleaned up, sourced, and added external links showing an interest in this actor over several years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 18 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. For those interested in merging the page elsewhere, I'd suggest taking up that discussion on the talk page. However, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eileen Flynn[edit]

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

    Non-notable per WP:BIO: She has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. She was sacked for being pregnant, like thousands if not millions before her. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scoláire, the Marguerite Bolger article could be described as secondary - it's written by someone who wasn't a party to the issues involved. The High court decision could be considered a primary source as it was the result of Eileen Flynn taking an unfair dismissal case. Her significance goes far beyond being just one woman sacked for being pregnant, it involves what grounds an employee can be dismissed for (the High Court and Employment Tribunal she appealed to ruled against her) as well as issues of church/state separation. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I don't know if MILLIONS have been fired like her, but honestly, she just isn't that notable. Violation of WP:ONEEVENT, I believe. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While people would probably be much more sympathetic to a teacher fired in such a situation now, the question of whether a teacher could be fired for the same reason is still open - see the article by Marguerite Bolger linked to in the article. As I understand it, the equality legislation has exemptions for educational institutions run by religious bodies (i.e. the vast majority of schools in the Republic) and the controversy 'was' widespread at the time. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notable only for one event (being fired). Although technically not a BLP1E case as she apparently died, the spirit of the concept still applies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Changes in society in the Republic of Ireland. Eileen Flynn was not notable, but her dismissal and subsequent court cases received significant national coverage at the time, as a challenge to the values of society. Things have since changed, the dismissal would not happen now. The Afd got me seaching for a change article, but none existed so I started one. --Rye1967 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article does not survive this process then it should definitely be merged into the article you mention, though I'm not as sanguine about such a dismissal not happening again. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You say it couldn't happen now, and the Eileen Flynn article specifically says it could still happen. Best to get that sorted out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I phrased that badly - I meant that I'm afraid that it could happen again. The equality legislation from a decade ago grants exemptions to religiously-run educational institutions, such as the one Eileen Flynn was fired from in 1982. Autarch (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Interesting. But fails WP:BLP1E Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or Rename to an article about the case or an article about the wider context. Eileen Flynn isn't really an encyclopedia topic; her court case and the wider context ARE encyclopedic, though, and I don't think Wikipedia should lose this information just because it's at the wrong place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - Very notable. Yes, many women were sacked by the Sisters of Cruelty for being pregnant but Ms. Flynn stood up to them and refused to go quietly and took several court cases, all of which she lost. Flynn took on the Catholic Church at the height of its power in Ireland. How many former teachers' deaths make the front page of the Irish Times? [38]. This article doesn't violate WP:BLP1E, she became famous for being sacked but the subsequent, Employment Appeals Tribunal, Circuit case and High Court case, are all separate and notable events. It would be a shame if an article about a courageous and heroic women gets deleted, while rubbish like this: Mr_G and this: Lauren Cooper remain, and they're not even real! Snappy56 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - evidence of enduring notability as she has been the subject of several obituaries in national newspapers, twenty-six years after the event for which she is notable. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Of marginal notability, admittedly, but the article passed WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see enough Google Book sourcing [39] to be certain that we should have an article. I see evidence that in 1985 the incident got coverage in the U.S. [40] (though admittedly in the 1980s the Boston establishment was largely an Irish group that just happened to be in the U.S.) I don't particularly care for the idea of renaming; no better name is obvious, as the sources all talk about her rather than some incident name. Given how biographical the root events are, this is not too surprising. GRBerry 19:06, 17 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. 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Joe DeVita[edit]

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

    Subject fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete- no reliable 3rd party notability I can find. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article is written like a promotion, google news turns up 0 results for his name. There is no evidence to suggest that this man meets human notability guidelines. — ^.^ [citation needed] 10:11, 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 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Catie Smith[edit]

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

    Add Cathryn (Catie) Phipps, Phipps Institute, Catherine Phipps and American dietology to this nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-notable person. A Google search for '"Catie Smith" dietology' comes up with a grand total of 56 hits. Only 9 hits for "American dietology". Seems like self-promotion. Corvus cornixtalk 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I would also vote to delete the other articles this editor has added tonight, as they all appear to be the same unformatted information about non-notables, and possible copvios as well. These should probably have been CSD'ed, in fact.Dayewalker (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "bio-chemical infarctions". Gobbledygook. Corvus cornixtalk 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- these are pasted, nonencyclopedic essays. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:29, 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. BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Nevard[edit]

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

    Obscure creationist. Only claim to fame is to being the secretary of the likewise-obscure Daylight Origins Society -- itself under AfD. The article currently cites no third party sources, and the majority of the sources it does cite only make trivial mention of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Regardless of whether the Society is notable, this person is not notable. Fewer and less notable google hits than, say, me. (A good litmus test, to be sure!) HG | Talk 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It seems clear that being involved with running an organisation, even if notable, does not confer notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Being the head of a not-well-known group doesn't seem to be a claim to notability. (Even if the group were notable, we wouldn't very often have individual articles on the group's officers unless they had outside claims to fame). EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Daylight Origins Society. Insufficient notability other than as officer of the organization and editor of their magazine. With a redirect the content can remain accessible in the history of this page, so editors can retrieve it to perform the merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [modified my comment after further research.]
    Update: The other article at Daylight Origins Society has been kept, following an AfD closed as "no consensus." I've reviewed the details and sources in this article (as of this current time stamp) and confirmed that there is nothing on this page that is not already in the other article, except for a couple of sentences that are unsourced. Therefore, if the decision is to merge and redirect, no merging of content is needed. This page can simply be redirected to the other one, and all the information is already there, as far as I can tell. There seems to be no need to delete this page and its history, when a redirect will do just as well. If the decision is to delete, it would be a good idea to add a redirect after deletion anyway, since just about all of the sources that discuss the organization also mention Nevard. It's not a big issue to me either way, but it seems the redirect would be the best solution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge then delete any interesting info into Daylight Origins Society, and then delete that per it's discussion. Or just delete as it's non notable. Verbal chat 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete after merging any significant information into the DOS article, though there may not be any as all the sources are selfpublished. . dave souza,duplicate !vote removed by Jerry talk 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "merge then delete" is not a valid recommendation (same as "delete after merging"). "Delete unless (fill-in complicated criteria which requires research outside of the discussion here)" is equally unhelpful. Please help out the closing administrator by !voting consistent with the deletion policy. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC
    • Comment There's no deletion policy prohibiting or invalidating !votes that are conditional and complicated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply to that is here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 14 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Searched through google findings. Couldn't find an independent reliable source to confirm any claim of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above deletion argument as I too was unable to find any sources on either Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable individual, the info is all in the DOS article and in the unlikely event of someone searching for him the search box will find the articles with his name, so a redirect is unnecessary. . dave souza, talk 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dave, this is your second "delete" !vote here - your prior entry on this page is at 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Would you like to strike through one of them, or change one of them to a "comment"? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed his first !vote. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jerry, my impression was that this ws a new vote discounting those that were qualified by mergying any useful information into the main article. So, my view is to delete. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 17 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 master is whipping the slave into oblivion. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    N.I.G.G.E.R. (The Slave and the Master)[edit]

    N.I.G.G.E.R. (The Slave and the Master) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:NM, non-notable song. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 03:38, 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 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Queer West News[edit]

    Queer West News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. "Online newsletter for the southwest of England". Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems I didn't finish the AfD process - now it's up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 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, Mr.Z-man 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above argued points regarding deleting this article as I too was unable to find sufficient sources on Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:12, 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) Superflewis (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EUTRAN[edit]

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

    Future technology, not out yet, no good sources that reference it as imminent, poss advertising? Fr33kmantalk APW 03:28, 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 delete. Snow'ed in Houston. Completely unencyclopedic article. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008 Hurricane Ike Houston Apartment Status[edit]

    2008 Hurricane Ike Houston Apartment Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Slightly messy, just a table and a few words. This article is not very useful to many users. I suggest move it to Hurricane Ike. Jer10 95 Talk 03:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Nothing here to save; this is a global encyclopedia. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - sees to be someone's idea of keeping people infored of the status of apartents during the hurricane. Fr33kmantalk APW 03:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There's plenty of other blog services (and even local media services) that could host this information in a better format. Nate • (chatter) 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No information seems to be present, and it's uncited in any event (so WP:NOR applies). I'm sure this fails at least a couple of the WP:NOT tenets. Even as a work in progress, I don't see this having any apparent point or context so even userfy doesn't apply. 23skidoo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a web host. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Messy. Unecyclopedic. Wikipedia not a web host. But leaning keep if article will associate itself with the effects of the Hurricane. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Even if it does, I don't see it as a viable separate article; as part of a larger overview of the effects of the hurricane, yes. 23skidoo (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per several WP:NOT guidelines (and possibly all of them) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Do not redirect to Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas#Houston as it is an implausible typo IMO. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and do not redirect. Fails a lot of WP:NOT. McWomble (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and do not redirect anywhere. If this information is covered in reliable sources, it should at most receive a brief mention in Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails a lot of WP:NOT guidelines. RockManQ (talk) 20:30, 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 redirect to Frasier. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elliott Bay Towers[edit]

    Elliott Bay Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable show location. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 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. BJTalk 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xiphoid[edit]

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

    There is no actual term called "Xiphoid" to reference wirstblades and its variations. The term is simply an idea of a few people in a forum and thus is not widespread enough to have an article of its own. In the dictionary, Xiphoid appears as: 1. "Shaped like a sword, ensiform." and 2. "Of, or relating to the xiphisternum."

    The article provides interesting, even useful, details about a pop-culture phenomenon. Currently, there is no wikipedia article for "Wristblades". If the only objection is the name, then I'd suggest simply retitling the current article as "Wristblade", with a possible redirect from "Xiphoid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.4.152 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Two of the three sources are fictional movies; they're not reliable sources for the notability or alleged significance of this word, and the items it is purported to describe. While there may be a valid subject for an article here, it needs to be written from an academic perspective by someone with a grounding in the history of armaments, using terminology which can be shown to have a wider usage, and without the present focus on fiction and amateur projects of dubious safety and legality. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 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, MBisanz talk 03:11, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inferno (truck)[edit]

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

    There's no evidence that this truck is notable per WP:N. While the series it races in may be notable, that doesn't extend to this individual truck. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenger (truck) (2nd nomination). B. Wolterding (talk) 19:02, 6 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, MBisanz talk 00:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Del Rey (band)[edit]

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

    Unnotable band. The entire article is an unverifiable timeline. Tavix (talk) 18:18, 6 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, MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No sources to demonstrate passing WP:MUSIC (and no obviously reliable ones avalible either via google). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 18 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 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakout Degree[edit]

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

    Contested speedy. Subject lacks WP:RS, probable failure of WP:BAND. Movingboxes (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no verifiable evidence that this meets WP:NMG. I declined the speedy because the article asserted notability in the form of playing with blue-linked bands and having three album releases. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 6 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, MBisanz talk 03:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence they are notable. Yet. Article can be recreated if they make it to notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable. Take it to MySpace. Grsztalk 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable; no verifiability to claims of connections. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 16 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 article fails WP:BIO and is a borderline speedy deletion candidate anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias Buchwald[edit]

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

    Unsourced article on non-notable brother of a famous journalist. Since notability is not contagious, the subject doesn't qualify in his own right. Subject is cited in the article as founding a company, but that company's own extensive article doesn't mention him at all. Prod removed with the edit summary "notable" and no other commentary.  RGTraynor  14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - It's worth noting that the article, in its previous state, had more content, but it was deleted since it was deemed promotional and non-notable. The article was initially created by the subject's (or the subject's organization's) publicists. Mosmof (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete - He's a co-founder of a major PR agency and frequently pops up in bios as a "public relations legend", but searching on Google and Factiva, I couldn't find anything specifically about him that wasn't written by a publicist. While he may be a very, very important person in the industry, he seems to fail WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He doesn't seem important enough in the industry to garner reliable sources, at the least.  RGTraynor  04:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete Needs to be expanded to prove it is Wiki eligible. SpeechFreedom (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not Notable Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 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, MBisanz talk 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google searches would indicate this subject fails the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 18 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. We'll call this one a snowball close. Mmm, hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Toy Soulja[edit]

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

    Hoax. You would think that if an album sold nearly 3 million copies, there would be some mention of it on the Internet. Corvus cornixtalk 02:56, 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 close withdrawn, nac. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Julia Butler Hansen Bridge[edit]

    Julia Butler Hansen Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable bridge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Eastmain beat me to adding sources. This was the subject of reliable sources and it serves as the only connector from mainland Washington to to Puget Island. --Oakshade (talk) 03:47, 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 keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jessica Lappin[edit]

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

    Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Bio#Politicians. There is no assertion of notability other than she is a council member. Consensus is that being a member of a city council is not in itself reason enough for an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 02:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Ethier[edit]

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

    Nonnotable autobiography from a user with a blatant conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - his career as an actor based on the roles listed in IMDB is undistinguished. There is no coverage bout him as a hotel executive. No reliable sources exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 10 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, Xclamation point 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this seems to sum up the sort of information returns a quick research turns up. He was a TV actor, but appears not to have been one notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus says that an actor should match one of these criteria: WP:CREATIVE - this person doesn't appear to do that. SilkTork *YES! 03:19, 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 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Starter Kit (2006)[edit]

    The Starter Kit (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreleased album that never was... Not only are we not a crystal ball, but we don't keep articles on subjects that never even happened... completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there is no way this article can survive. One or two en passant mentions in interviews does not a reliable source make, especially when the scheduled release was two years ago, and never occurred. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. One of many articles by an overzealous new editor.

    • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the article on the performer. Very few unreleased albums are notable enough to warrant their own articles. 23skidoo (talk) 21:41, 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, TravellingCari 03:54, 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, Mr.Z-man 02:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and quit relisting. No sources, unreleased albums generally aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an unsourced, unreleased album with no particular claim to notability. ~ mazca t | c 11:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above, plus something that not one person has cared enough about to argue against deletion in 10 days. Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 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) Superflewis (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Civionic engineering (civionics)[edit]

    Civionic engineering (civionics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Subject is a neologism. There is not wide acceptance of this term in the engineering community. The "coining" of the term by one civil engineering professor does not establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place to further establish a neologism. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - A detailed discussion of how the majority of the references point to the same professor is provided on the article talk page. I did that to try to elicit a discussion from the single purpose account used to create the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as neologism. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It has been used in publications by third parties too. Not a large number of publications, but still enough to meet the basic notability criterion. You said in the talk page: "In summary, a couple of these new links show that the word is beginning to be accepted beyond Dr. Mufti's circle. I don't think that the sum total of these provide the notability required for a wikipedia article." I agree with the first sentence but not the second. It is a question of where exactly to draw the line, and I'd rather err on the side of inclusion unless it is really obvious that no one other than the author is using a term. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. These sources [41][42] clearly show that the existence and use of the term can be verified in third party sources, without resorting to original research. Obviously the article needs a lot of work though. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Google hits show that this has passed from neologism to nascent discipline. William Avery (talk) 20:13, 17 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Health care politics[edit]

    Health care politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Consensus seems to have been reached on the article's talk page that the references used in this article are shamefully bad, and have no place being used as serious citations of fact. Aside from poor references, the whole article seems to be just a fork of Health care reform or Health care in the United States used to air a laundry list of criticisms of certain healthcare systems. The article throws out lists of poorly cited theoretical arguments, treats them as fact, and then fails to analyze, discuss, or so much as qualify them.

    These things add up to make a very biased, unreliable, not to mention unencylopedic article. It seems to me that this article is of poor enough quality that it would be better not to have it than to have it in it's present form. After being tagged for these issues for a period of over a year, it doesn't seem like it is going to be fixed.

    This is all aside from the fact that this entire topic is covered by Health care reform in the United States, in more depth and with better sources I might add. So this article's entire existence is repetitive. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, but remove all poor sources. I agree with nom that cites such as Cato Institute have no business besides asserting Cato's opinions. However, these, and the claims, should be removed. If that means leaving just a stub then so be it, but the topic should have an article. We66er (talk) 21:10, 1 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, Davewild (talk) 18:56, 6 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, MBisanz talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    keep - Noteworthy topic with serious implications. Ombudsman (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep- it can't just be a fork of Health care reform in the United States, as we could cover health care politics in other countries too in this article, which we couldn't easily there without people being unable to find it. We do exist and have politics you know.:) If the references currently n the article are bad, that's not grounds for deletion, but fixing them. Sticky Parkin 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Health care politics in other countries is already covered by Health care reform. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be merged to Health care reform as suggested by nom, but (1) while the article is phrased fairly generally, as it stands the perspective and the sources are US centric, and (2) Health care reform in the United States already has substantial coverage of the topic. Notwithstanding that it could be improved, the issues are already being covered elsewhere so a separate page of pro & con argumentation is not such a good idea. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:22, 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 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colorado Film School[edit]

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

    Little notability that is not trivial (a mention in the Denver Post) is all I can find. There are no independent reliable sources with which I can verify the information. Also, the page reads like promotional material. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:56, 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 withdrawn. notability and verifiability concerns addressed. seresin ( ¡? )  04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scotch woodcock[edit]

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

    Nothing to indicate this is a notable savory dish. In addition, it remains unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    speedy keep- it only has 2500 mentions in newspapers [43] , 724 in books [44] and 938 in scholarly works.:) [45]. We have many, many food stubs such as Macaroni soup and Cheese pudding and thhe hundreds of others. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that it's an acceptable type of article. I could find sources, maybe I'll put some in, but I spent hours working on the two articles mentioned because no-one else bothered. Why do people want to bring foods to AfD, especially when they haven't even looked to see if WP:RS existed themselves, as for this there are hundreds, or (shock) add a reference themselves? Do I have to spend hours on a food stub again like I did on the two I mentioned? It's not very exciting you know- maybe people could try it instead of bringing these to AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of these references seem to be to othher things but this is a historical dish, with hundreds of years of use, similar to Welsh rarebit. Sticky Parkin 18:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment -I have now added eight references to the article, including ones from the New York Times, the New Statesman and the British Medical Journal. Sticky Parkin 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep per Sticky. Blimey, an AFD subject I'd heard of even before I went and looked it up! Good job on the citations. Karenjc 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd heard of this?:) Sticky Parkin 23:50, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pumpin' house[edit]

    Pumpin' house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This Pumpin' House thing does not exist. I've never heard of it. It's not real and there are no sources to prove its existence. Delete it. Fclass (talk) 00:58, 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 speedy delete. could have been speedied earlier as blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Drumagog[edit]

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

    No indication of notability, and is unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:00, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_14&oldid=1081071776"