Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 15

< September 14	September 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate bill 0099[edit]

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

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

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

This is a POV fork of Political positions of Barack Obama and is being used as a dumping ground for criticism, giving undue weight to campaign attacks. This is not a standard legislative article (and very few such articles exist for bills at the state level which were never passed). Rather, this article is almost entirely about Obama, whose only connection to the bill is that he supported it several years ago when he was in the state senate. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although un-passed senate bills are rarely given such focus, this particular bill is important due to the controversy that it has sparked. The article does not sling mud or call names. It simply quotes large sections from the Bill itself, all of which are factual, and discusses the controversy over the McCain campaign ad. This article is fully referenced in the footnotes, and is an excellent reference point for anyone wanting to find out the facts behind the controversy and the full text of the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Senate bill 0099 gained national attention due to Senator Obama's presidential run. How does that true statement warrant censorship of the bill? A healthy democracy requires freedom of information, no matter who wants it suppressed. This article includes facts and contributes to the national dialogue on public education reform. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.205.154 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — 75.81.205.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Weak~~ delete Does anyone anywhere care about this proposed bill except in the context of Sen Obama's candidacy? If Individual's can't inherit notability by association, then entities (such as this bill) shouldn't be inheriting notability from people either. Oh, and it's not the purpose of WP to provide a platform for "freedom of information". Not all information is encyclopedic. MadScot (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete This non-notable bill has become a WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Edison (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NOT a WP:COATRACK. It contains no insulting comments or biased remarks. It simply contains facts about the bill in question and the responses of the campaigns and media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.218 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — 130.209.74.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response sure it is. There's three or four lines of "history of the bill" - which contains next to no useful information about that, in fact - if I wanted to know why this bill had been tabled, what the context was, previous policy, or anything else, I'm out of luck. But there is then 4 paras on "Controversy" which starts "Republican presidential candidate John McCain..." which is almost textbook COATRACKING, and then just for good measure we have 4 more paras titled "Barack Obama's Response". If you stripped out the campaign stuff, there'd be nothing useful, and certainly nothing Notable, left. This article isn't "senate bill 0099", it's "political statments by McCain and Obama triggerred by bill 0099". On which basis I remove the "weak" from my earlier position.MadScot (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable attempt at state legislation. Even if the current article wasn't POV and WP:COATRACKy the article still wouldn't belong because of the notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article is nothing more than quotations from the bill itself. The information about the bill includes information that is relevant to the issue at hand. Although it does discuss the campaign ad and the response to the ad, a position is not taken on either side. The article does not blatantly support either candidate. It simply provides the facts behind the controversy, which is notable due to the impending election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.218 (talk • contribs) — 130.209.74.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, a failed and unremarkable piece of legislation. Saying that it's notable due to having been voted on by people is absurd, pretty much anything that tries to pass through a legislature is going to be voted on by a notable person. No, this is a non-notable bill, and this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non notable in its own right, and its political use doesn't add any notability either. DGG (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, This page contains a lot of commentary about the bill without many facts, but I believe that's because an editing war results in objective facts being deleted. There is currently an editing dispute resolution under way which may get this page back to the raw material of Senate bill 0099. This page should contain information on the legislative history of the bill, and the content of the bill - commentary of content is insufficient and usually misleading. Buddyg04 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - — Buddyg04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Snowball Delete - a completely non-notable, failed piece of State legislation that is being used as an Obama attack tool. Dubious sources, one-sided commentary, original research and synthesis all over the place. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:COATRACK article. All of the pertinent information can (and has) go into the articles about what this article is actually about, the 2008 US Presidential campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnfnrf (talk • contribs)

Delete Per nomination. Article is definitely a coatrack, and is otherwise not notable. It even has WP:BLP implications. It should be deleted post-haste. --Good Damon 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, This page gives the background on the education policies of the state, as well as how the legislation sought to change those policies with referenced sources. There is a lot of referenced commentary about the bill that accompanies the actual text of the bill, which is also referenced. Although originally only noteworthy because of its support by Barack Obama, the bill is now well-known of its own merit because of continued media coverage and interest from the American people. The bill should be discussed in connection with Barack Obama because of the current political controversy surrounding his support of it. The article is referenced, shows no preference for one candidate over another, and gives plently of information about the bill, much of which comes from the text of the bill itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep plenty of coverage on this bill. CENSEI (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain but, where is this coverage? About the bill itself and not these guys positions or voting records, etc? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about this bill is online, and people will learn it despite the censorship on wikipedia.

The bill is online along with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-12th Grade, look it up.

I'm so sick of campaign talking points feeding news cycles and guarding wiki content. Do a google search for crying out loud and find the bill yourself. It's not about "stranger danger," it includes information on six categories of "comprehensive sexuality education" with four age levels. Even the kindergarten level has information on masturbation and abortion, although watered down. Those are facts with or without Wiki displays.

IT'S SO EASY TO LOOK UP, why do Wiki posters and media outlets focus on McCain and Obama talking points instead of posting the bill for everyone to see. Raw material not commentary, jeezus this is so easy I'm sick to my stomach thinking about how lazy voters and the media have become. Buddyg04 (talk)— Buddyg04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I fully agree with you on how lazy voters and the media are Wikipedia isn't the place for expressing opinions or soapboxing. We need to focus on notable content which is verifiable, neutral, and not weighty. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "EASY TO LOOK UP," but that doesn't make it notable. It's being used as an attack article on Barack Obama, because it's an otherwise non-notable and un-passed piece of legislation. I can look up literally thousands of pieces of similar failed legislation... and seriously doubt each one merits its own encyclopedia entry. This is an encyclopedia, not the congressional record. --Good Damon 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 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. Consensus is that there is enough sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CanGames[edit]

Restored from prod at user request. Taking to AfD for wider audience. Potentially non-notable gaming convention, as there are currently limited sources. Step hen 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The statement about being a unique bilingual game show is probably incorrect. I believe there's a Montreal show which is also bilingual. It doesn't make CanGames non-notable, but it removes part of the uniqueness unfortunately. (CanGames is about 50% larger than its Montreal counterpart, FWIW) MadScot (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - tending towards keep reviewing the list of past guest speakers there's some quite high profile names from 70s and 80s wargaming - I see Al Nofi and David Isby of SPI in one year. Frank Chadwick of GDW and Jim Dunnigan of SPI another year, Steve Newberg of SimCan (almost every year, quelle surprise there!), John Hill of Avalon Hill. That's a fair amount of high profile history. I'd be surprised if the con didn't get coverage in the hobby press as a result. I know it can't inherit their notability, but if a convention was attracting that much industry attention, chances are it was a bit more than a simple fan show and was at least notable in the early days. I don't believe you can lose notability - maybe it just needs a roll call of prominent early guests of honour, suitably referenced? MadScot (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found an article in Dragon magazine in 1980 here (its actually on the con's website, should have found it earlier). Dragon was the main role playing game magazine in the 80s, I think that should count as a reliable source. And this suggests there was also coverage in 1979. I think that coverage, plus the high profile early guests, might be enough ... keep I think. And apologies to subjecting the rest of WP to my thought processes! MadScot (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the diligent finding or what it seems to be at least one decent print source, which is (invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you don't like it, snowball delete the rest) better coverage than so many of these obscure video game companies I have come across. However, more sources need to be found to keep this from coming back to the chopping block. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source this time reporting the 2007 event. I'd guess from the style it's a local newspaper - the link calls it "Article from Orleans Now" and Orleans is a suburb of Ottawa. Looks like it has a population of about 100,000, so any local newspaper would be correspondingly small. By no stretch of the imagination is the Times, or even the Ottawa Citizen. It appaears to be part of a group called, I think, TheNowEMC, which seems to be a weekly, delivered-to-the-door newspaper. I've tried to see if there's a specific cutoff in terms of newspapers as sources and while obviously less reliable than a full daily 'quality' paper it's neither self-published nor amateur. I honestly don't know if it cuts it or not. Would a detailed review of a local band or film in a weekly newspaper be good enough for those purposes? MadScot (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, just the website of the Cangames itself. Nonnotable. --Banime (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequate notability demonstrated by User:MadScot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article itself both asserts and seems to demonstrate notability, though lack of third-party sources is troubling. Adding such sources to the article would make keeping more attractive. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I took a stab at incorporating the references above and some of the personalities into the article to try to rescue it. The references don't flow very well, but they are there at least. MadScot (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:16, 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. I am willing to userfy the article for any editor(s) interested in improving it for future submission. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Nikki[edit]

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yume Nikki on notability grounds. The game unfortunately is in the same position, I've been unable to find the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to demonstrate that notability. To put it another way, there's nothing to build the article with apart from a few database entries. Someone another 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, Someoneanother. Is there nothing I can do to save the article? The presence of one would have been of great use to me when I was learning about the game and I've already steered lots of friends onto it. If it's simply a matter of altering the 'was noted' for parts, consider it done.

(It's never that simple, is it...) --!MNc99 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does suck, I didn't like nominating it at all after you've put such effort in, but unless you've got some ideas on where to get some additional sources it's stuck in the same boat. With game articles notability is basically about there being enough 'reception' to actually make an article which looks at the game itself and how it was received. It's not that the article just needs to be edited (articles which can be fixed shouldn't be nominated for deletion), it's whether or not enough information is out there to actually cover the game and create a reception section. This free game pick on indiegames.com, this post on Insert Credit and this TIGDB entry are the only things that came up before, out of which only the indiegames.com one was of any use, and it's a small 'post' rather than a full-blown review. The only other thing that has popped up is this TIGsource post: [1], of which only the first two paragraphs actually contain data, it's nowhere near enough (IMO). Compare them to this Mallet Mania review on Jay is Games, really it needs two reviews of that size (because they're in-depth they actually analyze the game) or several smaller ones which at least give an opinion on the game. Someone another 09:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, despite the effort, the article has no reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it's up to the powers-that be to decide. I just wish it could star around if for no other reason than becuase people are discovering this game-- especially now, since the translation has been released-- and it would be good if there was some comprehensive information about. Your points, however, are salient. Do what you have to. --!MNc99 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was this translation released, is it a recent occurence or awhile back? If the article is deleted, it can be brought back at a later date if sources do surface (deletion just papers over the article, it isn't lost). Another contributor has used LexisNexis to look for coverage of the game in magazines, which has drawn a blank. It could be worth nudging gaming sites to see if they're interested in covering the game, several have game submission options, particularly if this translation has hit after the sources above covered the game. Someone another 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:19, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.J. Gaither[edit]

Non-notable author (fails WP:CREATIVE), appears to accomplish little more than fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No demonstration of notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for articles about the author or reviews of his work in reliable sources turns up none. The works listed in the article as "novels" are published through Xlibris and PublishAmerica, both print on demand publishers. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely fails notability criteria with "Print On Demand" books and no reviews.Austin46 (talk) 08:15, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kute Fuzzie Puppy Kittens[edit]

No sources, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Low Google-hits, no entry on AllMusic, no titles for sale at Amazon. Escaped speedy somehow when it was created in May. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator here. A Google search showed no sources or evidence of notability. Bearing WP:GHITS in mind, of course, these 36 search results tend to convince me of no notability whatsoever, though. Jamie^☆S93 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate notability found. Arakunem^Talk 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. As a very wise man once said, "Kill it with fire". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 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. BJ^Talk 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No User Interface[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced neologism and dictionary definition. Please see edit summary when article was created. TN‑X-Man 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well it's niether a Dicdef or a neologism, but a statement which is completely unencyclopedic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the concept is meritorious, it does not look WP:notable. There are many Google hits for NUI as an acronym for "Natural User Interface" and a few for "Network User Interface." Googling the acronym and phrase together[2] shows some uses of "nui" as a switch for disabling user interaction. (The IEEE and VTT papers are false positives. The latter is a good read on ubiquitous computing.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the page history and discussion page, as well as the article itself, it appears to have been created for marketing purposes, raising conflict of interest and neutrality issues. It may belong in a pamphlet for businesses about product design, but not Wikipedia. Beyond that, a Google define: search returns no relevant results for both "No User Interface" and "NUI". It is not notable and the article offers no citations indicating the widespread use of the acronym: indeed, the edit summary from the creation of the article suggests the editor made it up themselves. Phlyght (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jimmi Hugh. For those wandering what unencyclopedic means here: this article is an essay that tries to justify a (new?) acronym, so it violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. Based on this, I have strong doubts that it's worthy of Wiktionary, so I'm removing that tag. VasileGaburici (talk) 04:19, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fm concepts[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Notability not inherited. If claim of notability by association is not a claim of significance or importance then speedy it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial, independent coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 13:59, 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 Speedy keep. I'm retracting the nomination: kudos for the cleanup.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Coogan[edit]

Multiple concerns. First, despite hard work by User:Gwen Gale, the content is still a copyright violation of the text on this actress' website. Secondly, her notability is... let's say limited. Third, the article was written by a single-purpose account Vader19 (talk · contribs) and was most recently edited by a user with the ominous name Tcb public relations (talk · contribs) who, incidentally, added to the talk page of the article, and I quote, "new up coming actress! you tube links deleted. please advise." Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, no way is this a copyvio. They seem to have liked the Wikipedia text I wrote from scratch and swiped it for themselves. Yes, there has been COI but that's always been reverted straight off. As for notability and coverage, I agree it's borderline but she did star in a noted independent film. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~Keep I'm failing to see the notability and verifiability of the subject (though the Meath Chronicle article is a good start... though technically may be classed as "local" coverage). I can't work out which notable independent film this actress starred in either. I'll gladly change my mind if we can sort out the verifiability and notability stuff. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film was Zombie Honeymoon. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this Fangoria article about her (again, we know notability here is borderline). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've added both to references but, I'm still thinking it needs confirmation of the award and that she was the "star" of the film and what not. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What award is that (can't find one)? Note that the nom (Pascal.Tesson) deleted Zombie Honeymoon as a copyvio yesterday (it was a stub and indeed seems to have been copied straight from IMdB, so I understand how he would have thought this too was a copyvio). She's first in the cast list on the IMdB listing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award that is listed at the IMdb artile you linked to above. 1st in the cast list at IMdb means nothing to me (I don't see IMdb as reliable enough on its own for this stuff). We need something more substantial in the long run. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a cite for the 2006 Chainsaw award (best low budget horror film). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rotten tomatoes review lists her as a star of the film, though I don't edit enough articles about recent films to know if RT is taken as reliable by film article editors? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a New York Times review which clearly refers to Coogan as having a leading role (and singles out her performance). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

works for me. Now if only we could get others to get similar articles up to snuff. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per impressive cleanup job above, satisfying WP:V and WP:N. gnfnrf (talk) 21:39, 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 Nomination Withdrawn (nominator closing). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Radiographers[edit]

Fails WP:ORG; the few bits of news coverage found are not significant nor substantial. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to better existing article Society of Radiographers. I would add that important professional bodies are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I checked Google and didn't even check here to see if there was an existing article. I've updated this AfD to that article and redirected the other. I'm still not seeing anything to show notability for the society in the second article, even if it has more info...its all still just stuff from the organization site. As per the guidelines, being a national professional body does not equal automatica notability. They must still be "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and said coverage must be substantial. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as an important professional body. A quick search shows that this body is covered by plenty of reliable sources to easily meet WP:ORG. The actual page is deficient in sources but we improve such articles not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep- this org represents 90% of radiographers in the UK, and some in other countries. If this was a US org, it wouldn't be here at AfD. Plenty of WP:RS for them [3].Sticky Parkin 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would have been. Why do people feel the need to imply some stupid country bias instead of just accepting the nomination at face value. Is some good faith that damn hard to have, or does everyone from other countries have some complex about Wikipedia? Thanks, at least, for introducing me to the Google UK news search. I'll find it very useful for some other UK articles I work on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Maxwell (author)[edit]

Basically spam. She may be sufficiently well-known to merit an article but nothing in this unreferenced puff-piece is worth salvaging. Some parts come pretty close to a copyright violation of the autobio on her website. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another crappy article from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective, though we have various tags that are supposed to be used to request them. The argument that the puffery in the article cannot be removed without leaving anything worth salvaging also doesn't fly. Maxwell has written several books that appear to have received critical attention and has had works produced for television, all of which are credible claims of notability. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, nominators are required to consider editing, improving or mergeing articles before pushing for deletion, yet there appears to be no evidence of these efforts. This is yet another article that should be cleaned up and improved, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've pared the article down to a stub. Zagalejo^^^ 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I'm not finding anything that has significant coverage of her (at least what I can read for free). There appears to have been the claim of awards in the old article but, having trouble verifying. I agree with talk on this one. Make an effort to fix it but, if that does in fact proves impossible or people that can get to the pay-per-view sources determine they aren't adequate for notability and verifiability than revisit deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just added thirteen (13) reliable source reviews of this authors books to the article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:28, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Melia[edit]

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. PROD removed by IP anonymously. GauchoDude (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN are the rule of thumb for cases like these. --Angelo (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if and when he makes his professional debut. The club's official site confirms he has yet to make his debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE, as well as no significant coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Keep - this source confirms that he has now made an appearance in a fully professional league, thereby passing WP:ATHLETE. – Toon ^(talk) 21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - By OP - I was the OP and I rescind my AfD nomination as Tim Melia appeared in the USL 1 game v. Miami FC on 17 Sept 2008. This makes him a full professional and therefore should be kept in wikipedia as he meets the requirements now. GauchoDude (talk) 20:07, 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 Closed as Redirect. Bold Non-admin closure. Content is already merged by DataSnake and the parent article is obvious. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gue'vesa[edit]

Non-notable concept from a fictional universe. Written almost entirely in a in-universe style that has not been changed since the article's creation in 2006. No coverage (let alone substantial coverage) of this subject in third-party sources (i.e., works not published by the game's publisher) is either cited or likely. Sandstein 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a suitable article. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef for a fictional language. There's not a lot more to say here, even if we used primary sources only. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide and it is not a collection of indiscriminate plot detail. I am not convinced by the suggestion that mergers must be entertained prior to deletion discussion, mostly because all fictional characters have an obvious parent article (almost by definition). Protonk (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have merged this into the main Tau article. I suggest a redirect. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 15:16, 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 Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). BJ^Talk 02:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commissar Yarrick[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Written entirely in a in-universe style that has not been changed since the article's creation in 2005. No coverage (let alone substantial coverage) of this subject in third-party sources (i.e., works not published by the game's publisher) is either cited or likely. Sandstein 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into a list of minor characters. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). Lists of characters do not work well for WH40K, as it is not a narrative but instead a wargame. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Or both. Not covered in independent sources. Not critical to understanding the game from an outside standpoint. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 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. Noting that the article has also been transwiki'd to a specialty wiki for the subject. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Non-notable aspect of a fictional universe. Written entirely in a in-universe style and tagged as such since 2007. No coverage (let alone substantial coverage) of this subject in third-party sources (i.e., works not published by the game's publisher) is either cited or likely. Sandstein 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect into a suitable article. These should be the default ways to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too random, too detailed, too in-universe. No article would benefit from this content, and it can't stand on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge content I have found two sources (one better than the other) that could attest to the notability of this article, and besides, I am busy rewriting it still. Furthermore, though this won't make a difference to the lot who want to see so many articles deleted, tau technology is notable as the first set that focuses almost entirely on ranged combat. I won't disagree that from section 3 onward it is a terrible article, but the first two sections are not overly detailed or in-universe. If you really believe that it is, say why on the talk page, so I can make the edit, or just do it yourself.Additionally, at one point for about two months, the in-universe tag did not cover the entire article, only section 3 (which I left up because I hadn't rewritten it yet, not as an endorsement of its quality). This was in july/august, I think, of 2008. After the reasons for returning it to the top were stated, and remedies suggested, those remedies were enacted. Take a look at the talk page. At the very least, let me move this to a workpage so I can continue refining it, hopefully to a point where it has the citations for notability. Tealwisp (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

amendment to previous statement The sources are on the 40k wikiproject talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fansite. This is the site of a (chain of?) game store. Neither of those are reliable sources for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are meant to establish notability, and they are third parties, the point being that there are is coverage. I said earlier (though ambiguously) that the second source was not very good, but the first one hadn't struck me as a fan site, but rather a site with a section that was a fansite. Still, I see no problem in allowing me to move this to a workpage while I search for sources to establish notability. Perhaps then you guys would be more inclined to suggest fixes on a talk page as opposed to going straight for a PROD. It's worth mentioning, though, that the Tau (in fact, the entire 40k universe) is gaining notability through the new PC game Dawn of War. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that as a source, though it does say a little, but the notability comes from the fact that there are a lot of professional reviews for the game. What are your objections to that (you know you have something)? Tealwisp (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources of commentary. Coverage on fansites isn't particularly useful; WP:RS has more on that.

The fact that you're saying "It's related to a notable game, therefore it is notable" suggests that you're conflating "notable" with "important," as opposed to its specific meaning of "the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." There are lots of reviews of the game, but few to no commentary on a completely separate game that that video game is loosely based upon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go on with this (Han Solo is notable only for Star Wars, or something of the like), but we can both agree that this is not the place. If you want to continue, let me know on my talk page, and we'll "duke it out" on the WP:NOTE talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, Doctorfluffy has not read the article and is putting out the usual reasons for deletion. There isn't even a plot to summarize, and there is real-world information. There is a section to describe each battlesuit model. Plus, I was trying to rewrite the article to correct the in-universe problem. Note the difference between the first two sections and section 3. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Please identify what you consider to be the real world information. As far as I can tell, every single section is about fictional vehicles or fictional military units in the fictional universe with details about how they relate to fictional plot events in the fictional universe. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are incorrect. Obviously you did not read the article if you are making these arguments. Testmasterflex (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recommending that Tealwisp continues working on the article on whichever of the various 40K wikis it is transwikied to. The material is of limited real-world notability and primarily consists of gameguide or in-universe detail. It is unlikely that reliable sources would be found that provided a real-world angle on the subject beyond that which could be covered within the main Tau article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer that tealwisp stay here, rather than go to the 40k wikia or the other 40k wiki. It is unlikely that reliable sources will be foudn for this article or (frankly) for the Tau article, but I'm not willing to support a nomination for the parent article. I would prefer that members of the 40K project helped to improve the core articles, but I can't force anyone to do anything. either way, that is neither here nor there. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tau (Warhammer 40,000) Well, its nice to know that at least one user appreciates my efforts at improvement, but that's not the point. A redirect will save the history for those who are determined to see the old article, and I am willing to take personal responsibility to prevent anon reverts, or protect the page if necessary. There's nothing against it, and I'll even go through the double redirects. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not save edit histories "for those who are determined to see the old article". There's the 40K Wikia, where the article has already been transwikied to, there's Deletionpedia, and there's always the possibility of requesting an old revision from an admin. As this is not a likely search term and the content is insufficiently notable for a merge, deletion is prudent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second !vote. I'm assuming good faith, but you should strike one so it's clear to all what your final opinion is. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tau (Warhammer 40,000). A subsection of that page focusing on Tau tech seems like a good compromise. The material will remain for those who want it, and there won't be a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataSnake (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tau (Warhammer 40,000). -- The Anome (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have tried merging this into the Tau article. Also, sorry I forgot to sign my previous comment. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it is worthy of keeping. -- Xela20 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Xela20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Why? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep At least as notable as Spells in Harry Potter, which is another in-universe article that has survived three AfDs, including one which was snowballed (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spells_in_Harry_Potter), suggesting an overwhelmbing consensus that aspects of fictional Universes are notable (so long as the fictional Universe itself is, which applies in both cases), even if the references are only from official sources. I don't see that this is any less notable. Issues such as "Written entirely in a in-universe style" are problems that should be fixed, and do not require article deletion. Mdwh (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That last AFD was a year ago, and is full of awful arguments that would not hold up today. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What has changed in over a year to cause such a massive swing in views? Is there a change in Wikipedia policy that occurred, for example? What awful arguments are there, that wouldn't hold up today? (I could say the arguments here are pretty "awful", but I don't think simply labelling arguments as "awful" is itself a good argument.) Feel free to propose the article for AfD if you really think it has. Mdwh (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear notability in the real world. Just needs more sources. Testmasterflex (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, could you please tell us how exactly this content "clearly" meets WP:N despite lacking sources? Sandstein 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, waaaaaaaaaay too in-depth, in-world, and specific for a general encyclopedia like this one. Would be quite suited for a W40K wiki. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 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 speedy keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Machine (Radio)[edit]

These are all articles for individual episodes from a radio program. The radio program itself is notable for the awards it has won but none of the episodes themselves deserve an article. The articles are basically mirror images of each other with much of the text copied and pasted between them. The episodes themselves are nonnotable and lack coverage. Most of the content in the articles is about the series itself and there is nothing of note about the episodes themselves; only summaries, trivial information, and casting. Themfromspace (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Besides The Time Machine (Radio), I am also nominating the following related pages:

   :Beowulf (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :War of the Worlds (radio 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Moon Voyager (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Masque of the Red Death (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Edgar Allan Poe's Predicament (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :O. Henry's Thanksgiving (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :O. Henry's Last Leaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Lost World (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Gift of the Magi (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :A Matter of Prejudice (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Gulliver's Travels (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Lord of the Celts (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Celtic Hero (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Fifth Dimension (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Ice Maiden (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Mummy (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Homer's Odyssey (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Homer's Odyssey Two (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Fall of the House of Usher (Radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Homer's Odyssey Three (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep (for all) – A lot of effort and time went into researching the pieces. They give a brief plot – are well referenced and do provide additional information that is not found on the home page of Radio Tales, where I would typically would say merge the pieces into. However, I believe that would expand the main article to much. So Keep I say :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you compared the articles with each other? They are basically one article that has been copied/pasted with the names of the episodes switched and a different summary written. As for being 'well referenced', all the articles use mostly the same references (in the same order even). This hasn't been well thought through at all, its just a copy/paste spree. Themfromspace (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO- I agree the introduction is the same for all the articles, as it should be. It explains the history of piece! The plot, the main part of the article, is different and does a more than adequate job in explaining the episode. Regarding the references, there is nothing wrong in using a 3rd party – reliable- - certifiable and creditable source more than once :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as while there are structural similarities to the articles, as one might expect with episodes in a series, the individual articles are well referenced and the broadcast history, production information, plot summary, and critical reception sections are quite individualized. The deletion criteria sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any valid reason. - Dravecky (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these are fairly well researched, properly cited (an increasing rarity on Wikipedia these days) reasonably notable radio dramatizations of literary classics which were broadcasted on NPR stations across the U.S. A merge into NPR Playhouse might be appropriate if there weren't so many articles, but there are. These articles could stand to either be categorized into a NPR Playhouse category or a see also section add to NPR Playhouse with links to these articles.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All As the creator of these pages, I thought I should weigh in on the discussion. In considering whether to create these pages, I used the individual episode pages for "The Twilight Zone" as a guide to my efforts. Those pages struck me as well thought-out, objective presentations of relevant data as it pertained to the individual episodes of a series. I did my best to provide specific references for the information I presented. Since the programs from the "Radio Tales" series are all based on existing works of literature and mythology, I thought that providing synopses and specific broadcast information regarding each episode was particularly relevant and worthwhile, since adaptations of such works can become footnotes in the history of the works themselves. I thought that it was in the best spirit of this encyclopedia to provide a record of these broadcasts, the individuals involved, the various media in which the programs have appeared, and the specific ways in which the literature was adapted - for the purpose of aiding the literature or mythology scholar in his or her investigation of the cultural influence of the work in question.-- Soundout (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all The main article is stated to be notable and the sub-articles are obviously a matter of merger rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Spinning out presentations and adaptations of significant literary works in a highly acclaimed series stretches WP:notability very little, if at all, so ignore it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 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.

Keep all but.... The articles are well written and well sourced so I think it is ok to keep them. On the other hand, all they all sound like disguised advertisements for AudioVille where they are selling recording of the radio shows. Some articles have up to 3 links to AudioVille, which is far too much, and all of them have at leat one link. So I would say - keep the articles but delete all the links to AudioVille. If you look at film or videogame articles, you will not find Amazon or eBay links to buy the DVD, so there should not be a link to buy the radio shows either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Getting Around[edit]

Article on a single television documentary that does not explain why the documentary is notable, attempt to provide sources to establish notability; heck, it doesn't even have an entry at IMDb (note the dead link from the infobox, and a failed manual search at the site). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single purpose vanity article. No sources. No notability. Search only leads back to online episode clips from show "Guide to life as we know it". No other sources to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete no sources, no notability, no IMDB entry in this area generally means it's not notable enough for an article. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 05:05, 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 'Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tusk (film)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this independent film. Schuym1 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – barely. I believe it established just enough coverage to have its own article here on Wikipedia, as shown here [4]. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "sources of notability are available". The article itself need not be deleted simply because it is not expansive, inciteful, well written or heavily sourced. That notability exists is enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have expanded, added links, wikified, and sourced.. Long term notability per WP:GNG and WP:NF has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Thomas[edit]

Non-notable student, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. WP:COI issues. Claims to be running for elective office as a Green Party candidate, but there is no evidence that he is and a search of the GP website turns up nothing. No evidence that he is published, as he claims to be. His website turns out to be a link to his personal blog. RGTraynor 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no information about this young man other than what is published here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, I'm afraid. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of sibstantial coverage by independent sources to show notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually the article claims he's standing as an "independent" in Edmonton-Centre - which this CBC Riding listing says isn't the case. He then, bizarrely, is said to support the Green Candidate in the same Riding - which makes absolutely no sense, giving rise to the strong suspicion this is made up, basically. MadScot (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious cleanup issues aside the subject/article fails the notability and verifiability criteria. Possible "fantasy" as I can find no trace of the books or anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:31, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton 95[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable hoax product with poor referencing to usenet groups and self-published places. No indication of lasting impact. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax product, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even as a hoax it was non-notable. No information can be found. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom - Poor references and a hoax product; thus making it non-notable. SchfiftyThree 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We66er (talk) 00:59, 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 redirect to The Truth About Marika. Redirected per consensus below and nom assent. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sandberg[edit]

Non-notable CEO of a production company, fails WP:V, WP:BIO; a Google search turns up a lot of Facebook, self-made video clips, Linkedin, Jigsaw.com and other such self-published sites. A similar article was made for the production company, which has been filed for a G11 speedy. Ravenswing 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – to The Truth About Marika at this time. A small claim to Notability for Mr. Sandberg could be made based on the information found here [5]. However, I do not believe he rises to the level of a stand alone article at this time. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantive one of the two hits that references this Christopher Sandberg is an interview where he talks about The Truth About Marika. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Ravenswing 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets make it a redirect then? User:Petterkarlsson 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Kittybrewster ☎ 08:41, 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. COnsensus is that this club is not sufficiently notable TravellingCari 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Durham Revue[edit]

Non-notable club. The sole contributor is User:Durhamrevue, so obvious conflict of interest is present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The club is a performing company rather than a club (reg ltd). It is the third largest Revue company in the UK. Articles pertaining to its peers; the Oxford Revue and Cambridge Footlights (with whom the Durham Revue perform many of their shows) exist on Wikipedia. The company performed to 15,000 people 2007/2008 - therefore noteable. The article is created by the Durham Revue but does not contain unsubstantiated bias, please note citation of references on any statement of attainment/appraisal. Furthermore, note a series of previous attempts to submit article The Durham Revue on the article history by different users (none of whom are members of, nor associated with the group). Durhamrevue (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For an encyclopedia article about a company, the text lacks even the most basic data (number of employees, revenue, profits, ownership...). As for your defense of the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool, you might want to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Business (especially the section "May I advertise my company or product on Wikipedia?"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to live up to its own hype. There are quite a few sources, so notability seemes assured... until you look through them and run a couple more searches for this club. Then the whole facade falls over; only a handful of those sources actually mention the revue and (apart from the blog comments) those mentions are only in passing. The credit that the article gives for being a starting-point for writers, comedians, etc, etc, is unfortunately ignored by those people in question, too. One brief comparative look at The Oxford Revue and the Cambridge Footlights demonstrates that this group is not really in the same ballpark, certainly not as far as notable alumni are concerned. The pretty obvious COI does not really help, either. Oh, and also... the Smirnoff Underbelly don't mention the award that it's claimed they won. I was considering a weak delete, but I think I've convinced myself otherwise. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure of protocols, but I'm responding to issues within this particular section. The sources cited are websites only, I could include some print sources if that's permissible on the website - in the summer the Durham Revue featured in a number of national newspapers (Scotsman, Guardian, etc.). Admittedly, notoriety of the group is predominantly with students and those who frequent the Edinburgh Fringe Festival (who include details of the Durham Revue's history at the Fringe in their literature), surely this is not too idiosyncratic for inclusion on Wikipeida. Apropos alumni; this isn't the best gauge for importance of a group (The Oxford Revue do not include any alumni from the last 20 years and their age exceeds that of the Durham Revue). The Smirnoff Underbelly Sketch Off award is not currently mentioned on their website, however, it was filmed by BBC Comedy and Youtube UK - both will be posting their videos in the coming weeks. I apologise if this article is unsuitable for inclusion and for wasting any of your time. User:durhamrevue | User talk:durhamrevue 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vote yet. The article definitely needs improvement. By this, I mean that even before reading the Cambridge Footlights article, I could name two of their famous alumni. But even after reading The Durham Revue, I still can't name any of their famous alumni. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The requested improvement has not taken place yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established, abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing tool. The conflict of interest of the article creator and his/her disregard for the NPOV policy is evident in the un-encyclopedic peacock terms ("celebrated", "established and renowned", "award winning", ....) which pervade the text and are typical for promotional self-descriptions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:05, 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. TravellingCari 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Homecare[edit]

Article, and subject is non-encyclopedic...not notable. howth575 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. We66er (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam for non-notable company. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Qualifies for CSD A7: "Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject." ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 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 A7 L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jomaine[edit]

Non-notable wannabe rapper, fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC. No albums released, no major label signings, possible WP:COI issues. RGTraynor 18:39, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Zir[edit]

I don't think this entertainer meets WP:BIO at all. No major film roles, just some web clips, content appears mostly from press releases, and edit history has big WP:COIN problems. Ghits appear to be press releases and articles that this actress once dated Jason Biggs. Sashaman (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article indicates a minor actress; as is, it fails to meet any of the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress that isn't covered significantly in reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant film roles, no coverage. 0 usable gnews hits [6]. Major SPA edits give this a strong feel of advertising.Horrorshowj (talk) 14:27, 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.

JF Webb High School[edit]

The result was REDIRECT duplicate article. Postdlf (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of the article at J.F. Webb High School. The school's website uses the name "J.F. Webb High School" (with periods for the initials). Merenta (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a merge candidate since, other than names, both articles are duplicates; neither contains additional information to move into the other. Merenta (talk) 18:27, 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 (non-admin closure). Arakunem^Talk 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Straps[edit]

Band with no indication of notability and no references (tagged as such for over 3 months). Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group has a German entry which is far better fleshed out and cites a paper source, Ian Glasper's "Burning Britain - The History Of UK Punk 1980-1984". A retrospective of theirs was released on Captain Oi! Records in 2005. There's enough continuing interest in the group to make them of encyclopedic merit. Chubbles (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just thrown in the refs from the German wiki page. I feel there is enough to pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Does anyone know the wikipedia "rules" on copying info from another language wiki?? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superfunctionalism[edit]

This neologism is based on self-published material (through AuthorHouse) which confers no notability; no reliable sources (the Google hits seem entirely based on self-generated PR); WP:FRINGE Accounting4Taste:talk 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NEO, just another protologism. Equendil Talk 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The self-published material seems to have had no references or mention within any reliable sources that I was able to find. The only reference I found from a reliable source containing the word "superfunctionalism" used it in a completely different context, in architecture: see [7]. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insinuating that the belief system does not exist, or there are not enough webpages on it? Anewsuccessllc (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anewsuccessllc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word Superfunctionalism SOUNDS like "scientology" because it is multi-syllabic and starts with an "s" but, it is totally unrelated and therefore should not be subject to an "anonymous" attack Anewsuccessllc (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anewsuccessllc (talk • contribs) 16:46, 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 speedy keep. Nom Withdrawn with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Cheatham[edit]

~~Not notable person rogerd (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)~~ I now find that this person in the winningest women's HS Basketball coach in Indiana. I now believe it should be kept. --rogerd (talk) 01:31, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. D. Williams Engineering crashes[edit]

Non-notable General Aviation crashes, Fails WP:AIRCRASH Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:AIRCRASH has been redirected. These are the guidelines I meant Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per guidelines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Merge with article on company. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- What article is that then? Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mjroots is correct that there is no article about A.D. Williams Engineering. Perhaps the crashes are not significant from an aviation perspective, but the impact of the two accidents is certainly significant. The first crash killed both the company's founder and its chief financial officer. Five months later, both the company's president, and the new chief financial officer, were killed. That would be a notable setback for any business. Since the article, as written, is clearly about the investigation of the two accidents, it should probably be moved to "A.D. Williams Engineering". Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is a possible solution, but it doesn't really look to me that the company meets WP:CORP. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Query - What part of WP:CORP do you think is not met?LeadSongDog (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Per WP:CORP, a company is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" (emphasis added). I can find little secondary source references that talk about the company rather passing news coverage of the crashes. Alternatively, the guideline discusses companies that are publicly traded, but this doesn't seem to apply to this company. Hence my comment that it doesn't appear to meet the guideline. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two non-notable accidents, only link between company is that both aircraft had employees involved. Some information could be salvaged into a company article if the company was notable enough for its own article although nothing in the article mentions the effect on the company other that to act as a memorial. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not just employees, but the top officers of the company that owned the planes.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least until we have a real notability guideline. Full disclosure: I've edited the article.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - notability guidelines are real and were adopted, but the shortcut link wasn't updated; it works now, and the guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think that except in very exceptional cases - which I don't think this is - only where aviation accidents share common or similar causes should they be joined. As accidents, neither is notable, it appears. And the company - the only thing linking both accidents and giving the combination a shot at notability - appears not to pass that hurdle. MadScot (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this seems to me a minor news story, regardless of whether they should be joined into a single article, which should only be the case if they are actually discussed together in reliable sources. Anyway, the project notability guidelines mentioned above are both vague and unofficial, and have no bearing in a deletion discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the guidelines are unofficial I think it's wrong to say they "have no bearing". They may not be sufficient for notability, but I'd say they have to be necessary. Since the implication is that there's consensus amongst a subset of editors that these criteria must be met. Any larger consensus would seem to have to include these, or higher, standards. Not every accident which meets those standards might be deemed notable, but I'd be shocked if any accident which didn't meet them could be notable. MadScot (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm one of those who helped draw them up. They're a guideline; unlike policies, guidelines guide, they don't force. You can ignore them, however, tey're there both to help and to serve as a reference to the kind of thing people with an interest in the subject believe isn't notable - at least one user actively involved over there is profesionally in aviation. Hope that clarifies, Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. No, it's not even as much as a guideline. While it is certainly helpful to know the conclusions of the relevant WikiProject, we outsiders don't know without some deep looking-into what kind of a consensus formed it, which is a fairly stark contrast with any official guideline. And to MadScot, I maintain that the "guide" still doesn't have any bearing in a deletion discussion; the primary consideration for having an article on a topic has long been the general notability criterion. And although the project guide certainly states this initially, I don't believe that statements like "it involves unusual circumstances" is actually in line with this, and I doubt any broad consensus could exist for such a vague rule. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Project guidelines are a form of guideline, although perhaps I should have been clearer there. In terms of 'bearing', what guides and policies we cite - if any - for our opinions are our own choice and speak for ourselves. Sorting out the general consensus based on them is what we elect admin's for ;-). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 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. BJ^Talk 02:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben King (actor)[edit]

Disputed prod. Actor/writer/web developer with single credit for voice acting work. The book available on Amazon is self-published using Exposure Publishing. No independent, 3rd party references in WP:RS. Fails WP:N requirements of either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. Tassedethe (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by creating a list of Rooster Teeth staff and actors (ie those who don't have their own article). For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both the notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:40, 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. BJ^Talk 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baboosac[edit]

Drinking game that doesn't assert notability (0 non-Wiki Google hits). Was PRODded but author removed on update. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Booglamay (talk) - 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails games made up in the bar Friday night Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and probably WP:HOAX. Equendil Talk 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with the hoax tag - the line "Baboosac was invented in Providence, Rhode Island in 1776 by colonists to ease the troubles of King Philip's War" was added after the AfD template was, and is (presumably) an attempt to give the article/game some credibility. ~~(not to mention the fact that the King Philip's War article doesn't refer to anything as late as 1776)~~. Booglamay (talk) - 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to verify any of the claims in the article. Google gives 3 hits[8], all coming from the WP entry. Fails WP:V, likely hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last summer I was visiting some friends at Brown University (in Providence) and we ended up going to a local bar and saw a group of people playing a drinking game with 2 quarters. We ended up joining them and playing throughout the night. I have been trying to find the name of this game and rules for quite some time now. (That night we got pretty drunk playing this and no longer remembered most of rules and its name the next morning.) I will definitely be playing baboosac this weekend. Lamchialph (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — Lamchialph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete next up, the Wikipedia Drinking Game AfD Drinking Game. I am going to be sooo drunk. JuJube (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously non-notable game someone made up. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 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. Sources have been added to demonstrate notability per WP:ATHLETE. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Capes[edit]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article fails to meet WP:Athlete, provides no sources and also appears to have been created by the subject of the article, which brings up some vanity issues. Was previously tagged with PROD and this was removed by article creator with no edit summary given to explain - the text 'Capes then tried out for the World League of American Football' was added when the prod tag was removed but surely trying out for a league does not estalish notability (besides, the fact is also unsourced). Article also seems unlikely to ever be linked to by another article, if that makes any difference. The award mentioned seems to be a local award given out variously across the USA by a voluntary organisation. Sassf (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single source here, fails WP:LIVE. Equendil Talk 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A simple google search (third link) located the fact that this athlete played for the professional London Monarchs of the World League of American Football, that fact with four citations to reliable sources have been added to the article, it now passes WP:ATHLETE. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sorry, that was careless. Didn't really search as there had been a previous prod (which had been removed without reason) and because the article was written by the subject (presumably) who himself hadn't listed any particular notability! Gosh, why didn't he say he played for the Monarchs? Even unreferenced it would've been enough. I also notice from one of the articles you found he is the son of Geoff Capes, which is an interesting and quite a relevant fact, so will add that.Sassf (talk) 10:17, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of IT service management vendors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of IT service management vendors

List is a violation of WP:NOT as wikipedia is not a service directory, nor a webhost. It is a "list" which is more properly a category for those companies which are actually notable. The recent changes don't make these providers anymore notable than a number of other companies that happen to provide IT service management. PROD was removed simply because another user added a couple of companies that I pointed out were IT service management vendors. I could name hundreds more it dosn't mean they need to be added to the list or used by some as an excuse to include essentially non-notable companies within the body of the encyclopedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best nothing a category can't cover. Equendil Talk 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category would serve a better purpose. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify. Or is it "categorize"? Or maybe "categorifiable"... However you do it, userfy for creator or other interested party so he or she can then create a slightly broader category (if one doesn't already exist) and tag relevant articles appropriately. user:j (aka justen) 06:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is an invitation to linkspam.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 question over whether their product was used in the Olympics does not appear to affect notability much. The olympics have used a great many things, but standard practice has been that a connection like that doesn't confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbill Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hornbill Systems

article about Non-notable company with referencing that doesn't meet our criteria for significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources (predominantly proving existence and not importance/significance). Was tagged A7 but, because it mentioned an award that was removed. Not convinced the award itself is particularly notable or significant enough for the company to meet our criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards section has been restored here- I removed it, my apologies - so I'm not sure why this article has been re-nominated? Presumably the same criteria apply now, and since the decision was made to retain it based on the award, that decision should still apply? David James Bailey (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award only "saved it" from Speedy Deletion for the reasons I've already expressed to you previously (hence why you put it back in the first place). The article hasn't been "re-nominated" in the way you may think but, nominated for the first time because of the reasons I've already given above (essentially being non-notable and not covered significantly in reliable 3rd party coverage). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-consumer software business with no showing of notability within the actual guidelines. Industry awards don't really show general notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-consumer" is a bogus argument per WP:NOT, i.e. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guide to consumer software at the expense of enterprise or embedded software. VasileGaburici (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guide to any kind of software; much less is it a host for promotional articles about software businesses. On the other hand, consumer software is at least somewhat likely to receive notice in general interest reliable sources, and as such may be potentially salvageable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough since their main product was used for the Summer Olympics of 2008. VasileGaburici (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the reference backing this up actually has nothing to do with the Summer Olympics of 2008 and is actually about Atos Origins involvement in the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. As a false claim I have removed it from the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. As it clearly states here, "The contract, with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), covered four Games over eight years, Salt Lake City in 2002 (operated by SchlumbergerSema), Athens in 2004, Torino in 2006 and Beijing in 2008, and has subsequently been extended to include Vancouver in 2010 and London in 2012.". ATOS Origin has the contract but that includes Hornbill as a subcontractor. So the section should not have been removed. In fact, it should be extended. I'll revert and extend that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David James Bailey (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing me back to a non-reliable source doesn't fix the problem. The sourcing needs to be to reliable 3rd parties. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the sourcing probably needs work, but ATOS Origin are providers of software for the Olympics, and Hornbill are a part of that solution. Unless you're accusing Hornbill of literally lying, I think that labelling it "a false claim" and removing it was OTT. I'd certainly be happy with a "citations needed" notice as a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David James Bailey (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I may have been misled by the title being exactly the same as the ZDNET reference and the source being Hornbill. I think you are much better off finding proper sourcing which covers the company/software/whatever in a significant and reliable manner.Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - and yes, I agree the article does need better sourcing, and that's definitely on my "To-Do" list. David James Bailey (talk) 12:52, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Arbites[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was nominated a month ago for relying on primary sources, for providing no real-world context, and for being a WP:PLOT rehash. Nearly a month after the "no consensus" result, nothing has changed. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer 40,000. It has no real world context. Mainly plot info. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PSTS says that primary sources are fine, provided that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." And in-universe information isn't all that uncommon either. For example, take a look at the number of Star Wars related articles, such as Kyp Durron, Ben Skywalker, Cade Skywalker, Talon Karrde, Jaina Solo (placed in WP:ICU instead of being marked for deletion), Darth Bane, Lumiya, Darth Malak, Freedon Nadd, Ulic Qel-Droma, Mitth'ras'safis, Dash Rendar, Aurra Sing, Nomi Sunrider, Depa Billaba, Roan Fel, Adi Gallia, Grand Admiral Thrawn, Yuuzhan Vong, Chiss, Ssi-Ruuk, New Republic (Star Wars), Kyle Katarn and especially Ben Quadinaros and Sora Bulq. -- DataSnake _{Call me} 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's true that articles can use primary sources for some material, there are no sources independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. The excessive in-universe plot material violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Frankly, the other articles mentioned above are likely prime candidates for deletion for similar reasons of lacking references to demonstrate notability as well. (And, as a new editor I would suggest reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Finally, it should be noted that this article has already been transwikied to the WH40 wikia, see here (and scroll down the list to find it). --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or merge References seem to be present outside the game, though not independent ones. Though this is an important game, Star Wars isn't a relevant precedent--it is much more culturally important and has an immensely greater secondary literature (if anyone does try to delete them as Crawdaddy suggest I do not think they will succeed, though some might well be merged). We should not be handling this in equivalent detail until there is at least some such literature. DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to disagree with you there. Aside from CS Goto's contributions, the Black Library books are AT LEAST on a par with most Star Wars novels. And regarding "other stuff exists", that wasn't really my point. The Star Wars novels are just that, secondary literature expanding the content of a primary source, just like the Black Library novels. Whether the Star Wars movies are more popular than the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop game is not really the point, as the issue in either case is "expanded universe" type materials. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Star Wars novels are not "secondary literature". They are officially licensed from LucasArts. Likewise all the Star Wars encyclopedias et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likewise, Black Library publications are approved by Games Workshop. I don't quite see the difference here. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no difference. Star Wars articles sourced entirely to LucasArts-licensed works should also be deleted; their current existence is not an endorsement of their sourcing, and thus the argument that this page should exist because those do holds no weight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient material which isn't in-universe or gameguide for this to stand as a separate article from Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted to keep weakly last time on the basis of a shred of possible out of universe coverage (Judge Dredd copyright issues). On reflection, any material that shows up about that is better summarized and cited in the Games Workshop article. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 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. Wholly non-notable supporting character in a cartoon. Can be combined into the main article. seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winter the Hedgehog[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Elements_of_fiction. This is a non-notable supporting character in a cartoon. Any relevant info should be in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series). Woland (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a fan character. TTN (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be fan fiction Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fan character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and because there is no significant coverage cited from reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and nothing of value was lost. JuJube (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see nothign here needed for the character, a one sentence mention in the sonic article is all that's needed, if that. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as fan-fiction. There is no official character by this name. -- saberwyn 06:23, 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 merge to List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters. BJ^Talk 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Wen-li[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and because there is no significant coverage cited from reliable sources (in fact, no sources at all). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common consensus and WP:BEFORE to List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters, which needs the material anyway. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeDarfjono (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I oppose specifically the merge option for a simple reason. There is nothing in that article supported by any citation, and it all reads as armchair psychological profiling. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot content of fictional works are implictly source to the work itself, per WP:WAF; if there's WP:OR in there, strip it out as part of the merge. Besides, we need to leave a redirect behind for searches and incoming links. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. The argument above is appropriate for the article talk page in discussing the merge/redirect --it would indicate a redirect is the better solution. Is there any argument against a redirect? DGG (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main list of characters. I made the page back when Wikipedia was more tolerant of articles. As mentioned above, the plot is the source of a fictional work. the_one092001 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main list of characters. Yang is not a minor character. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 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 merge to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. BJ^Talk 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terraism[edit]

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and because there is no significant coverage cited from reliable sources (in fact, no sources at all). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legend of the Galactic Heroes or suitable spinoff page -- can list other fictional elements be suitably sourced from the primary material. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Armchair analysis and in universe coverage with no serious relation to reality. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Too short and too specific to warrant a separate article. Can easily be incorporated into the main article. the_one092001 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect as theone suggests/ Such should be the default way to deal with these -- not needing AfD. DGG (talk) 22:25, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Grande (Legend of Galactic Heroes)[edit]

This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:OR. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though I'm this page's creator I agree it can go. Since the deletionist crusade seems to be sweeping throughout Wikipedia, I won't bother trying to defend this article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The one092001 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 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. Black Kite 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phezzan Dominion[edit]

This fictional planet does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into the suitable article, with a redirect. No reason is given why a merge or redirect was not appropriate--at least a redirect. And if a reirect was appropriate, there was no need to bring it here. DGG (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in independent sources. A redirect is an editorial decision regarding the likelhood of the article as a search term for the target. Since every fictional sub-article has (by definition) a parent, every article would have to be redirected first before coming to AfD. I do not see the benefit of forcing TTN to redirect this article, wait for a reversion, then bring it to AfD. Deletion is a last resort but it is also an appropriate avenue. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 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 merge to List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters. BJ^Talk 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard von Lohengramm[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common consensus and WP:BEFORE to List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters. The gods know, that needs more material anyway. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the suitable list of characters. As a character in a series not of the greatest importance, such is the default way to work, and does not take AfD. (Merge rather than redirect because the list needs to be expanded with some information about the characters). It would be helpful for noms of such articles to at give some indication that the nom was made in awareness of the specifics about the article. It helpful be even more useful if they gave some indications of why a merge or redirect was not appropriate. DGG (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Lack of sufficient context Kevin (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahle hadees the truth[edit]

Religious soapboxy stuff. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start?Delete for failing any number of criteria including WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense - although it's clearly intended to be about Islam, it doesn't say anything with sufficient coherence to avoid being nonsense. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Incoherent, insufficient context here to understand what exactly the article is about. A borderline CSD G1/A1 candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 23:46, 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 Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters. BJ^Talk 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard von Mariendorf[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common consensus and WP:BEFORE to List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the suitable list of characters. As a major character for a series not of the greatest importance, such is the default way to deal with these, and does not take AfD. (Merge rather than redirect because the list needs to be expanded with some actual information about the characters). It would be useful for noms of such articles to at least give some indication that the nom was made in awareness of the specifics about the article. It would be even more useful if they gave some indications f why a merge or redirect was not appropriate. DGG (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, at an ArbCom decision just over six months ago, ~~TNN~~ TTN (sorry!) was strongly cautioned against replacing articles with redirects without establishing there's a consensus to do so. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenbaum dynasty[edit]

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources available. Aaronw (talk) 02:47, 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 redirect to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. BJ^Talk 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Planets Alliance Star Fleet[edit]

This fictional organization does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/Merge and redirect the most important to Legend of the Galactic Heroes (Arguably there would be very little to merge). (Question to nom: Why did you not use the proposed deletion route first?) G.A.S 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. To answer the above question for the nom, PROD is often avoided if the deletion is expected to be controversial at all. It would seem to be a waste if the article has at least one interested editor. As for the article itself, it cites no sources and doesn't appear to be covered in reliable, secondary sources. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that fictional works do not often have such sources to cite, and although it has been covered, I do not unfortunately speak Japanese to translate them. Regardless, it seems clear that TTN's deletion crusade continues, and I'm not going to bother trying to stop it. the_one092001 (talk) 08:35, 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. BJ^Talk 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Preece (manager)[edit]

Don't see any assertion of notability here, Found nothing at Billboard or Allmusic. Google news gives hits for other Ben Preece's. Dloh cierekim 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and non-verifiable according to the respective policies/guidelines. Probable hoax/wishful thinking. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Equendil Talk 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources which could be used to verify any information about the subject have been found and I don't think any will be found. Guest9999 (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 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 speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 obstructions[edit]

Hoax. No such rule in football exists. Google seems to agree. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllynJ, there is no such rule in football/soccer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total hoax, and even if it was true, it should be at Laws of Association Football. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Basement12 (T.C) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this "rule" doesn't exist. Cliff smith ^talk 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism per the tag itself (deliberate misinformation)Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax E P 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#G3. --Jimbo^[online] 17:35, 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 is speedy keep. The nomination for deletion was completed on behalf of User:Onceturn who is a sockpuppet of banned User:Brexx. Other than the banned nominator, there are no delete rationales. Non-admin closure. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletition is because its not a single....jive said releasing it as a single has been scrapped.......and even though radio stations are playing it , thats not enough for it to have a page...its not notable......that info is already written in the "Blackout" article.......and the chart positions are also written on the blackout article as well as on the britney spears discography article........and it says that its going to be released in u.s. in november, thats not true at all....britney's new single 'Womanizer' from her new album "Circus", is going to be released on september 22.....so theres no way that radar will be released in nov.......Onceturn (talk)

Nomination completed by me per User talk:Onceturn#Radar (song) --Amalthea^Talk 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Blackout (Britney Spears album). It was redirected before but someone restored it.TheLeft orium 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm changing my vote to keep after reading WP:MUSIC. TheLeft orium 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. The song was ranked on national music charts, and there is enough verifiable material for an article. --Amalthea^Talk 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes the songs critera of WP:MUSIC as it ranked on a national chart. Also it's content features chart performance, structure and lyrics and critical reception, all are sourced (which also currently make the article a start article) and can be worked on further. Such content wouldn't belong in another article except an article about the song itself. AngelOfSadness talk 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are hundreds of songs with articles on Wikipedia that were never formally released singles. --Caponer (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been brought to my attention that Onceturn (talk · contribs), on whose behalf I created this AfD, is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). I recommend that, since all remaining opinions are to keep, this AfD be closed as speedy keep. --Amalthea^Talk 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't the only notable song called "Radar"[edit]

Hi folks.

Kinda new here.

It's listed in the disamiguation page: Radar (disambiguation), which I put in my own edit.

Also, I've made comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and Talk:Radar (song).

There's another noted song called "Radar" by Laurie Anderson's
in her Home of the Brave (soundtrack).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT77BzpMoEM

I think this Radar (song) page be turned into a disambiguation page,
and that those who wish to have an article on the Britney Spears song create a "Radar (Britney Spears song) and put a link in the former to the latter."

Thanks.

Yartett (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there some sort of listing or catagory in Wikipedia with something like "Songs that have 'Radar' as the title,"
or the same for other titles?

Yartett (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Radar (song). --Amalthea^Talk 19:55, 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 Speedily deleted as a fully transwikied article, now here. It may be helpful to check if any of these images are still in Wikipedia space, and if so, move them to Commons as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of the Founding Fathers of the United States[edit]

Contested prod. Page violates WP:NOT by being nothing but a collection of images. We have an article Founding Fathers of the United States, which contains a lot of information. This gallery, on the other hand, is, obviously, not giving any info but how these people looked, which is not discussed (and isn't really a hot scholarly topic). How any individual founding father looked is (or can be) shown at his article. The combination of the two (the look of individual founding fathers, and the list of all of them) does not add any extra information. Fram (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does this page also exist on Commons? This looks like a gallery of indisputably public domain images. If some images are still in Wikipedia image space, those should be transwikied as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They have this. I have no idea if a more complete page exists at Commons. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the one who removed the prod. I'm neutral on this AfD, but since this is just a reorganization of images that already exist in the linked articles, I think it should be considered as a list, rather than a collection of images. An article that was, for example, "Images of Acadia National Park", is what this policy addresses, rather than the case at hand. (I assume we're talking WP:NOTREPOSITORY, right?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this collection of photographs once those images which aren't yet on Commons have been transwikied (ec). Cliff smith ^talk 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This page has now been transwikid to Commons and can be speedied. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:47, 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 - copy of group sex. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangy[edit]

Is this really necessary? I think there are a few articles that already cover this topic. . .Also, none of the external references have anything directly pertaining to the term (Gangy) Superflewis (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly a copy of the Group sex article. Seems to be an attempt to coin a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd and 3rd class Sleepers[edit]

non-notable Belle pullman (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined toward supporting deletion, as the article says these characters were eventually cut from the show to no great effect. However, since the bulk of the other characters have their own articles, perhaps a merge might make more sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and entirely unsourced. --DAJF (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 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: which is default keep. I suggest further discussion about merging/redirecting be followed up on the talk page of the target article. Synergy 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Trudeau[edit]

Not notable. While his father and brother are both notable, Michel Trudeau is notable for having been the son of a former Prime Minister of Canada, one who left office 24 years ago. Being a child of a current prime minister may or may not be notable, but being the child of a long gone prime minister is hardly notable in any way. It was tragic that Michel Trudeau died young in an accident, but unfortunately that is something too common everywhere in the world not notable either. JdeJ (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pierre Trudeau, where everything notable about him is mentioned. How long ago his father was Prime Minister doesn't matter - notability is not inherited. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Pierre Trudeau. Michel's death and the subsequent search for his body (which, if I remember, was never found) was a very notable event at the time. It was one of the few things that broke his father. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in the context of the call for improved avalanche warnings in Canada. His death generated a lot of media coverage in Canada. --Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, his death was a major news story in Canada at the time, but that was because of his father and there are thousands of news stories every day that doesn't lead to any notability in the long run. As others already said, all the relevant information (including how the accident led to calls for improved avalanche warnings) can be found in the articles Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pierre Trudeau. There may or may not be adequate sources for a biography but as there are none now, merge with possibility of creation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The nom misinterprents the "notability is not inherited" principle. That principle means that a person is not notable simply by virtue of being closely associated to a notable person. However, if such an individual receives substantial coverage by independent sources (for whatever reason), they become notable, even if they have done absolutely nothing remarkable or noteworthy. In this case there was substantial newscoverage of his death and its aftermath[9], which extended beyond the time of the event itself (November 1998). There were 21 newsstories in 1999-2000 regarding him[10]. There are some BLP1E features here (since the coverage mainly concerns the accident his death and the search that followed), but it does not really make sense to create an article about the accident. So this does seem to merit a weak keep in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable things about Michel Trudeau are his father and his death. There are about 100 avalanche deaths per year,[11] and some probably have Google hits, but I don't think that alone is enough content for a whole article. If someone proves me wrong and expands it I'd be OK with a split, but right now this looks like a perma-stub. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of the article himself became notable, as a number of primary sources can now (sadly) attest. user:j (aka justen) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not judging from the article, all it mentions is his father and his death. Compare this article with his brothers, Justin Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau and the difference is huge. He may have become just as notable had he lived, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. The article has been tagged for its lack of any sources for well over one year, with nothing at all being added. JdeJ (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can become notable due to or following their death. The length of this article compared to Justin Trudeau or Alexandre Trudeau isn't relevant to deletion. A full discussion of his notability may only require a paragraph or two, but, again, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. user:j (aka justen) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep The above is a good reason to have a shorter article, but not a reason to have none. Whether an avalanche death is notable depends among other things on who is involved.I agree with Nsk92's analysis of the "not inherited" guideline. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Michel Trudeau is notable, how is it possible that not a single reference has been found for his article despite it being tagged for more than a year due to its lack of any references? JdeJ (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has bothered. Here's a couple sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." --Explodicle (T/C) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "separate biography" from an article on the event. In this case, the event was not notable; the person involved in the event is now notable, partly as the effects of the event. user:j (aka justen) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that his only historical significance is through his father. 99% of readers will only be interested in Michel Trudeau because they're interested in his dad, so the paragraph we have on him is better suited there. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think your assessment is inaccurate. He certainly owed much of his notoriety to his father, but his notability today is independent of his father, and is sadly much related to the events surrounding his death. I think that many more than one percent of the visitors to his article are likely to happen upon his article due to an interest in avalanche awareness. In any event, I think our differing opinions are clear at this point, so I don't think it'd be helpful for me to add anything further to my earlier statements that the article is notable and should be kept as such. user:j (aka justen) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question I asked myself when nominating the article for deletion was whether he has any notability at all today? I haven't seen anything written about him for many years, apart for a sentence or two in articles about Justin now with the election coming up. JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, we should go ahead and clean out those likely thousands of articles of people who died a few years back and haven't had anything written about them in the last couple of years? Our deletion policy doesn't say notability requires so many articles from within the last twelve months. user:j (aka justen) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think a shorter article, but not a deletion is necessary in this case. j and DGG made very good reasons and I agree with them on this assessment. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:39, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subaku no temari[edit]

Minor character in Naruto (listed in the "Other Characters" section). E Wing (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced article about non-notable character. --DAJF (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge/redirect as baseless fan term for Temari (Naruto). JuJube (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:06, 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. BJ^Talk 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen Nepal[edit]

Delete non notable beauty pageant Mayalld (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles on many beauty competitions, what makes this one in particular less notable than all the others? JdeJ (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My bad, I thought this was the "main" beauty pageant in Nepal. It's not, and thus not comparable to the examples I mentioned. JdeJ (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Truly Non-Notable. Hitro 13:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing indicates that this is notable, established, long-term, newsworthy, etc etc. Just not a notable event / competition. Maedin\^talk 07:50, 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. TravellingCari 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Barclay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Jamie Barclay has not played for a fully professional club and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He has played for East Stirlingshire F.C., but they are only a semi-professional club at the lowest level of the Scottish Football League. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod rationale got it 100% wrong - Scottish Division Three is not a fully professional league (especially clear as his club, East Stirling, were well known for paying £10 a week), and therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I have done a google search for articles specifically about Barclay to see if he could pass WP:N, but I don't see any results about him specifically. All the results are listing him in squads, are statistic pages, and a few short reports mentioning that he has been sent out on loan. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-professional league or competition. --Jimbo^[online] 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He doesn't the relevant criteria at this time. Recreate if and when he makes his fully-pro debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:34, 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 Speedy Delete (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) by User:TexasAndroid (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery conductance[edit]

The material on this page is from, and the only link on the page is to, http://www.midtronics.com/home/support/resources/batteryknowledgecenter/batteryknowledgecenter.aspx, which appears to be a spam link for Midtronix, Inc. The article was created by a user named Jmidtronics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no statement on that page granting free access to the material. Further, there is already a page on electrical conductance, which I pointed out to Jmidtronix after the first time I had the article deleted (speedy), and suggested that he use his information to enhance that article. As it is, he hasn't bothered to tie this article to that one in either direction. Since the content also doesn't strike me as very explanatory (compare the electrical conductance article), I'm presenting it for consideration for deletion. Largo Plazo (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to electrical conductance. This is just a spam link. While there certainly is a term called battery conductance, it's basically "electrical conductance within a battery as effected by battery chemical composition or type" which is hardly enough for an article. --Logical Premise (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Equendil Talk 18:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal resistance, which is the more common statistic cited for a battery. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the more likely reference going to be how well the battery conducts, or how the resistance is measured? Internal resistance may be a better choice. --Logical Premise (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal resistance. That is the appropriate target. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio. A creation of a redirect after deletion can e considered. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it's his own web page and he could remedy that quickly. If it becomes a redirect (which seems to be the direction in which this is going) it'll be academic anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is no proof that the wikipedia editor is the copyright holder, or has the authority to release the material under GFDL. The person might be an employee of the company with no rights to release copyrighted material. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. For the sake of background, here's an exchange I had with him, on his talk page, after the original speedy delete:

Ok, we own the copyright to what was entered into Wikipedia, before I even had a chance to correct the information, it was deleted. In which now I have to go ahead and enter everything again. You should allow more time, before someone makes a deletion to something. My username which includes the company name Midtronics,which is the company. I will get this thing redone and it will be on wikipedia.(Jmidtronics (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
(1) There is already an article on electrical conductance. I can't stress that enough. If you have material that duplicates what's already there, leave it out. If you have material the productively supplements it, then consider contributing it to that article. (2) If your using your own copyrighted material on the site, be sure you read Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations! —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No response from him to that. His next act was to recreate the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just convinced myself. I told the guy what was needed and he went ahead and did what he wanted anyway without heed. I've just put a db-copyvio on the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 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 (non-admin closure), WP:BOLD redirect to Area (geometry). Protonk (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area of figure[edit]

Seems to be a fork of Area (geometry) TrulyBlue (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as TrulyBlue said, it is already at Area (geometry). The new page adds nothing of note. Merenta (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deltree (delete all). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busan Urban Bus Route No. 2[edit]

Prod(s) removed by author. Non-notable series of bus routes all added by same author. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY) or travel guide (WP:NOTTRAVEL). justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

I've asked the author, User:Xxchangwoo0120xx, to stop creating these but he/she has continued, saying they're the same as List of Melbourne bus routes (which they're not, because that's a list). If he continues to add routes, I'll just pile them on here too. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable routes lacking third-party reference sources for verification. --DAJF (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covering every bus route in the world is simply not something one can reasonably expect an encyclopedia to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have had similar discussions about bus routes elsewhere. Pages about these are liable to require a lot of maintenance, which will not necessarily be done. However the bus company will maintain its own website. I am not sure if even lists are acceptable. If they are they should be brief and have an appropriate external link. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just so I don't come off as a curmudgeon for nominating an editor's entire contribution history, he also created a main article, Busan Urban Bus, which I left off the list because I think that at least has the potential to become an article, though it's not much in its current state. justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reason as nominator. There's a related template at TFD here. Somno (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and condense into a "Routes" section on Busan Urban Bus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. If we compare railway or subway lines to bus routes, then rail systems are more permanent and fit better into an encyclopedia. Bus routes can, and often do, change frequently, and an encyclopedia cannot be expected to keep track of things like that. Lankiveil's proposal for a "routes" section in the main Busan Urban Bus article is a good one, but I don't see the content of this article being particularly mergeable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 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. TravellingCari 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of European languages by country[edit]

I don't believe this list is seriously maintainable. There are two possible scenarios for the future of this article. It may include all languages spoken in these nations, regardless of origin (perhaps limited by number of speakers). There would be inherent problems with this solution, the demographic make-up of all these nations would have to be tracked, not to mention the massive WP:NPOV violation an arbitrary cut-off could pose. The second is listing the 'native' languages of a nation. There are even more problems with this solution than the first one. What constitutes a 'native' language? Does this language still have to be spoken in that area? At what point in history do these definitions kick in? I can think of many examples for why this article is not sustainable. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The articles for each European nation, as well as the European Union contain detailed information on the linguistic make-up of each individual country to an extent unachievable in such a simplistic list. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is a redundant, unsustainable list. So, those were my 2¢, and the reason why I propose to Delete this list. PS: Oh, and we haven't even gotten to the problems with the word "country" yet... +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator. I'm sure, for instance, that you could find some people in Ireland that speak Polish, French, German, Welsh, etc. At what point do you decide that a language is too "minor" to be included? And, of course, once you do decide on a cutoff point, then the list becomes POV. As I see it, the list is either going to be unmaintainable, or inherently POV, and this problem can't be addressed in the list's current form. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I've been an editor of the article this year, but just as the nominator has stated, there are many problems/potential problems with the article. People have decided to just add any language even with just a few speakers (if we were to do that with a country like the U.S., the list would be too big). There are already several language articles regarding official languages, and each country has its own page. If the article is kept, there should be more guidelines as to what languages are added so it's not just a free-for-all. Seems right now that the only people who go to the article are the ones who want "their" language to be represented. It's always susceptible to POV when sub-national or unrecognized "countries" are allowed to be listed separate from their recognized unit. Kman543210 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article could be useful, but there are problems I'm afraid we cannot get around. As others have pointed out, we can't just add languages as we please, you can find speakers of any language in any country. The best solution would be to only include official languages and regional languages but then we already have problems. Official languages is fine, but what about countries that oppress their regional minorities (Greece comes to mind) and refuses to recognise them. Either we don't include them, but then it's a list over countries recognising minority languages, or then we include them. The latter is easy enough for countries in the EU, as the European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages can be used as a source, but then it's a list for languages in EU countries. I'm interested in a discussion rather than a quick deletion, but at the moment there seems to be huge problems. JdeJ (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to discuss before deletion to see if a consensus can be reached in terms of criteria, but I never received any response to the one subject I put on the talk page. Seems like there could be problems either way, but if we can come up with a concensus on criteria for inclusion, maybe it wouldn't be as problematic? Seems like most of us agree so far that it shouldn't be a "free-for-all" in adding additional languages. On the other hand, I shan't cry if the article is deleted. Kman543210 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's not a bad idea for an article, this is mostly original synthesis, and badly done. I get the point-- there's an official language, and then there are other languages that are spoken by ethnic groups that have a large population inside the country. The editors of the article identify a group and conclude that French is a language in Italy, German is a language in France, Turkish is a language in Germany, Greek is a language in Turkey, etc.. Without data about how many speakers there are of a particular non-official language, one might as well just say "a lot". One could say, accurately, that Spanish is one of the languages of the United States, and point to substantial numbers of Americans who use Spanish. However, there's a distinction between the language that is used daily in a nation's governmental and commerce, official or not, and a language that is used by bilingual speakers. Strangely, this list indicates nobody speaks anything in the United Kingdom that didn't originate in the British Isles. Badly executed concept. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a viable list. If I use my country as an example, France, and refer to Languages of France, there is a great many regional languages and dialects (32) as well as languages brought by immigrants spoken in France. That would not realistically fit a table. According to a partial census, the most widespread mother languages besides French are German dialects (2.12%), Arabic and dialects (2.05%), Occitan dialects (1.33%), Portuguese (1.27%), Oil dialects (1.25%), Italian (1.19%), Spanish (1.06%), Breton (0.61%). The list just doesn't reflect that in any way, only arbitrary regional languages are listed (although the spread of Italian for instance is largely due to immigration), no weight is given. This is outside the scope of a list in my opinion. Equendil Talk 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and equendil. Plus, why European? That seems a completely arbitrary constraint to put on a list of languages by country. On top of which, grammatically, "European" refers to the languages, not the countries, while in practice the list is the other way around. If this gets deleted List of African languages by country should be next. maxsch (talk) 23:14, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Väiko[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Prod removed by article's creator without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in highest level of football in Estonia. Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE states "fully professional league". The top division in Estonia is not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CS, WP:BIAS, WP:IAR, but most importantly deleting this article seems to ignore the consensus to keep such articles reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FAI League of Ireland players. Nfitz (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FOOTYN was also a consensus at WP:FOOTY but it wasn't accepted by the wider community. Also, there is no bias in deleting footballers from small countries. If the country doesn't have a fully professional league, then the players in it probably aren't notable. By your faulty logic players in the top division of Andorra are notable, even though in terms of skill level, they'd probably be at around the sixth or seventh level of England at best. And why on earth are you bringing up WP:CS? It has absolutely nothing to do with a deletion debate, and suggests that you are just citing policies in the blind hope that people will be impressed by them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, I note that he has only 27 Ghits, which coming from one of the most web-savvy countries in Europe, suggests that he is not notable in any form, thus also failing WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - once again, playing in a top level in a country is not a valid claim of notability when the league is not fully professional - or do we really want to include all Guam, American Samoa and Equatorial Guinea footballers?!?! --Angelo (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm sure you know, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion. Logically, the statement of that guideline is "if X article is notable, then Y article should be considered notable too". According to basic logic, the contrapositive of that statement is also true, i.e. "if Y article is considered non-notable, then X article should be considered non-notable too". Therefore your argument is indirectly a violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ugen64 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I am just saying we don't need articles like these, they are non-notable subjects according to current policy (which I fully support, and I would even make it much more restrictive if I could). Would you agree about an American Samoan footballer's notability just because he plays in a top flight in his country? I don't think so, he would easily fail WP:N by the way. We need to bound limits of inclusion, to prevent our encyclopedia from becoming a huge database of non-notable subject. WP:ATHLETE is already really inclusive, much more inclusive for football than any other sport around. --Angelo (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league as the criteria states. --Jimbo^[online] 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Estonian League is not fully-pro (only half its teams are professional at present), therefore he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet played notably. small fish small pond. For those that want to keep all articles about players because they play in the 'top level of their country', if they are not able to break into their national side, they not generally good enough to be notable, they are just guys kicking a ball around on a Saturday afternoon. If they are good enough, they qualify per criteria and will get their article. recreate if and when...--ClubOranje^Talk 01:03, 20 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 WP:CSD#A7'd by User:Starblind. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of the sun dots[edit]

An article of what appears to be some sort of high school group. I see nothing of note on a Google search. Razor ICE 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteify, pronto. Complete vanity made-up-in-school-one-day article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:41, 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, but suggest a merge on the talk page of the target. Synergy 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Francis[edit]

Minor character. Appeared for only some episodes in a long running soap opera. No media coverage, third party source, no real world information (just actor's name and dates of first and last appearance). Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS). Magioladitis (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because you cant find recent online media coverage on this topic, does not mean there hasnt been coverage. On the contrary actually, and there is a lot to add from books and older media sources. There is a wikiproject overseeing these articles, and a lot of work is going into cleaning them up. To avoid unnecessary AFDs in the future, it would be helpful if you take issues to the project in the future. It takes time to clean soap articles up with such a small number of editors willing to add anything other than plot summary, so we would be grateful for some patience.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Gungadin. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. There's almost never a reason to delete rather than merge articles on long running characters in the major soap operas. But, Gungadin, your argument would be much more effective if you actually found some of these sources. I suggest you work fast. If you can find some independent secondary work treating these characters in suitable detail, it might be possible to save (or resurrect) quite a number of related article. 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment See also: WP:PLOT. Article created 2 years ago and still consists only of plot under a section called "History" mixing, in this way, reality with fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment: Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit, and with only two regular editors in the WikiProject, it's hard to work on all articles and find sources in a short space of time. Something not being done immediately is not a good enough reason to delete an article. Though I have full faith in Gungadin to be able to find sources for this article (see Pauline Fowler, Ronnie Mitchell etc for examples of her work), it may take some time. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Trampikey, and as it goes, I started it. Please remember Magioladitis, we are volunteers. We have careers, we have social lives, we do what we can when we can. Progress may be slow, but it is constant, and that is a good thing in my opinion. Go check the numerous other soap operas on wiki who only have articles for their characters that include only plot summary, and you'll see the difference in the majority of our articles. We're fully aware of WP:PLOT and all the other policies, we've been here years. We are trying our best.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the last comment as an extra to the problems this article has. My general idea for who we can handle soap operas is that: We need good articles for the soap opera itself, for the main long running characters, list for the recurring charactres with short descriptions, maybe some lists with just character's name-actor's name-years of appearance for minor and omit characters who make guest appearances for some episodes.

I don't think we have to delete all articles of fictional character, but please discriminate important and non-important characters. I can't believe that 200 characters in a soap opera are notable enough and they have notability outside the show. Because there is the key. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is where you are wrong, and I dont know how much you know about the history of EastEnders, but this soap gets mass media coverage in the UK, tabloids and broadsheets. Especially these old characters, because they are from a time when the soap was getting nearly 30 million viewers and episode in the 80s and early 90s. Obviously, online sources arent as easy to get hold of for these older characters, but they are out there. In addition, once Google starts the newspaper archive thing it is doing, where they will be giving access to every newspaper story from the last 200 years, it will become much easier. But whatever, you seem to have a lust for deletion, so no point arguing. What will be will be.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the media coverage is in addition, because I think the character is not notable enough judging by the number of its appearances in the show. That "soap gets mass media coverage in the UK" that doesn't mean that the character itself is notable. Still, if you think you need some time to improve the article, please, I can withdraw the AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thing is, that's like saying Darth Vadar is not notable, only Star Wars is. If a media source is discussing a character and its development, then it's about the character as well as the show. Just my opinion, and that's the whole problem with these policies, they are all open to interpretation. Thanks for the offer of withdrawing, it would be nice to not have to work to a deadline, particularly during the working week, but hopefully I will get a chance to improve some more before the end of the AFD.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:55, 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 minor EastEnders characters (2007). BJ^Talk 02:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dixon (EastEnders)[edit]

Minor character. Appeared for only some episodes in a long running soap opera. No media coverage, third party source, not important real world information (just actor's name and dates of first and last appearance). Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor EastEnders characters (2007)GunGagdin^Moan 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of minor EastEnders characters (2007) - didn't need to be nominated for AfD, try talking to the article's WikiProject first. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The character appeared for... a month to the show. They are tenths of characters. I merged many of these characters in these Lists but this one doesn't even assert notability for merging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - you didn't do all the merging - you may have demanded it but you didn't do the hard work. The character was important to a storyline involving him trying to pressure a young girl into sex, then introducing the gun which was later used to shoot another main character - which is notable in the ongoing storyline of the show. The first thing you say in your nomination is "Minor character" - where better for a minor character to appear than on a minor characters list? It seems like lack of common sense to me. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would e very glad if you could do the merge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It cant be merged whil and AFD is going on. You would need to withdraw your nomination, or wait to the result.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etana Insurance[edit]

non-notable company. J5432 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company passes the general notability guideline, with three references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References look sufficient to demonstrate notability. Arakunem^Talk 17:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Brewing Company[edit]

non notable company. google hits 955. Founded 2008. J5432 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company passes the general notability guidelines, with five references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. We66er (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Food[edit]

Non notalbe company. J5432 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first glance I thought the article was going to be about David Camerons breakfast :-) Not-notable company. Fribbler (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you search under the company's Korean name, you find articles such as http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2005092950991&ltype=1&nid=000&sid=01040502&page=47 Google translation here. The translation is not perfect, but appears to be about the same company and the ketchup that it manufactures. The article seems to be from a major Korean newspaper, so I think the company passes the general notability guideline. See this Google News archive search for additional articles.

The nominator's only contributions consist of three AfDs. --Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 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 Speedily deleted as obvious BS or nonsense, or something belonging on Uncyclopedia, rising to the level of vandalism at worst, or at the very least, a test page. Dloh cierekim 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoke Theory[edit]

An unreferenced, possibly hoaxified, 2-follower-theory of life? No ghits. SGGH ^speak! 10:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsensical and presumably just a joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Rane[edit]

Has been tagged for notability and no-one has responded. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ Needs work but the sources cited in the article appear to already establsh a passable case of notability. A quote from an article in the Times of India[12]:"Musicologist and composer Ashok Ranade is one of the most respected names in music in India." The claim re having won the National Award in India also seem to check out although better sources would be preferable:[13][14]. Another article in Times of India mentioning him getting something called the Thane Gunijan award:[15]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral for the moment. The first ref I quoted[16] appears to be about another person, with a similar name, Ashok Ranade. The fact that this ref is quoted in the article is a problematic sign. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided includes a short biography of 3 different people: Ashok Ranada, Mandakini Trivedi and ashok Rane (at the bottom)-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question of identity does need to be cleared up, especially about the award. but I point out that failing to improve an article is not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:59, 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, TravellingCari 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does make some attempts at claiming notability, but doesn't back them up with any sourcing. For example, if the "national award" is really a big deal, sourcing it should be no problem. It doesn't help that his is apparently a really common name: Google brings unrelated stories about a jail superintendant, a judge, and others. My gut feeling is the core of the article is probably true. However, sourcing is obviously going to be a problem. And I don't think we'd generally have an article on an American or British person of similar notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe even speedy as WP:COPYVIO. The bulk of the text seems a direct copy, with paras sorted, of His bio page here. If the article is gutted for the copyvio and boiled down the actual notable activities - which are the books and the TV series (unidentified!) which then get specific reviews referenced, it might survive. But right now, major problems. MadScot (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though he does not seem to have been someone who has enjoyed exceptional fame, he still qualifies for an article as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography. I was able to find enough reliable sources:[17],[18],[19].Copyright violations could be resolved by rewriting the article-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:48, 20 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 per WP:SNOW and longstanding precedent regarding towns/cities/geographic locations. Also remember, AfD is not for cleanup. --Smashville^BONK! 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraterville, Tennessee[edit]

not notable enough to constitute its own article; call for expansion dates back to 2005 and call for references dates back to 2006 yet no progress has been made to address either AbotobA (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as I understand it all "geographic" locations are inherently notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, we have a default stance on keeping geographic locations, not to mention User:Blofeld of SPECTRE would kill you. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable place, but its notability is largely historical. The article has minimal content only because no one has dug up reliable sources to expand the article -- and/or because they've put their reliably sourced content into the articles about significant events that occurred in Fraterville. Fraterville is a former coal mining community in a rugged mountain area of Appalachia. There's not much to see in Fraterville any more, except for cemeteries, including the monument to the underground mine disaster in 1902 that killed about 200 people (and left only 3 adult men alive in the community). Apparently Fraterville never had its own post office (at least not under that name -- some mining towns had multiple names over the years). I believe the postal address for Fraterville is Briceville, which is also an isolated (and unincorporated) mountain community and is only about 2 miles away. I think there may be a church or two with "Fraterville" (or "Fratersville") in their names, every now and then the local newspaper has an obituary that identifies the deceased as a Fraterville resident, and it's a landmark known to motorcyclists who ride "the Devil's Triangle," but this is not one of those places for which an instant article can be generated from Census data. (Straightline distance to Fraterville is only about 20 miles from where I live, but it's much farther by road, and I've only been there once. I don't have reliable sources for most of what I "know" about the community.) --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editors are correct that inhabited geographical locations are inherently notable as a matter of policy. Fraterville is like many "company towns" that were never incorporated, but that housed the families of miners who worked for a particular mine. As such, the article is properly listed in addition to the article about the Fraterville Mine disaster, one of the worst coal mine disasters in American history. Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real place (shows up as a town in Google Maps, for example), and due to historical significance relating to the Fraterville Mine disaster. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All verifiable places are inherently notable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All towns are notable. I added a reference to the listing in the Geographic Names Information System. --Eastmain (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Settlements are precisely the kind of topic which encyclopedias traditionally cover. Since verifiability is not an issue here, that is a clear keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 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. TravellingCari 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Law[edit]

Borderline speedy candidate (already speedied once), with some vague claims to notability and all the hallmarks of an autobiography. PROD was removed by the principal author, so I'm bringing it here for consideration. Problem - lack of independent reliable sources. Please let this debate run so there is consensus about future recreations -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant Gnews hits, serious ambiguity problem with regular Google hits; no sournces cited in article, I conclude fails WP:BIO. RayAYang (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. The subjects claim to notability rests on the claim to be a pioneer in parkour outside of France. However, there is no coverage about him in reliable sources. The claim to an appearance in Jump Britain is not sustained with sources and a look at the credits in IMDB don't show him in the cast list so the apppearance is uncredited, and likely minor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce George (television personality)[edit]

Article with no independent sources, the Animal Planet page no longer exists and he is not listed on Animal Planet's site; the article has served mainly as a coatrack for a legal dispute for which there is zero independent coverage. Google does not turn up anything much. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no way to establish notability. treelo _radda 09:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment Don't care one way or another, but I'll just throw these out: Taipai Times interview, Animal Planet webarchive from 2005, one trivial mention, another trivial mention Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep news article referring to him as Snakebuster in 2007, ABC program profile on George independent non-trivial coverage, also the show from which a legal dispute over the use of Snakebuster is said to have occurred(no independent sourcing) also associated with This list 13x30 minute episodes Bruce George as the talent. The Age its again not so trivial independent coverage of both George and the series Snake Busters. If there was an article on the series Snake Busters I'd be inclined to suggest a merge as it predominately this that establishes Georges notability Gnan garra 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a marginally notable figure on whom a true quality BLP probably can't be constructed. No prejudice, however, to creating a new article on Snake Busters and recreating this as a redirect. krimpet ✽ 18:41, 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 redirect to GMAC. Closing as redirected to GMAC. Bold closure per apparent consensus below and a lack of independent sources covering the article in question. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GM Card[edit]

I can't find any substantial independent non-trivial sources which give this article WP:N in an encyclopaedic sense Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Every company, credit union, and university in America has an associated credit card deal at this point, and there's nothing in the article to suggest any difference between this card and just about every other rewards-based program out there. RayAYang (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General Motors. The article is US biased as well. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a better redirect target is probably GMAC, the GM credit company. Protonk (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to GMAC. Arakunem^Talk 17:30, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Moser[edit]

Delete Contested prod. Fails WP:PORNBIO, and completely unsourced. No relevant results found under either "Veronica Moser" or "Pornarella" on GNews [20][21], AVN or XBIZ. Nothing that looks promising among the ghits for sourcing. German wiki article deleted, so doesn't look like there is native language coverage either. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll just repeat, for the record, the explanation I put with my PROD. It fits equally here: "This biography is wholly unsourced and nearly everything in it can easily fit into the category "derogatory". David in DC (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP of a non public figure. Protonk (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independant sources apparent, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:55, 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. BJ^Talk 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamendo[edit]

Non-notable Website. No Independent reliable source prove its notability. Per WP:WEB. Tosqueira (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wired.com, CreativeCommons.org (2) (3), Independent award. I'd say it holds more than one WP:WEB criteria (although only one is needed). This shouldn't have been speedied in 1st place, so I overturned the speedy deletion. And being one of the top sites for createvecommons licensed music is certainly relevant and notable -- m:drini 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first 2 sources are blogs, they are not reliable sources. The third source say something about one of the co-founders who received an award, not the website itself. Tosqueira (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wired's blog is not joe random blog, mind you. Likewise creativecommons.org. Don't blindly follow rules, use common sense. -- m:drini 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Jamendo is a well-known project, that has a huge user base. I cant believe there is a discussion about including it in WP. If you do not believe the blogs reaching millions. Maybe you believe some entries in Google News: Jamendo on Google News. Mario Behling (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's very important site for users (like me), because I am using the free music from Jamendo in order to make very good audio articles (to add different audio sounds, voices, music, etc.). See e.g. the audio file created within Audio project in Russian Wikipedia: Image:Ru-Saddam Hussein part 1 personal life.ogg. -- AKA MBG (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus one more comment for the remaining of the Jamendo article: there are 10 interwiki links. -- AKA MBG (talk) 17:12, 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 per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of External Links of Wesley College[edit]

While I am sure that the creator of the article created it in good faith, it is not an encyclopedic subject. The material violates the policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Any required external links could be included in the main article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no purpose.--Grahame (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. When you've got so many EL's you need a separate article, you know you've got too many EL's. Moondyne 08:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a good faith creation, but Wikipedia is not a directory. This sort of page is more suited to being hosted on Wesley College's own website. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. WWGB (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No wikipedia article should consist of primarily external links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this repository of links. Cliff smith ^talk 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unnecessary. - Longhair\^talk 03:36, 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. BJ^Talk 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prem Rawat Foundation[edit]

I came across this article today. I saw very minimal sourcing on the Prem Rawat Foundation itself, and was hard pressed to find substantial, non-trivial reporting about the Prem Rawat Foundation itself to make it notable, beyond finding press releases about their work in charitable giving--but that is any number of similar charities, making this one no more notable than any other. I'm not sure it meets WP:N. Are there multiple non-trivial articles or stories or independent reporting about this group? rootology (C)(T) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a small foundation (budget around $1 or $2 million) with no real claim to notability. It doesn't meet the notability standards set out in WP:ORG. The only "independent" sources are press releases, and the articel is almost entirely sourced from the foundation itself. I've been meaning to nominate this for a while now, aad had alerted involved editors months ago. Despite the warnings they haven't been able to find substantial sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in many news sources[22] including MarketWatch[23], Forbes, PR Newswire[24], Medical News Today[25], The Earth Times[26] and Albuquerque Journal[27]. It is true that the news articles that discuss this charity are more focused on the charities work that the organization itself but this AfD is taking the spirit of ONEEVENT a bit too far. - Icewedge (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, most of the sources you've listed are little more than reprints of press releases. ONEEVENT isn't so much the problem as that the foundation simply doesn't meet the notability stadnards for organizations. Even if we did have independently written articles about this or that charitable contribution, the article is about the foundation, and so we need to have articles about the foundation itself in order to establish notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRNewswire is a source for press releases. Press releases are not reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Rotary International, The Philippine National Red Cross, the Barcelona Forum 2004, the ndonesian Development of Education and Permaculture, the Houston Food Bank, and the UN World Food Program reliable 3rd party sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't really count as 3rd-party sources and those are press releases, so they don't count towards notability. Furthermore, they are about specific charitable donations rather than the foundation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would these 3rd parties press releases not count? If a charitable organization is referred to by third party organizations that surely count. In any case, I think we have presented our arguments already, so let's allow others to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. All kinds of non-notable organizations crank out press releases and pay or trick people into publishing them when they have column space to fill. I don't see how this organization is any different. Kelly ^hi! 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO, are you asserting that the UN World Food Program and other NGOs have bee tricked or paid off? You have got to be kidding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all have to raise money somehow. But press releases are not a measure of notability. We need reliable, neutral sources. Kelly ^hi! 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless we're running out of memory, why would you seek to remove it? This is the foundation of a notable person and provides additional info.Momento (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing about the notability of the foundation's namesake. But there is no sign that the foundation itself is notable. In the Los Angeles, everybody of substance has a foundation. It's not a big deal. This information could easily be merged into the Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. If you are proposing to merge, then why are you !voting delete? I would not oppose a merge. Or are you suggesting that a redirect will not be needed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jossi, you may have forgotten, but I did propose this for merger back in April,[28] and you opposed it.[29] Twice, you told me to nominate it for AfD instead of merging.[30][31] You also said that if it did come up for AfD you would not participate in the discussion.[32] Yet here you are, contradicting yourself and violating your commitment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Added quote from "Indian Life&Style" published by India West founded in 1975. The most honored weekly Indian newspaper in North America. Winner of 28 awards for excellence in journalism.Momento (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's your source for that information? From what I can see it is a small-circulation magazine tending towards puff-pieces.[33] It has 1/7 the circulation of its main competitor.[34][35] Another competitor says it has "minimal visibility and reach." [36] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that only "the most popular" publications are reliable sources? If so we need to do a huge clean up over at Prem Rawat and Millennium.Momento (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm asking you to source your assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making any assertions but here's the publishers home page [37]Momento (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying that this magazine is a reliable source because the publisher's other publication has won awards? Interesting. Anyway, unless that article is about the TPRF then the addition of a quotation doesn't do anything to establish the notability of this foundation. See WP:ORG for the relevant standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added quote from Leaders magazine - LEADERS is the only worldwide magazine that deals with the broad range of leadership thoughts and visions of the world's most influential people. LEADERS was founded in 1978 by Henry O. Dormann.Momento (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nice, but a quote mentioning the foundation in passing doesn't establish it's notability. What we need is an article devoted to the foundation itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete appears to fail the notability criteria as well as verifiability. Only coverage I can find are press releases (which no matter what publication they appear in are primary sources). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The sources presented in that article are not primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. The foundation's own website and press releases put out by the organisation are the very definition of primary source. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are self-published sources, which is different, and can be used with some caveats as per policy. In addition, there are many other sources unrelated to this organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the caveats is that self-published sources may not be used to establish notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What primary sources? I see all but one to be non-sepf published sources. Unless you are asserting that the UN World Food Program, The Philippine Red Cross, and Rotary International are "self-published", which is certaninly not the case: See WP:SPS, which refers to "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at the Rotary website. Link rot? Wherever they are, they appear to be press releases. WP:ORG, specifically says that press releases don't count towrds notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red again, my highlight: Press releases where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself - These are not from the foundation, but from highly regarded NGOs. -≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance is that those are press releases written by TPRF and posted to those websites. For example, there is text in the PRC page that is a verbatim copy of what's in published TPRF press releases. So it does appear to be the TPRF talking about itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "appearances" are misleading. Who are theses press release from? Who is signing them? In which website are these published? Just look at the source.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the archive copy of the Rotary press release.[38] It devotes two sentences to TPRF. Is it your contention that two sentences in a deleted press relase establish notability? As for the other press relases, they published by U.S Newswire. But you already knew that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Newsire is just the outlet for these releases. The publishers are the organizations that sign the release. But I am sure you already knew that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "signed", but they do say, "Contact: The Prem Rawat Foundation, 310-392-5700 or pressrelations(At)tprf.org" at the end. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources which have yet to be incorporated into the article are available here: Talk:The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation/Sources . The relevant guideline for non-commercial organizations is available here: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations [User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then include them in the article after making sure that they actually conform to the policy cause they sure didn't look like they did when I looked earlier. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in editing that article, but you are welcome to look into these sources and add it yourself if you assess these sources as being independent of the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated above I had a look before commenting in the AfD to begin with. If you who seems to think they are adequate can't be bothered to include them why, should I who believes they aren't adequate to the task do it for you?Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Will's statement above. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguments for keeping this article are very weak, especially so given the commitment level of those who argue to keep it. If there are relevant 3rd-party articles produced, I will consider changing my mind. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is somewhat disingenuous to challenge the "level of commitment of people of those who argue to keep it" when you and the the editor above you, who are declared critics of the subject of this article are single purpose accounts: Maelefique (talk · contribs) - Sylviecyn (talk · contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are single purpose editors on both sides, so you're right that it doesn't help the discussion to get into it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree. There is one SPA for keep and two SPAs for delete. Hope other non-involved editors can contribute to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Let's see- you complain when involved editors make a comment, then you complain when uninvolved editors participate?[39] Maybe it'd be better if you let this AfD take its course without further complaints about the participants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi's Conflict of Interest. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a declared critic of the subject of the article, is that some kind of new tactic? Paint people that disagree with you with colours that are easier to fight against? And nothing against Sylviecyn, but I hardly think we have anything in common, she's an ex-premie, and up until Feb, I had never even heard of Prem Rawat. Bit of a silly comparison really. I'm disinterested in PR, however Jossi and friends (hey, that sounds like a ... never mind...) are clearly highly motivated to make PR's star shine as brightly as possible, (I don't think that can be argued against with a straight face), so where's this "disingenuous"-ness to which Jossi refers? No idea...I am a declared critic of revisionist history though, but we're not talking about that here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rootology. Also, Will's concerns on notability are valid. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of being given several months to do so by WillBeback, editors have apparently been unable to find independent, reliable sources for this article. The content should probably occupy a sentence or two at most in the Prem Rawat article, if it's currently unlocked for editing. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Enigma ^message 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as there is no need to dispose of a lot of relevant information collected in the article. As for notability, there may be some difference of appraisal depending on whether you are recipient or donor of what TPRF does, or just happily busy with your POV.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many notable people have foundations and organizations which further their philanthropic of social ideals. Few of those organizations achieve encyclopedic notability. This foundation, whatever its good works, appears to have not (yet) been the subject of any significant verifiable coverage that would establish notability. Delete, as such, without prejudice should notability be established in the future. user:j (aka justen) 07:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the delete rationale provided in above comments by Rootology, Will Beback, Cla68, and J. Attempts to find significant coverage and discussion of the subject of this article in independent sources not affiliated with the subject of the article itself were unsuccessful:

A search in LexisNexis for "Prem Rawat Foundation" revealed 199 results - all press releases, except for about 5 hits to the same secondary source article, in the Evening Standard (partial view at HighBeam Research): Mendick, Robert (May 31, 2007). "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal". The Evening Standard. Daily Mail and General Trust.
A search in InfoTrac yielded only one press release - and about 8 instances again of the Evening Standard article.
In a search in Newsbank 15 results came up - 5 of those were yet again to the same Evening Standard article from May 2007. The rest are all extremely brief mentions only, which appear to be publicity placements, a few press releases, and one or two other bits which focus mainly on Prem Rawat and do not give significant discussion of "The Prem Rawat Foundation", other than that it is "based in Los Angeles". A few others are newswire releases built mainly on "according to an announcement by the foundation..." - and then a large quoted section of a press release from the foundation. There is one other secondary source, The Courier Mail, which does not appear to be related to or drawn from press releases, but the mention of the "Prem Rawat Foundation" is only in passing: Thomas, Hedley (April 21, 2004). "Maharaji's inner peace in a tent doesn't come cheap". The Courier Mail. p. 11. Shares in Myrine Investments Ltd, a private company incorporated in the Channel Islands which owns the land, are held for the Prem Rawat Foundation, but Elan Vital officials say Maharaji "receives no financial benefit".
No real significant discussion in books, only a passing mention here: Arweck, Elisabeth (2006). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Routledge. pp. Page 31. ISBN 0415277558. It is true that the foundation of some movements occurred earlier. For example, Soka Gakkai and Divine Light Mission (DLM, now Elan Vital/Prem Rawat Foundation), were founded in the 1930s.
Was unable to find significant discussion in scholarly works/academic journals.

Please provide further comments below, and not interspersed in my above comment. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No call for merging it with Prem Rawat yet? -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 08:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was proposed a few months ago and rejected by eitors on both sides of the issue. That's not binding on us here and now, of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rootology, Will Beback, Cla68, J and Cirt. Not merge, as content is peripheral to the Prem Rawat BLP, where the existence of TPRF and Rawat’s relationship to TPRF can be recored, but all other content of the TPRF article is extraneous to the BLP. TPRF is doubly non notable because it's only public activity is providing small level grants for ‘humanitarian’ purposes, the grants are made to ‘delivery agencies’ which are themselves notable and it is in WP articles on those entities where noting TPRF grants might have relevance. Although given the low levels of the grants even that may not meet notability criteria. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPS don't establish WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion moved to talk page MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 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. BJ^Talk 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gods And Mortals MMORPG[edit]

Not notable game. Could not find any third-party citations mentioning it. prodded. author removed prod without comment. Owlmonkey (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author says its under construction, should be deleted until the author can provide a worthy article about the game that is notable with reliable independent references as backup. Maybe it would be best for the author to copy it to a subpage or save it on his computer to work on. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable since no verifiable sources can be found nor are they included by anyone with a bit more knowledge of this. Doesn't matter if it's under construction or not. MuZemike (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I am noting the apparent conflict of interest and reporting to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even seem to exist (no relevant Google hits for "Gods And Mortals" MMORPG), and any real MMORPG would have at least some web presence. Even if it did exist, it's just one of a billion Flash-based browser games and unsuitable for a WP article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the page but could not find the time to add more. Now I put plenty of data in it and will add more sub articles to it. I am still learning the wiki standards and formats. The game is currently in development and its not a world mega corporation creation but my college license project. When I complete the multiplayer aspect of the game(at least a stable version) you will have the references. Please remove the article from the deletion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodsAndMortals (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — GodsAndMortals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Next time, please add new comments to the bottom of the discussion. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once an article is under AfD, it can only be removed once it is closed, and an admin decides to keep, delete, or other the article, based on the arguments given. Please read WP:AFD as well as WP:COI if you have not from the talk page already. MuZemike (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GodsAndMortals said it all - Game is not notible. Nor, is it likely to be in any near future. In addition, a clear COI conflict. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A COI conflict from the Department of Redundancy Department! MuZemike (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to userify it, and re-create when reliable references are available. Do mind the WP:COI requirements though please. Arakunem^Talk 17:34, 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 redirect to Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. BJ^Talk 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anheuser-Busch InBev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

After my previous nomination, article was moved to Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. However, another article has now been created at Anheuser-Busch InBev. It says, "When approved by regulators", again ignoring WP:CRYSTAL. Superm401 - Talk 05:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Anheuser-Busch InBev into merger. -- Suntag ☼ 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close An AFD is not needed. Just revert it back to the redirect and point the editor who created the new content to the old afd discussion. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then recreate redirect. Agree that Anheuser-Busch InBev should redirect to Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. However, going ahead and deleting the article now will make it easier to move the "proposed merger" article to Anheuser-Busch InBev should the merger indeed be approved. user:j (aka justen) 07:14, 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. Black Kite 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Adhikary[edit]

The subject is not notable and known for one event, an event which is not notable itself. No reference given, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS suggest it should be deleted. However, such articles have been discussed earlier under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Gurung. WP is not My Space. Hitro 04:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why do you think Miss Nepal is not a notable event? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not about Miss Nepal, but about sub-category of that competition which is known as Miss Nepal International. When you go through the article Miss Nepal, you will realize that Miss Adhikary has won some branched competition of the main event. The link of the official website is available within Miss Nepal, you may check that Miss Nepal International is just one of the category. Either be the case, winning a beauty competition doesn't make anyone an encyclopedic personality. We should not have a separate page for every winner of every competition from every country. According to established policies, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted," however, there is no reliable sources though. Hitro 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much what Hitro has said, I just don't see how this is noteworthy. I don't think she has actually won anything to start with, she just qualified really to go to Miss International. Another contestant. Anyway, still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maedin\^talk 12:28, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika Rajbhandari[edit]

The subject is not notable and known for one event, an event which is not notable itself. No reference given, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS suggest it should be deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a My Space or collection of Indiscrimate facts. Hitro 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another nn bio created by an editor who is on a mission to indiscriminately add articles such as this. Mayalld (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This really just isn't noteworthy. Miss Rajbhandari won a locally televised modelling competition with only 16 participants and is mentioned as the winner in the article on the programme, Mega Model Nepal. Giving her her own article to state this fact again is pushing it! This hardly meets any of Wikipedia's notability critera. Maedin\^talk 07:04, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunchhang Moktan Tamang[edit]

The subject is not notable and known for one event, an event which is not notable itself. No reference given, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS suggest it should be deleted. However, such articles have been discussed earlier under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Gurung. Hitro 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure how much my opinion will count here, as the previous AfD that is linked to is one I started. At least that one was for Miss Nepal contestants (most of them only runner-ups); but Miss Tourism Nepal? Wikipedia is not the place for every winner of every contest of every country in the world: not only is it a single event that Miss Tamang is being noted here for, but she has a mention as winner on the Miss Tourism Queen Nepal page, which is all her article is saying, too. I think that the article for the contest could be expanded and improved (I'm not sure if that's not notable or not), which would go towards improving the coverage of Nepalese beauty events. Creating articles for the contestants isn't the way to do that. Maedin\^talk 06:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly nn Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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. BJ^Talk 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gog.com[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This company is not yet open for business, so it cannot possibly have any notability. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company is in it's beta stage, and I can verify that it is working. I think that it passes the notability guidelines. The company is part of CD Projekt, and there is an interview [ttp://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3169758 here]. JagDragon♫ (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix I'm not enough of a wikipedia-er to know what counts as a legitimate source, but 1up had an interview with GoG. Does that count? http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3169758 I doubt if places like Kotaku are good sources, but a simple google search turned up the 1up thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.4.22 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Add about three WP:RS to demonstrate notablity. We66er (talk) 01:03, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crap Old Days[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. No sources found for this upcoming book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BK Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no WP:RS. Sticky Parkin 02:01, 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 as A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (Myspace entity)[edit]

Big ol' biographical page without a shred of notability. claims to be a "myspace entity" but no sources exist. Likely COI too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious autobiography that does not assert a shred of notability. I've tagged it as WP:CSD#A7. Cunard (talk) 04:18, 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. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous performers at The Houston Livestock Show And Rodeo[edit]

Trivial list. These artists have nothing in common besides the venue they played at, only of interest to a couple people i'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems pretty obvious. maxsch (talk) 22:59, 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 Deltree (delete all). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Route 1[edit]

Apparent hoax along with two others, listed below Grahame (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all Almost nobody lives in Antarctica, so I doubt they have highways. Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Antarctic Route 1 to McMurdo-South Pole highway which is definitely notable. I'm neutral on the others for now. Sure, Antarctica doesn't have many permanent residents, but the infrastructure there is very important and significant. Almost nobody lives in the oil producing camps in the Canadian arctic, but the roads to them are so important, there's an entire television series about them. --Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. In an admittedly cursory search, I could find no sources supporting the notion that "Antarctic Route 1" is used to refer to the McMurdo-South Pole highway (and the course described in this article is quite different from that of MM-SP). Do you have any information that would justify the redirect? Deor (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything official referring to "Antarctic Route 1" but there are a few blogs that colloquially refer to it as such. Nobody is advocating an article with such a title, but it is in line with Wikipedia practice and consensus to have redirects of non-official and commonly used terms to the officially termed articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Oakshade, as that is clearly notable. The route numbers are primarily whimsical as they serve negligible navigational purpose. I couldn't find enough information about the other two roads to consider them notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Route 1 as per above. I didn't even know such a thing existed until this moment. The McMurdo article currently shows what appears to be a Route 1 highway sign -- however I would check to make sure that is a legitimate addition. Have no idea about the others, so no opinion about them. 23skidoo (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "highway sign" is an image created by the user who added it to the article. Hardly a reliable source, I think. Deor (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not create or even upload that particular image. Someone else uploaded that 15 months ago, I merely included it in the article. -Naughtylittlepenguinwhore (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23skidoo and I were referring to the image in McMurdo-South Pole highway, not the one in the article under discussion here. I simply doubt that that (Photoshop?) image justifies the redirect that's been suggested. Deor (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect as there isn't sufficient sourcing to verify that the term is an official designation or even a common nickname -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And Category:Antarctic Routes as well. MSGJ 11:39, 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. Black Kite 10:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navel fetishism[edit]

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just about anything can be a fetish really. Nothing sourceable here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of possible WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS violation, in reply to your first sentence: surely you must also include being bitten, smelling things, and setting things on fire, as well? All three of the other articles have the same number of references or less than this one, and are even more exclusive. At least this article is backed up by references to writings by doctors. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 22:58 10 September, 2008 (UTC)

- Comment Maybe we're reading different references here but to my knowledge the first reference does not mention fetishism, and instead it refers to a small number of people experiencing a sensory connection between their navel and their genitals; this is not fetishism - to become sexually aroused when one's genitals are stimulated - the manifestation of a fetish is beyond, or necessarily occurs without physical stimulation of the sexual organs, otherwise sexual pleasure would itself be a fetish. The second reference is to a blog - which is not considered a reliable source of verification. The two external links point to sites for people with an interest in the navel, but only one of those indirectly meets the criteria of what constitutes a fetish (and is a commercial site), with the other more relevant to a fetish for tickling. Redblueball (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say after looking at List of paraphilias that we should keep it. It gives just barely enough references and external links that we can confidently say it exists. Simesa (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment We can't be sure for whom it exists though can we? How do we know (without reliable references) that we're not simply writing an article based on the casual whims of three people on one weekend last spring, or the ideas of world's worst entrepreneur? Redblueball (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete . as already said, ANYTHING can be the focus of a fetish. Only very few are recognised specifically by mental health experts, the others just get grouped together. There is nothing here that merits a unique article, rather than addition to the paraphilias list. (The same can be said about most of the similar stubs).Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as you say, a great many things, though not literally everything--at last not so far-- can be used as a fetish, and for those that actually are, then they are notable, if thre are any reasonable sources at all for their use in fiction or reality. What gets classified by mental health experts has nothing much to do with it. DGG (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Then, what's the reason for "keeping" the article if the fetish can only be referenced to a single commercial web page? What's stopping my friend and I from writing an article about our forearm fetish, or knuckle fetish? Redblueball (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There exist internet-based interest groups for this sexual interest, but there is little science to suggest that it is different from sexual interests focussed on any other non-reproductive body part. I recommend merging it into partialism.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:02, 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, lifebaka++ 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there is a long history of erotic poetry and ancient art that has an erotic focus on the navel. A minute with google scholar dug up many references, including this one... "The navel of an animal is always sweet. Connected intimately to the womb, it is a tunnel and a root. The navel is the knife in the center of the mysterious " -- Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a proof of a fetish... features of the body as represented in art, or features of the body used in poetry to represent the whole (person). If we follow this reasoning we can include anything and leave nothing of the notability of fetishism. Redblueball (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no real WP:RS, no news mentions, the only book mention is 'penthouse' [40], surprisingly, no scholarly mentions.:) Sticky Parkin 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with most of the articles on the fetishes there appears to be an inconsistency over the meaning. It has been said before that anything may be subject to a fetish, but the inconsistency arises over the opinions on the degrees of significance. There are fetishes that are "mere fetishes" - a personal preference akin to a lifestyle choice, and then we have the notable fetishes that are defined by psychological literature, referenced to inanimate objects, and have notability as measured by its popularity within internet groups. From my experience of internet groups a "fetish" may refer to anything at the expense of the realisation that the declared thing of choice may actually be incidental to sexual pleasure, or used like a prop. It is when the object loses its incidental prop-ness that it truly becomes a fetish object. Consequently, I think the "penthouse" reference is probably using "fetish" in its "proppy" sense... use comparable with picking a setting and objects for a porn shoot (properties that are essentially incidental to the human subject). Redblueball (talk) 13:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H10 Hotels[edit]

Unreferenced article about non-notable company. DAJF (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are lots of hotels and hotel chains...don't see what makes this notable. As written, maybe even speediable A7/non-notable company. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hotel, fails WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like there's a good amount of information available from Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 04:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News turns up lots of coverage. A couple of valid references have also been added to the article since the AFD nomination. Reliable sources exist and establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 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. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salat (Universal Sufism)[edit]

This article appears to be non-notable. The subject contains only a specific and questionable prayer for a religious movement. I am also concerned it is a hoax... Additionally, the user who created this has also had other similar articles removed (per their user page). ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Even if it could be established that this prayer exists and is notable, this is not an article. It's a one-line intro and a word-for-word copy of the prayer, and I doubt much more can be said about it. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sufism in Europe and North America by David Westerlund seems to contain a brief mention. Knowing nothing about the subject, I cannot evaluate this source properly. Needs someone who knows something about this topic to look at this discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prayer certainly exists and the article can be expanded and sourced given some time and effort. There is no deadline. To say this is a hoax is pure silliness. There is encyclopedic content present, such as who says the prayer when, who wrote the prayer, and the hand movements that accompany it in traditional practice. Of interest to those researching Innat Khan and/ or Sufism. Stubs are to be edited, not deleted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:57, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource and then delete. The article seems to be almost entirely source material. RayAYang (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not a notable organisation, never mind a particular prayer of theirs. Sticky Parkin 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:55, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTower[edit]

Future software with no suggestion of notability. - Sgroupace (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, future computer simulation game. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and while in the future, once the software is actually released, it may end up being noteworthy, there are no news reports, or media sources available for this title. There are many, many "sim" games out there, but not all are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No software releases, no SVN commits in the last 4 months - this isn't just a non-notable project, it's a non-notable dead project. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ariel. Equendil Talk 08:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is neither SourceForge nor Freshmeat. --SJK (talk) 07:45, 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. There is no consensus here on whether this person passes the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Gosiengfiao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Questioning the basis for having a wikipedia entry for the subject, as this looks more like a vanity page than anything else. While granted, about as relevant as having a Paris Hilton entry in wikipedia, would also like to point out that the latter was already famous worldwide BEFORE a wikipedia entry about her was ever made. This person does not suffer from the same kind of fame. Granting a wiki page for every person with minor mentions in one or two short newspaper articles opens the Pandora's box for every minor cosplayer to do same. Wikipedia is cluttered with trivialities already as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderfield (talk • contribs) — Benderfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, no, no and again, no. (sighs) these fanboys still don't get it. I'd still stick with the same arguments propounded in the first edit (not that notable enough, apparently sourced entry actually came from a web-only blog of a Philippine newspaper in general circulation, no other mention other than in that newspaper)...I'd vote for a delete. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a pretty convincing keep decision only a few months ago. Please bear in mind WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid rationale for nominating an article. There is an appeals process out there if you really feel strongly that this article doesn't belong, but on May 7 it was kept after undergoing the AFD process and for AFD to remain viable articles that are kept cannot be re-nominated after such a short interval in order to get a desired result. I know there's the whole "consensus can change" argument that is addressed at WP:NOTAGAIN, however I don't believe consensus can change in only a few months. 23skidoo (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete not remotely notable, no WP:RS [41] . Sticky Parkin 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that web archiving in the Philippines is not Google-friendly. Starczamora (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her again? The subject, although little known in mainstream entertainment, has received numerous valid citations as a cosplayer. Starczamora (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:RS? Links please:) Sticky Parkin 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All i heard from her are bits from news stories. Very popular in the local blogosphere though. Web archiving is accessible in the Philippines if you use the Internet Archive#Wayback Machine. –Howard the Duck 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is this article and this article where she is the primary subect which establishes notability. Oddly though, the only reference in the article is from a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging them out. I don't know if two articles in the same publication, in 'youth' and 'lifestyle' sections, (presuming these were published IRL) and not many other mentions in WP:RS, make her notable. I suspect not. We usually want someone to have been mentioned more than twice. Is there a Phillipines wikipedia? She might be more notable there, but probably not a lot. The one article goes on about the success of her Deviantart page.:) Sticky Parkin 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - These links were from the first AFD. It a couple of articles where she is the main subject is enough to clear the notability bar for me. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 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. I am willing to userfy this article for anyone interested in creating a Dell Computer Models macro-article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dell XPS M1530[edit]

Fails WP:N, the Dell XPS series itself is notable, but that doesn't mean this specific notebook within the series is notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual models, within a series (e.g. Dell XPS), are not notable. [Hey, and I'm writing this on an XPS M1210!] --SJK (talk) 07:35, 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. Consensus is these albums don't meet the label criteria of WP:Music and no evidence of notability TravellingCari 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Sovereign[edit]

Band claims to have released two albums, thus satisfying WP:BAND, but the article lacks any third-party reference sources to verify notability. DAJF (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The albums don't allow them to pass because they haven't been released "on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Album articles claim they're on the label GDL. Who is? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With a bit more time on my hands, I have tried googling for information about the record label "GDL", without any success. The fact that googling for third-party reviews of the two albums only turns up wiki entries and blogs written by persons involved in the bands, also makes the group's notability appear increasingly suspect. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. As far as I can tell, these were effectively self-published albums, or the next thing to -- certainly not major indie in the WP:MUSIC sense. I'm also getting bupkis on reviews or notice. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Delete. LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, JSTOR (checked it for fun), and Worldcat produce nothing for the rock band "Genetic Sovereign". If we can't get any English-language coverage from these powerful databases, we have a serious problem. Factiva, in particular, doesn't produce any Japanese-language coverage either, making me think this band will be hard-pressed to meet our standard notability guidelines. Obviously, WP:MUSIC is the band's best chance at survival here. GDL, as a label, appears to get some coverage in the press making me think that this Japanese label *might* have a little notability. Finally, there's the issue of the band's lead singer, Adeyto Rex Angeli. Is she notable? Again, the answer seems negative, despite an unverifiable Japanese-language TV interview on her website. So, on balance, I think this band is a really weak keep for now, but could really go either way. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you post some links that demonstrate media coverage of the GDL recording label, please, as I had no luck turning up anything on Google. Japanese language sources are fine. --DAJF (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm not surprised that you couldn't find anything. As I said above, this situation was a very weak keep candidate for me bordering on deletion. GDL *might* have a little notability, but after spending another full hour reviewing the LexisNexis database results, I'm changing my opinion to delete. I re-checked the results (and was prepared to just post the relevant passages with the citations) by typing in the keywords "GDL" AND "label" AND "music". Four results -- all of which were false positives. I also excluded "music" and got 97 hits. Having read carefully the first 20 articles now, they too are false positives. I'm inclined to think that the other 77 articles won't be any different, so my apologies for the previous "weak keep" recommendation. It's really a delete for me now. J Readings (talk) 00:59, 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. No consensus to delete here. As to whether to keep as an independent list or merge to the main character list, that's an editorial decision that doesn't require continuation of this AfD. TravellingCari 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Mortal Kombat characters[edit]

Only one subject on the entire page has any links to any sufficient amount of notability, and that can be covered better in the parent game article. The rest are a collection of minor and mainly one-shot characters in the series. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually don't object to character lists, but these are really minor, including things like unnamed guards and even fan characters who don't appear in the games at all! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The characters are minor (that indeed is the point). However, collectively there is enough information here, on what was a landmark in video games. The information is useful and reliably sourced. It needs some cleanup, but no reason to delete. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean... come on, look at it. o_o JuJube (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable trivial information. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series 70.51.9.124 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finish him! errr. delete or redirect to List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series. This should probably be the fate of most List of minor characters in XYZ series, but that is a case by case matter. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some relevancy to this article (including the "fakes" section, as they were well-publicized when initially released), and I've removed characters who had minute roles or never actually appeared in the games at all. Beemer69 ^chitchat 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs pruning, not deleting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — excessive undue weight given to these minor characters in the form of superfluous plot summary. That or merge into the character list. No need to cover excessively minor characters. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merging on the talk page & I do not care much about the result. Whether to have one list of two for the characters here really seems a trivial question--the real problem is providing sufficient suitable information. WP:NOT PLOT does not specify what counts as superfluous, and, needless to say, neither does WEIGHT. The citing of these guidelines gives me the impression that the real question is about how much content to include, a question that does not really belong here either, though I have definite opinions about that--it should be enough for a person unfamiliar with the game to understand the role & significance of a character.DGG (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I, too, am not very fond of users trying to dance around WP:N by making "minor characters" lists when they find that the main list consensus says that minor characters only get a trivial mention at best due to lack of verifiability. It gets obvious when such lists contain mostly original research and are either poorly referenced or completely unreferenced altogether. MuZemike (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All it needs is a bit of work. RobWill80 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a small table in List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series. Take care of giving them the appropriate WEIGHT and not just copy the descriptions in the List. Then delete the List with the minor characters. It's an unlikely search material. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EVula and DGG. S. Luke (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as to me minor means not notable, and if it isnt notable doesnt belong on wikipedia. Salavat (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They would certainly be non-notable on their own, but their is plenty of precedent for keeping character lists composed mainly or entirely of minor characters. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series, which doesn't exclude minor chars. maxsch (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the "keep" arguments have shown how this article can realistically meet our WP:N and WP:V requirements if no real reliable third-party sources exist on this topic. A trivial mention in one reliable third-party source that one character got cut doesn't let dozens of characters piggyback their way to inclusion. Randomran (talk) 15:47, 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 merge to List_of_Shadow_Skill_characters#Kain_Phalanx (which I've done). Black Kite 10:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kain Phalanx[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His six month moritorium has passed. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common precident and WP:BEFORE (and what used to be WP:FICT) into List of Shadow Skill characters. A cursory search finds not even hints that this character is independently notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this should never have been a separate article. But it should have been at least a redirect, so the nomination seems pointless. Perhaps the moratorium should be continued. DGG (talk) 23:35, 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 redirect to The_Mythical_Detective_Loki_Ragnarok#Characters. (The content is already there. so no need to Merge) Black Kite 10:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamino Ryusuke[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Duplicates character details already included in main The Mythical Detective Loki Ragnarok article. --DAJF (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious potential to grow legitimately beyond what's already in the parent article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His six month time off is over. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common precident, WP:BEFORE, and the strong suggestion of what used to be WP:FICT to The Mythical Detective Loki Ragnarok. A cursory search finds only barest hints this character is independently notable; if reliable sources are shown to substantiate his notability, then I'll change to keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this probably should never have been a separate article. But it should have been at least a redirect, so the nomination seems pointless. DGG (talk) 23:37, 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. It's 6 [correction 10] days since the first AfD was opened, which this is a continuation of. Ty 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rocco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Asked to re-list for AfD by an admin-editor who objected to NAC of AfD as keep by me after full listing period, few comments and improvements made to article by an editor Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems to be mostly passing mentions. JJL (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references just aren't significant coverage. Fr33kman's best intentions aside the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion and I can't find any sources that help it enough to keep it. Non-Admin Closure is really meant for the super-obvious stuff like snowballs and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yep, fully agree! The problem was that I read the initial comments of Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs) to mean that he had added sources that "passes" WP:CREATIVE and missed the word "nothing". My only excuse for that is that I am dyslexic: but still... As for closing it, my thought was "nobodies bothered discussing this (it was 5 days old) and theirs a backlog". So tried to be helpful :-). Have altered my conditions for considering a NAC :-) I think the rest I've done were probably correct. Anyone is welcome to review and comment my log Cheers! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, coverage isn't exactly high, doesn't even make a strong claim of notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the rationale given by the nominator in the original, improperly-closed AfD. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked for sources, per my comment on the original AfD, but haven't turned up anything to justify a keep. I agree the AfD was improperly closed, but I don't think it's a big deal. A no-consensus tending to keep might have been appropriate given the lack of discussion.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:51, 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 redirect to We the Kings. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Clark[edit]

Contested prod; reason given was not notable outside of the band. This is a procedural nomination, and I have no opinion. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band, not notable outside band. No need for a deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band per WP:MUSIC, article hasn't "..demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band...". Same goes for his band mates Danny Duncan, Drew Thomsen and Hunter Thomsen. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band this person is a part of, as well as the other members, as explained above. Ariel♥Gold 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:MUSIC Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:35, 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 delete. I'm a crystal ball'er... seicer | talk | contribs 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club (season four)[edit]

Poorly written, unverified and overly promotional. Seems purely speculatory at this point. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverified speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Crystal Ball-ery. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, show is not even to air until 2009, quite a way in the future, much can happen between now and then. When the airing is imminent, if notable, chances are it will have media coverage, and can then be re-created. Ariel♥Gold 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:CRYSTAL, non verifiable and no sources. macy 19:08, 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 No consensus (default keep). I recommend that this article be improved to address the mentioned concerns, and failing that, renomination in a few months would be appropriate. Although already having been relisted, this discussion has failed to attract very much participation, and it is not possible to find clear consensus in it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable group. Performs at Disneyland with rotating members, only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a search through Google News shows there are articles from the Buffalo News, LA Times, Modesto Bee, and Las Vegas Review-Journal behind pay walls but the summaries indicate that they are the primary subjects of the article. As such, reliable sources do appear to be available offline to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything more than trivial mentions in there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply The articles are all behind pay walls, but based on the article title, and the lead sentence in the summary, it's quite clear they are the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 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, X clamation point 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete non-notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is sufficient proof that the article behind a pay wall has Billy Hill and the Hillbillies as their main subject. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:45, 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. Anyone who wants the content for the purpose of merging can contact me. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi canon and continuity[edit]

This is pure original research and completely unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references provided are very weak (or in one case no longer online), and search for other supporting material covering what is canon turns up forum posts. As such, verifiability is a huge problem. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 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, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty standard Don't Do This OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be merged. This is not a justified separate article. DGG (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Degrassi. Some of the article is not OR, although I cannot tell what is and what isn't. PK T 16:43, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons After[edit]

Fails to meet notability. Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single reference is a college newspaper. Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 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, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing 1 date on the Warped Tour is the best they can come up with and that still fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who added the one independent reference, an article in a college newspaper. That was all I could find when I searched. I agree that this is insufficient for WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 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. TravellingCari 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be Remix)[edit]

Non-notable remix; delete or merge into existing song article Ros0709 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a need to merge, remixes with very few exceptions are universally unnotable. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content to merge, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:34, 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, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really need "a more thorough discussion"? Delete per WP:SNOW & all the above. tomasz. 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:57, 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 Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Brando[edit]

Unreleased movie, WP:Crystal, does not meet notability requirements, and is not likely to until it is released. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this Variety story from May 2006 says that shooting began in May 2006, but I wasn't able to find much else. Cliff smith ^talk 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the second sentence is word-for-word from the plot summary on imdb. Corvus cornix_talk 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 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, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough coverage (including the NY Times and Washington Post) found in the Google News archive. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has been upgraded somewhat. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:30, 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. Notability appears to have been clearly proven during the course of the debate by Cunard and further concerns with the article are manageable enough to be resolved by regular editing. (A quick review of it showed that there is nothing really urgent, but some sections resemble company website info to some degree) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyland Software[edit]

Fails WP:ADS WP:CORP WP:SOFTWARE Delete Shortbrother (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major COI issues, including one editor involved with the article and the company founder correcting his own name. If we can get an NPOV write-up of this, it can be saved, but in the current form, it's a NPOV nightmare. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I posted the following on Friday on this talk page:Nate, but thought it was more appropriately posted here. Also, welcome Shortbrother to the Wikipedia community, way to be bold with your first contribution.

Hi, I started this article and would like to discuss your reasons for deletion. I understand that I am the primary editor with few exceptions, but can that be an argument since I can't exactly seek out other users to edit it? I am an advocate for NPOV as well; please let me know if I can improve the article. Thanks for your dedication to improving Wikipedia! Kaitlin510 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard, multiple sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per this Google News Archive search. There are multiple articles from Forbes magazine as well as PR Newswire, Business Wire, and a number of other reliable sources. The article doesn't appear to be that spammy in its current form. I can only find fault with the section titled Hyland Software#Corporate Culture which contains several paragraphs of promotional material. I've since removed that. The article should not be deleted. This company is notable due the wide media coverage it has received. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitter Quitter Records[edit]

no reliable sources, all the links seem to be blogs Jessi1989 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just removed a huge section of the article as a copyvio from the record company's website. The creator's user name also shows they are one of the record company's artists. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources, no notable acts on the label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS, fails WP:CORP. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:57, 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 delete. Not a speedy, but also not notable. TravellingCari 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Federation for World Peace[edit]

Not notable. Sourced only by group's own website. A Google search brings up a few mentions in news stories but not enough for an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google book, web, and scholar searches aren't giving me much confidence here in the YFWP's notability, and neither does the fact that Google news is empty for it. Delete unless something can be found to show notability. lifebaka++ 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Has been around for a decade and accomplished absolutely nothing of note. Narrowly avoids speedy deletion by claiming a high member count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Wind Tour[edit]

Tours generally aren't notable unless there are sufficient sources. I see none, except for one which includes a rather fishy setlist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing really exists to make this tour notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Equendil Talk 22:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable or interesting about the tour, although I'm sure it was lots of fun. An encyclopedia is intended to give basic information on people (or bands), not every detail on where they were and what they did every moment of their careers. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sort of references that establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:54, 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. No sources have been found, no objection to re-creation once sources are found. TravellingCari 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algoryx Simulation[edit]

Nonnotable company, doesn't seem to have been acknowledged by reliable independent sources. Also nominating its products AgX Multi Physics and Phun 2D Physics Sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously all other Physics engines on the planet, and their makers, do have an entry in wikipedia, so this proposed deletion would not be consistent with the overall policy of this topic, unless a total deletion of it planned..

Here's a reference for you:

Phun was shown in the Intel Developer Forum opening forum keynote speech on Aug 19 2008, by Intel corporation chairman of the board, and Algoryx was also referenced. The opening forum keynote was by Intel chairman of the board Craig R. Barrett, and the theme was "Inspiring Innovation". The keynote webcast is available from Intel's IDF pages, and an excerpt is also found at Youtube. Other software displayed was e.g. Google earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth, Photosynth.

I am honest about placing these things in wikipedia, and could certainly have done it under the name Donald Duck, or whatever, but I didn't want to do that, since I have the deepest respect respect for wikipedias integrity, and I have done my best to be neutral. While the entries certainly can be improved, I would appreciate getting concrete constructive criticism for them, rather than deletion which I honestly believe is very unfair. Kenbon (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no coverage to establish notability in the 140 or so unique GHits. If someone can find that coverage and add it to the articles I will reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, could you explain which search leads to 140 GHits. We're talking about three different wikipedia entries, I would appreciate if you explained which one gives 140 and with what search term.Kenbon (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One should not even judge the notability of an article through Google. The Conundrumer^T_C 13:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party sources cited in the articles. No suggestion that the topics are notable in any of the articles. Being mentioned at the Intel Developer Forum is a good start, but that's still only one third party source. The existance of many other articles on physics engines is a sign that there are other deletable articles out there, not a sign that this one should be kept. GDallimore (Talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. We66er (talk) 01:50, 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. Redirect considered, but this is an unlikely search term. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Britney Spears songs[edit]

BSpears already has album/singles pages as well as a discography page. This article fails WP:NOT#IINFO and a lot of this information is unsourced, such as "leaked songs" and "working titles". It also contains a bunch of titles that she supposedly sang at various concerts and a few titles from not-yet-released projects. This artist does not have nearly enough recordings to justify such a list (as opposed to, say, The Beatles). eo (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Britney doesn't have enough songs for a list of this sort, and it's mostly "working titles" and other unsourced stuff. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not exactly needed Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the important (read referenced) stuff is already on her disco page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree, it's not exactly needed or necessary. I think it should be redirect to Britney's Discography.Nemo24 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When an artist has a page for every album and a discography, there's literally no use for a list like this. Red157(talk • contribs) 23:56, 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. TravellingCari 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Hebron[edit]

This does not appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:MOVIE. There are no references to any meaningful 3rd party coverage of this made-for TV short documentary. The 2 references given are to short, plot-summary capsules on the websites of film festivals it participated in, without winning any award in either of them. Such short capsules are specifically excluded by the WP:MOVIE crtiteria for notability. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MOVIE Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the guidlines of WP:NOTFILM or otherwise demonstrate notability. A quick google search does not find any reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:40, 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 delete. TravellingCari 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheatreGames LIVE[edit]

Non-notable. Student-produced gameshow with no independent sources. Searches find blog & youtube type hits, and websites of DTV, RMITV (producers of the show) and C31 (which airs the show). Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:22, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, and per precedent against articles for student clubs at a single school. Why on earth was this relisted when it was already unanimous 3-0? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FM S.H.E (S.H.E album)[edit]

The album is confirmed, but it won't be released until later this month. Until then, I don't think it'd be wise to make a crystal ball, even though it's not that far into the future. Wikipedia can certainly wait 13 days. Pandacomics (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it is only 13 days then it should be kept Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 19:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Even assuming the release date has passed, it still fails because of lack of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Just because the artist is notable doesn't automatically make any album they release notable as well. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — to S.H.E until we get info about it, if not, Delete. macy 19:06, 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. /Keep, either way it's a keep. Consensus appears that the article has been improved over the course of the discussion. TravellingCari 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Cucamonga[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this television movie that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks pretty notable to me: shown on a major network and starring a large number of major television stars including John Ratzenberger and Jennifer Aniston. This would seem to meet the "other notability" section of Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Canley (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited, and we are not here to replicate the imdb. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Done and gone. There are hundreds and hundreds of these flashes in the pan. I concur: we do not reiterate IMDB. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A couple of mentions about Jennifer Aniston being in this movie [42], [43], [44]. I found a mention in Entertainment Weekly that give a one line plot summary and a list of the top actors:
- "Television Listings: TELEVISION THE WEEK AT A GLANCE A GUIDE TO NOTABLE SHOWS, SEPT. 21 TO 27." Entertainment Weekly. 21 Sep 1990. 13.

But more interesting was this Boston Globe article that mentions that this is the TV Comedy acting debut of G. Gordon Liddy.

John Engstrom, Globe Staff (1990, August 10). DOING THE RAITT THING :[THIRD Edition]. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext),p. 30. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Captain-tucker's diligent search that give the episode notability. Perhaps he might wish to add them to the article's external links so this does not come back to AfD next week or month? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Have added plot summary, cites, additional cast information, links, and wikified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Something that has n easy-to-prove notability when first aired, would be more difficult to show 18 years later. Thank goodness for WP:GNG's "notability is not temporary." Good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources that CT found are only mentions and plot summaries so that does not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not allowed to determine that an 18-year-old made for TV special is "no longer notable", simply because full reviews are harder to find. It was first reviewed in 1990 and launched some notable careers. It had notability at that time. It continues to be mentioned (even if marginally) over an 18 year timespan. This shows notability per WP:NF. And, per WP:GNG, notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, he actually found it listed in an article called "a Guide to Notable Shows" and that's not notable? --Canley (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note My sources have been added to the article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the nom would have found it. Glad it was added, as trying to find information on 18-year-old notable shows can be difficult... though as proven, not impossible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice improvement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 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 Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aneros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable sex toy. No independent reliable source prove its notability. Tosqueira (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anecdotally popular and among the more frequently stocked toys. Need some good sources to keep the article, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising and a novelty novelty. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. We66er (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as something present in essentially every advertisement for such things from multiple companies pervasive throughout the web. formal sources for such things are fairly rare, so for things that are clearly notable, we use common sense. DGG (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common sense. The only way to prove notability is by WP:IS WP:RS. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Tosqueira (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of discussion in blogs and presence in sex-toy stores. Here's a link to a magazine article where it is discussed http://www.fabmagazine.com/features/313/come.html . And that should be enough for basic notability. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple google search validates it's popularity and uniqueness. The Msnbc.com article is by Brian Alexander, a featured writer on the site. Arena Magazine, Details, and wide variety of book references, serving as independent and reliable sources, validate its notability. cometmaker (talk) 21:31, 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. Although by far not an ideal AfD, what with incivility and sockpuppets, spa's, etc; it is evident that reliable sources were ultimately provided that even satisfied those originally opining delete who continued to follow the discussion. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hamilton (guitarist)[edit]

I'm really not certain about this article. Based on my limited knowledge of WP:MUSIC, I am concerned this entry does not qualify under the notability rules. The artist seems to have produced one CD, though recorded with numerous notable artists -- is this sufficient for notability? MidgleyDJ (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article conforms to the guidelines of notability and the facts are verifiable. Many of the albums Mike Hamilton has performed on are certified gold and platinum in many countries. Several of the hit songs on these albums have been nominated for and received the Grammy. Some of these albums have been nominated for the Grammy. Truly recognized studio musicians in pop, jazz, blues and rock are always going to be interesting and notable encyclopedic material. Many music fans of all ages are fascinated by these types of facts. Mike Hamilton's documented work as a studio musician and touring sideman for major league music artists must stop being questioned here. This article has been improved some (Discography) but some vital information has been lost. I trust that we will try to rebuild the new improved version as time goes on. In response to Midgley DJ, many notable and prolific instrumentalists have none or very few CDs/albums under their own name because they're too busy making tons of music on other bandleaders' albums. Just do a little research and the notability of Mike Hamilton's contributions in pop/rock/new age music will make sense to you.Mikehamilton (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Mikehamilton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete; autobiographical. Simply taking part as a session artist does not infer notability; nor should a claim for grammy nominations count as there is no way of knowing if the artist in question did anything that caused the nominations. No third party references either and google doesn't appear to find anything useful (although it is a common name) --Blowdart | ^talk 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment; Taking part as a session artist on projects such as these CONFIRMS notability. It reads so in the guidelines. The Grammy nominations are not merely claims, they are fact. How about his guitar playing and singing were a part of the MUSIC that received the nomination and the awards. Hamilton was a member of the Kenny Loggins Band for about 7 years. (longer than the Beatles were together)They performed on Satruday Night Live and every Major rock concert hall in all of the USA sharing the bill with Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Chick Corea, Al Di Miola, Hall and Oates, Jack Tempchin, Larry Carlton, The Cars (before they were famous) Dave Mason, Firefall -This stuff should be in Hamilton's article Please visit in wikipedia; Eric Drew Feldman, Peter Kater, Jack Tempchin, Moris Tepper. This type of article is standard procedure for people like them and Mr. Hamilton. Someone hiding behind something as disgusting as "blowdart" shouldn't even be allowed to discuss these matters in this forum. I'm insulted. What are the credentials of blowdart to discuss studio and concert performing musicians? signed, archivist.Mikehamilton (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Mikehamilton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment If you/he was a member of the Kenny Loggins band for 7 years then you should be able to find a reference. Sharing the bill with others does not prove notability; notability is not inherited. Looking at your examples Eric Drew Feldman is mentioned in a book and has his own band, as well as producing albums, Peter Kater appears to have been grammy nominated as himself, not on the "coattails" of others' works, Jack Tempchin has his own albums and writing credits on notable songs, and Moris Tepper appears to have been part of a band, not just a simple sesson artist. The article in question fails WP:MUSIC. I would remind you that personal attacks and attempts to wikilawyer or insult other users are a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette.--Blowdart | ^talk 13:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This decision isn't about who Blowdart thinks wins the popularity contest. The references and sources are verifiable and the achievements are notable. Mitch Mitchell was not riding on the "coattails" of Jimi Hendrix or maybe Blowdart wants to argue about that too.Twelvetone (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck this "vote" as the user has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ask me if session guys get too little attention, and I'll say "yes." Ask me if they're the unsung heroes of rock, and I'll say "yes." Ask me if these largely anonymous workers are encyclopedic, when they remain session guys and unsung, and I'll say "no." When a session guy does a solo project or writes a book or does something as himself, then there is a chance for a biography. Until then, this is a person working to be heard and not known, a person working from charts, not a person who is composing, and he is at the level of a player in an orchestra. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, and with a COI/vanity problem thrown in. Mikehamilton's behaviour in this AfD isn't helping matters any, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. WP:COI and WP:OWN concerns. Oh, and Mike, The Beatles existed for ten years (1960 to 1970), not seven. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~; The references are listed and they are valid. When a session guy is a featured soloist he is a notable part of the music, and all this snobbery and vanity in the" delete comments" is wasting all of our time. Look at the sequence of album release. Loggins had a steady BAND for several years and Hamilton was in it. signed, archivistMikehamilton (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Mikehamilton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply Liner notes aren't what we mean when we talk about reliable sources. What's needed are magazine articles, newspaper articles, and books that have been written about this person, sources that we can use to verify information about the musician and his importance in his field. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck this second "vote" from the same account. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If reliable sources of information about this person are not available, then there is no way to verify the information in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have reverted two edits by a new user User:Flatnine. This was a new account that simply changed the comments by Mikehamilton to be signed by itself, and changed the Do not delete text to keep. The fact that it was a new user, who removed signatures and attempted to take ownership of the obviously COI votes smells. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Here's why. In Wikipedia go to "Articles For Deletion". Now read the section on "How to discuss an AfD". You will learn that every single vote to delete on this page uses improper and unacceptable logic and criticism. This is NOT a vote or a top 20 countdown popularity contest. Notable means able to be noted and/or worthy to be noted. If this were not the case, the Mike Hamilton (guitarist) article would have received speedy deletion days ago. Some very cynical and bitter critics keep trying to state "Oh, this guy is more notable than that guy" or " Who does he think he is claiming that rhythm and improvised lead guitar and harmony vocals have anything to do with relevant and notable music." These kind of sour grapes comments have no place in this forum as stated in theHOW TO DISCUSS AN AfD section of Wikipedia. These delete - enthusiasts also continually and blatantly ignore the valid and complete REFERENCES AND LINKS so clearly stated in the Hamilton article. Some of these more corrupt hacker- types have repeatedly been deleting entries in the References section. I say the only verdict is to KEEP so everybody can get back to work.Twelvetone (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Twelvetone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "Notable means able to be noted and/or worthy to be noted." Actually, in the context of WP:N it means not just "worthy of note" but that it actually has been noted, as evidenced by the presence of the requisite reliable, verifiable, independent sources. That I think something deserves note or is worthy of note is immaterial. What matters is; have other people/publications already noted the subject of the article. Now looking through some of the concert reviews and such in the Press link of the artist's website there do seem to be cases where he is mentioned in more than just a line-up list, which may meet the "significant coverage" criteria. It would be a damned site easier to justify notability if there were some kind of feature on the Kenny Loggins band which addressed Hamilton directly in that context though. Right now a chunk of the notability is by inference, which makes it marginal. MadScot (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think MadScot Speaks the truth when he notes the fact that the verifiable resources and sources meet the "significant coverage" criteria. This article is not just about Hamilton with the Kenny Loggins Band although that is a strong phase of his career.Twelvetone (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — Twelvetone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Twelvetone has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I said "may meet the "significant coverage" criteria". I'm not convinced either way, I simple note that they exist and leave it for others to decide. To my mind right now it's marginal, neither keep nor delete. I can't believe that if someone were the member of an established backing band for the time here that they wouldn't have the requisite source out there somewhere, but I can't find it. Probably due to the time/pre-internet factor. MadScot (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Mikehamilton has been using User:Twelvetone and User:Flatnine as sockpuppets in an attempt to vote rig. --Blowdart | ^talk 05:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Blowdart's comment about Hamilton and sockpuppeting can only be an assumption or a misunderstanding. We have discovered some new hard evidence/proof of the verifiable nature of the Hamilton article's content. They are legitimate discography and album personnel facts. There are some album reviews that mention Hamilton as well. We will list a few here. On the internet we start at Google but you can probably go to the websites directly: Mike Hamilton Discography and music at CD Universe, Kenny Loggins Alive 1980: Album Review and songs from www.answers.com, Peter Kater music CDs www.silverlakemusic.com, Ambient Visions Music Reviews (Peter Kater w/Mike Hamilton) www.ambientvisions.com10082005.htm-15k, Loggins album personnel at www.legacyrecordings.com>>news. These and more can be added to the articles References Section. We also feel that adding the proper categories at the bottom of the Wikipedia style article will help. These seem to fit: American Session Guitarists, Musicians, Guitarists, etc.., thanks, signed, Archiveally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveally (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Archiveally (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Considering a checkuser showed the accounts where the same person there is no mistake at all. An AFD is not the place to add references, add them to the article, not here. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If they were good sources, it would be okay to list them here. The ones I tried to follow were dead links. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Struck as another blocked sock. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to indicate that the Mike (or Michael) Hamilton credited on all those albums is even the same person. I'm not saying it's not the same person, just pointing out the unverifiability of the credits. I see no references from reliable sources. Perhaps a redirect to Yacht Rock is in order? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't that going a little too far into the ridiculous? Maybe you're a computer chip. Please do even the slightest amount of study on the subject. Go to mikehamiltonmusic.com, and see some photos and articles. Thanks, Archiveally.Archiveally (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us Mike, it's up to you to justify it. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of blocking this latest sockpuppet. Mike Hamilton, I know you're still reading this thread. We all want to keep articles. You don't have to attack the page to get us to keep them; we're looking for reasons to keep this article. But we're used to seeing sockpuppets and insults mostly on articles about non-notable subjects, so your strategy here is actually making it less likely that the article will be kept. Again, discography and album personnel facts aren't the kinds of sources that we're looking for. I'm inclined to think that, if anyone would know of articles that have been written about you, you probably would, which makes it seem likely that you just aren't at that bar yet. You should keep working on your career, and when you do meet the notability criteria, you won't have to do anything, because it's inevitable that one of your many fans will create an article about you without your needing to lift a finger from your guitar. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep needs clean-up, but he's viable.(Jayzee69 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Mike Hamilton started out behaving unhelpfully, but he has very helpfully provided photo scans of newspaper articles and reviews here. Some of those are trivial mentions, but farther down the page are a few reviews which, in my opinion, do meet WP:RS. Given those sources, I'm changing my vote. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank You for all the great expertise and skill in cleaning up and linking up these components in a way that makes for a smoother more logical presentation. Thank you for the time you used to help this article. Sincerely, Archivist.Archiveula (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FisherQueen. Article needs work and better citing but I agree that the clippings seem to show notability; thus I change my !vote. Mikehamilton, Archiveally, and any other sock/meat puppets should, however, be restricted to the articles talk page per WP:COI. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless accessible, reliable sources are cited to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are accessible, reliable sources cited that comply with the verifiability policy.Archiveula (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — Archiveula (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please don't vote multiple times with separate usernames, or even multiple times with the same username. Also please declare your conflict of interest. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a good example of a similar, comparable article that lives peacefully right here in Wikipedia, please visitGreg Leisz. Hamilton and Leisz also appear together on several of the same albums and movie soundtracks as session musicians.Archiveula (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly comparable, Leisz has had his own bands and has not just remained a session musician. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that there is an entire category in Wikipedia called American session musicians. Why do you keep harping on that a session musician has no notable career? It's as if you would argue that Steven Spielberg is not a credible producer/director because he isn't also a prolific actor.I want to be polite with you and even maybe try to get to know you a bit, but your arguements at this point in this AfD discussion are like For The Sake of Arguement. I would think that people interested is Session Musicians, Session musicians that also tour, etc., etc., enough to talk about this article would also know more about the topic than you seem to know. No offense, but after your last comment ( one of several similar earlier ones) I am convinced that you no ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE MUSIC BUSINESS. Many notable articles exist about American session musicians. Not all these careers can be exactly pigeon-holed to fit what you seem to think they should be. That's why many articles and user pages have multiple categories listed at the bottom. I noticed at the bottom of the Blowdart user page there is no Administrator listing, yet you seem to keep trying to act like one. You have great computer skill. Try not to abuse it. Any way, Hamilton was a charter member of The Kenny Loggins Band, Max Bennett and Freeway, Pure Prairie League, The Bette Midler Band etc.. There is nothing in the Leisz article about a "Greg Leisz Band"

Blowdart, please visit mikehamiltonmusic.com.Archiveula (talk) 15:54, 20 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; see talk page for extended rationale. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLIRG[edit]

Non-notable coined acronym from last night's Saturday Night Live. No apparent widespread use; no need for a separate article. Diagonalfish (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is a no brainer. A line in a Saturday Night Live skit is definitely not notable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep - This is a notable term used during an highly publicized event dealing with a presidential election. It has been misnamed, however, as the term is actually Flerg and has existed before its use on SNL. I suggest renaming this article and keeping it. Wikipedia has a page on MILF, after all. Lizabeth83 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MILF is only a disambig page, not an article. I wonder if that disambig page should be deleted. If MILF is notable, what about other IM terms? SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a page that deals with terms like this in reference to presidential elections? I hesitate to delete it, simply because there is so much misinformation out there regarding this term, and it would be helpful to have it an authoritative explanation in regards to the skit. However, I can see how it would be better as a disambig page. I wouldn't remove MILF as it part of the lexicon.Lizabeth83 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:NEOLOGISM Themfromspace (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I personally have never heard of this term prior to Sept 13, 2008, so I do not know how popular it was prior to SNL. I would say lets keep it for now, and if the term does not become popular, then we can renominate the article for AfD after the elections. I do not think that WP:NEOLOGISM applies, as the article gives more than just a definition. It also gives background and chronology for the term. Dems on the move (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every word uttered in a sketch on Saturday Night Live deserves an encyclopedia article, especially when no one agrees on what meaning is attached to it. This word is also spelled "flurge" and is defined as "flush and purge" as in cleaning your ear canals of ear wax[45] , [46]. Fails verifiability and has no reason to remain in Wikipedia. There are no reliable sources with a history of the use of this word, however spelled. It was a comic utterance of no particular meaning, set in counterpoint to the sexually oriented four letter acronyms ending in "ilf" descriptions of Palin, and thus not notable. Edison (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Memorializing the moment that a preexisting term reaches critical mass is a useful and valid entry. This use in a Saturday Night Live skit is quickly going viral and is very notable. I suspect that opposition to this entry may be somewhat politically motivated. In only 3 days I have received 2 viral emails referring to this skit. The specific reference to googling the term in the skit is also an important connection to the new contemporary standard for research by using online content. Is this not a clear link to the purpose and existence of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.98.60 (talk) 6:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - It's probably the wrong word. It is more likely FLIRJ: first lady i'd rim job, which is funnier and filthy in the same way that MILF is. --User:Zarka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.59.6 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is a flash-in-the-pan slang term. It is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. --OneCyclone (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- Verifiability, an official policy that trumps any argument about notability. Folks cannot even agree on the spelling, the bold recapitulation of the title has changed several times (flerg, flerge, flurge), the associated meaning is mere speculation. The point of the sketch was that it must be possible to Google, yet this spelling of the supposed acronym was not verifiable even two days ago. When an official transcript from NBC is available, maybe that would be a reliable source. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Suggest move to Wiktionary, which as of this comment does not have an entry for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.6.216.9 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- The article's sources are all blogs or wikis, which are not verifiable sources by a long shot. The word's (or acronym's) definition (or definitions) is still up for debate. Once a solid definition has been hammered out, I think this entry would belong in Wiktionary. Refer to the treatment of the acronym MILF for a great example on how this should be treated. -Rhrad (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Moving to wiktionary might be an option. I personally was happy to find the word here, so I now at least have an idea of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.231.53 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the page should be cleaned up but I think it clearly should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.238.96 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you feel we should keep that article? SMP0328. (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is the information that people are looking for who look it up. 71.131.26.73 (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything that people may want to look up belongs in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke as clearly non-notable and a neologism (as much as I love SNL). Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:06, 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.