Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 23 September 25 >

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. ffm 01:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maristela Tayoko[edit]

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

On pt-wiki there was a deletion discussion: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Maristela Tayoko da Silva Lenior and the article was kept because the number of votes to delete was not enough. Does not seem to be notable. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources about her. There is no information about expositions or anything (even on her website!) to indicate any notability. she only sells her artwork on her website. Tosqueira (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ffm 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival[edit]

Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced advertish OR/promotional piece, which exaggerates and predicts the future. I considered wikifying this to help clean it up, but the more I looked at it the more I was convinced that nothing was salvageable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to nomination withdrawn, in light of sources provided by Phil, and the good cleanup the article has received since being listed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While there are lots of google hits, there are zero on GNews, which isn't a good sign. The festivals own website only has reports from the Jakarta Post as far as I can see, again not good. There's a dead link to a BBC report on the 2006 version of the festival - if that were verifiable it'd help a bit. Don't know enough about jazz to know if the performers list is inherently notable or not. MadScot (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and not notable Annette46 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above comments might look great at delete discussions outside of the Indonesian context - however seeing this is actually listed at the Indonesian project - they show an interesting approach to notability issues. SatuSuro 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily trimmable and wikifiable and easily kept - just because it has had a lot of material added does not make it a problem. I would argue that it is not OR, and is notable - and simply because it does not fit some concepts - it can and should be cleaned up and kept - from the perspective of the Indonesia project it is both reliable and notable - its just the adding editors have not understood what constitutes a properly constructed article. SatuSuro 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is salvageble and wikified, all it needs some refs and it should not offend anyone - to say it is not notable shows no understanding of the event or Jakarta - please consider this - if you dont understand - during the New Order Indonesia - Jakarta held the largest scottish highland games outside of Scotland - so the large Jazz event - is on a par with the similarly disjunctive highland games of 15 years ago - large musical events in Jakarta are - even if it is hard to imagine - large and notable. BTW for Jakarta Post - it is a reliable and V level source, GNews is not relevant, and the artist list is pointless SatuSuro 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a major music festival in Indonesia attracting acts from around the world, considerable local interest and creating traffic jams around the venue. If this is deleted, then so should Glastonbury Festival. Davidelit (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At that level of notability it ought to be possible to get some decent references, though. The Glasonbury article has numerous references to print and broadcast media covering the event. Now, I think they are all UK sources, so if this festival just has local/national coverage that's obviously fine. But when I checked the official site, as mentioned above, I only found one local newspaper covering it. If the requisite sources can be found I'd be happy to reverse my vote (that was why it was a "weak" vote in the first place) but right now there's nothing, and not for want of looking. MadScot (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole problem with the global context of xfd is the assumption of easy grab bag google hits to verify subjects and refs - sometimes quite notable subjects get deleted because of this - where they should not - sometimes english language news sources get lazy with significant events in Indonesia and dont bother to report them - all the easier for deletionists :( SatuSuro 01:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources in any language outside of local coverage? The problem is that local coverage will provide great detail about a 4H petting zoo any Sunday afternoon in my little town, including the names and pictures of every kid who got their face painted and all of the shapes that Dipsy the clown made with balloons. It is impossible to judge what is only covered as a typical local interest and what is truly notable, without providing sources that are independent of the event and published outside of the local area. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep Thank you Phil, that's precisely what I was hoping someone would do when I made my vote 'weak'. And a million times more useful than someone simply asserting that we silly English speakers don't understand Indonesia. I would have expected that the organisations own website press section would have listed these, but maybe there's some local issue that prevents them citing out-of-country sources? MadScot (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, reference is obviously fake. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Berk[edit]

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

A college student, I am not finding citation for the claim of "significant national attention". - Icewedge (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hounds Tooth[edit]

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

No references cited to support what band has done, and even what information is in the article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment For what its worth, here's a couple of sources i managed to find on google: [6] and [7]. I'm not sure if those count as reliable sources or not, which is why i'm not voting either way. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These seem like nominal coverage of a local band in the local news. The references support the fact that the band has not met any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the notability bar is not very high, and this groups has received coverage in the press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is higher then what this group has to offer. -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not see what deleting the article would accomplish. The press kit at http://www.houndstoothblues.com/presskit/ mentions several press links. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the press links are all local Milwaukee publications -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... so? Is the circulation of the publication relevant? Or the area in which it is read? No, really: I don't see what harm this article -- this stub, really -- is doing anyone. Mvuijlst (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (oh, and before I get hit with a WP:NOTDIR -- Hounds Tooth does too meet WP:MUSIC. Multiple, non-trivial published works. (don't know why I bother, really. tss.) Mvuijlst (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A place to grow[edit]

A place to grow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, Movie Review Query Engine, a Google search, and Google news. Also, it has been tagged for notability since August. Schuym1 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about Morris? The BFI has the film listed here and they have the Gary Morris in the film listed as 'country music singer. As far as I can tell it's not a publicly contributed database, so ought to be vaguely trustworthy? MadScot (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, because notable actors don't make movies notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it could indeed be the guy that sang "Wind Beneath My Wings". I hate that song, but I had forgotten that he is indeed an actor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Am currently improving and sourcing this article. Give me a couple hours. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with the release dates. Though IMDB shows a length of 96 minutes and a 1998 release date, all my other sources, except BFI, show a 1995 release and a 118 minute length. Which was the TV version and which was the DVD release? Any other eyes care to check? I might guess that the DVD is the longer version and that it was released after the TV airing... but Miller was showing the film as early as 1995 and maybe THAT was a longer pre-TV version... with the pre-TV and the post-TV being longer than TV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alistar daire[edit]

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

This is a copied article from Joe Francis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Francis PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Comes and Goes[edit]

Everything Comes and Goes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

only one source, which doesn't confirm full tracklist, full personnel, release date. Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian political jokes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a jokebook, nor A place to gather funny content, and this article does not satisfy The notability guidelines. Before commenting or voting on this proposal, please see What Wikipedia is not. Fixman(Criticise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but trim. There's enough sourcing here to have an article on the topic. It just shouldn't be purely a collection of jokes. Bfigura (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur - keep The subject of jokes as subversive political action in a dictatorship seems a perfectly encyclopedic subject. More political science and less jokes is all that's needed. MadScot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major political topic. I see nothing wrong with some examples a part of the article, either. DGG (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A perusal of Hammer and tickle gives you a good idea of why this is an encyclopedic topic. Article needs to be cleaned up tho. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largely per Bfigura, but also DGG's notes about this being a major political topic. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps even snow this. This is clearly a notable subject and AFD is not a device for determining article content. By the way, why do secret policemen go round in 3s? One to read, one to write and one to watch the two intellectuals. Boom Boom. Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found another article called Russian Jokes. I think this article should be merged with it. --Fixman(Praise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
That doesn't need an AFD to engineer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Russian humor, especially during the Soviet era, is a notable part of the culture and political landscape of those times, and has been remarked upon in several political science and history books I've read. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Junior Marketing Association[edit]

Philippine Junior Marketing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since the Philippine Marketing Association is not notable enough for Wikipedia, I don't see how this offshoot of it is. Orphaned article, and no evidence of notability given besides a list of schools that are members, which is quite marginal as proof of notability. Fails WP:CORP in my opinion. VG ☎ 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) VG[reply]

  • Delete the Philippine Marketing Association doesn't even have an article! This one is highly problematic and reads like just another list, or a directory. What's more, it's got precious little in the way of sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources writing about this organisation. Also, the article looks more like it's an organisation web page rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete puffery, self promotion, no independent sources. Annette46 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. We66er (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti Medical Missions of Memphis[edit]

Haiti Medical Missions of Memphis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing this article to AfD is not a pleasure, since the organisation appears to have a noble mission. But the article fails WP:RS and it appears this organisation lacks any notability within the medical or humanitarian fields. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are lacking to establish notability. The best I could come up with is this passing mention as one of many groups that got a grant from the Assisi Foundation of Memphis. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curby[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a street game, I'm struggling to find any substantial mentions in reliable sources that would suggest this is notable. Currently it reads like a simple how-to guide and I'm not sure what sourced information could be added to change that. ~ mazca t | c 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ffm 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Sue and The Pirates[edit]

Peggy Sue and The Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline band. Prod contested. This band is mentioned in a couple of sources however they read very 'blogish'. Their website is under construction so it is hard to check tour information. They have a few songs on Itunes. The get some Ghits. Bringing it here to get consensus and to put this one to bed so we don't argue over it for years to come. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I haven't heard this band, but the article cites non-trivial reviews in the BBC and the Guardian - i wouldn't call that "bloggish" -, so AFAIC it satisfies WP:BAND criterion 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The third review cited indeed looks bloggish. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm concerned with the sources here; the BBC article looks to be a user submission of some sort (it's unsigned, and the way the page looks suggests it's not an in-house thing). The Guardian article looks okay, but the other sources not so much. Along with minimal coverage of the band, the fact they don't have an actual record out concerns me as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why The Guardian, for example, is not a good source. It is a reputable newspaper with a long and distinguished history and a large circulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable as there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further 3 references added. Strummer25 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The BBC and the Guardian are top-notch sources. The fact that the BBC article is unsigned means that it is editorial content - if it was a user submission it would be signed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sunnydale. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High[edit]

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

This article was tagged that it doesn't meet notability last December. Now, almost a whole year later, it still has no references or anything that signifies notability. It was also nominated for deletion last December, but the result was to have it merged to Sunnydale, which hasn't been done. I would also like to add that not much has changed in these past ten months, as I've already stated. Lady Galaxy 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost nothing to merge. Not a major part of the Buffyverse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main setting for the first season. Including the details here is an appropriate place. DGG (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a likely search term to Sunnydale. Note, that creating a redirect does not require a discussion at AFD, per WP:BEFORE. Not to pick on this particular nomination; but, there are far too many articles brought here needlessly. Neier (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details for a non-notable fictional location. Almost no real-world content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer as this fictional high school has no notability outside that world. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as first discussion closed as keep, this nominate it until it’s deleted nonsense is for the birds.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first AFD was 9 months ago. Can you please elaborate on why speedy keep is appropriate here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sunnydale. Epbr123 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sunnydale, else delete. The town itself is notable as the unique setting of a long-running TV series, but we don't need articles for each building or location within it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hensel[edit]

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

Thinly-sourced likely autobiography of a composer for whom I could find no better sources via Google. Only 87 hits for "Daniel Hensel" composer, of which 42 are unique and some of those are unrelated. None amounts to a non-trivial independent reliable source. What I found rather telling was that the article references Bernhard Lang, without a link (and it would have been red anyway); Lang gets vastly more hits and was the composer of the controversial I Hate Mozart for the Mozart festival, and whose work I was listening to on BBC Radio 3 earlier this evening. So I think this is a bit of promotion, especially since the creator has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW. Something to keep even though it could stand a bit more content. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 21:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative visualization[edit]

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

Unnecessary derivative of Law of Attraction. It is not acknowledged as a notable concept by third-party independent sources. Only New Thought believers seem to write about this idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment -I'm predominantly a sceptic but I used to be interested in the New Age movement and this phrase/concept existed long before the Law of Attraction book or whatever-it-is. Sticky Parkin
  • (edit conflict) definitely not, it exists in many cultures and is decades older than that.  ::There are many Wp:RS for it.[8][9] I would say one of the most well known books on the subject is 'Creative Visualisation' by Shakti Gawain, which was written in 1978. Raymond Buckland discussed it in 1971, [10] and it was mentioned in a book on Tibetan mysticism in 1960 [11][12] Here it is used by I think Catholics in 1957, [13]and it was also proposed by some believers for use in social work. It was also discussed by Richard Bach. Whether all this means it's worth an article or just a redirect to New Age movement meditation or something, I don't know. It's also used in various forms of brief therapy [14] and it's been in WP:RS news articles 588 times [15] - back in a sec...Sticky Parkin 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the news with the spelling with an 's' another 120ish times. Here it is with the technique shown by the New York times to be in use in 1986 [16] in business, and 1987 in politics [17] . A book about it was reviewed in the Los Angeles times in 1990, discussing its use for couples sex lives . [18]. People even claim it can cure cancer, [19] apparently, which I think we should have an article just to debunk the health claims.:) It can help sportsmen, supposedly, and it's also used in education [20]. It's use for sport is mentioned in The Guardian [21]. New Scientist has said in 1990 that it's one of the new age techniques which may cause epileptic fits [22] so we could write a WP:NPOV article on it. Sticky Parkin 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The thing the term describes may or may not be bogus, but as a concept it pre-dates this Law of Attraction. If the page has too much of bias it just needs a bit of editing to make it WP:NPOV Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Creative visualization is a standard practice used in Sports Psychology and other fields. I've added several scholarly sources and copy edited it for neutrality.Renee (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no good reason to delete this article. I am no huge fan of new age but I do not see the point in deleting an article that has potential. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly. Vague, pseudo-philosophical ideas compounded of glittering generalities do not appeal to me, but this one has been around for a long, long time, and is an attempt to provide some kind of theoretical basis for Couéism and other programs for psychic self-improvement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources and references have been established. Message from XENUu, t 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- though I could only just bring myself to vote lol. Sticky Parkin 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media[edit]

The World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neither the organisation or its owner/founder has notability - search also on "World Academy of Arts, Literature and Median' as the webmaster has spelling problems (with the name of the organisation and at least one award winner). Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be utterly unnotable - a minimal number of Google hits and a grand total of one Google News article, which appears to be a press release [23]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khoi, I agree. But would you please also agree that you can't use Nationmaster (which itself uses Wikipedia as a major source), other Wikipedia articles, or information from the website itself as evidence of notability? And I'm sure that those who receive it publicise it, that's natural. But does that make it notable? What bothered me about the article was the absence of independent third party sources. There may be some notability to be found, but if it were 'very notable' I think that would have been obvious. Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability derives from coverage by third-party published sources. Where are these third-party published sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. Beside all the celebrities that have been mentioned, the award ceremony was also attended by Hungarian dignitaries, including the mayor of Budapest. Videos and photos of the Award ceremony are available on www.waalm.com. The award has also covered by various international media outlets including BBC, Voice of America, Jewish News, The Budapest Times, SBS Radio, Kecskemeti TV, Jaam-e-Jam etc.[30], and endorsed by numerous celebrities.[31] This is without a doubt a very notable award. --CreazySuit (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question for the "keep" votes: People that got this award list it on their website and such. Similarly, many people that have received awards from the American Biographical Institute list them on their CV and such (including even some government leaders). Nevertheless, there seems to exist a consensus that ABI awards are not notable. I therefore gingerly suggest that whether awardees find an award notable is perhaps not completely relevant. The persons voting keep above have diligently provided several links to people showing off their awards. Given the fact that all these people do this and that celebreties like Venessa Redgrave attended award ceremonies, it should be easy to provide a few reliable and independent sources and we can the close this AfD as a ressounding "Keep". (WAALM's own site might serve as a start to give us an indication where to search, although it is of course not an independent source here) --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Our article Iranian.com points out that WAALM is an extension of the International Further Studies Institute [32] which Dorbayani also runs/owns [33] and is unaccredited in the US [34] - see it's own statement here [35] and linked to the Pinnacle Business School offering MBAs which is, like the IFSI, licensed to teach but doesn't have any real accreditation. So you get Dorbayani giving a Mayor a medal of excellence from the IFSI [36]. Good PR. Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't have time to look at all of them, but this one [50] although it mentions Dorbabyani and the International Foreign Studies Institute, is about awards given by the "Persian Academy Awards International", not WAALM. [51] is a German blog mentioning Madonna, no awards, WAALM, etc, why is it relevant? And this [52] also seems to be about a 'Persian Academy'. Doug Weller (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the BBC and the VOA have devoted coverage to them. They are notable.--Zereshk (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename. CreazySuit has presented "dozens" of sources. Almost all of those are not independent (they are from the WAALM website, others are from blogs), but two are from the BBC and Voice of America. Although those are in Farsi (?), which I don't read, it seems to me that those articles are, indeed, about the award. These sources establish in my eyes some notability for the award, even though they are rather short. I recommend that the article be renamed after the award and rewritten accordingly, which seems notable, but the WAALM seems not to be notable. --Crusio (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now that's an interesting idea. Particularly what seems to be a complex network of inter-related organisations (which I admit to having some concern about). Let's see what others say. Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The images of newspaper clips hosted on WAALM website are simply for verification, the print martial are independent sources on their own. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Possibly, but they don't all mention WAALM, right? What do you think about renaming the article after the award? Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, per Khoikhoi--Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources is a problem for this article. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original blessing[edit]

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

A parochial concept from the New Thought movement that has not received wider consideration or third party consideration. Useful content can be merged with Matthew Fox. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, by all means merge this material with the Matthew Fox article. My argument for keeping it as it is is that it is an important topic in Christian theology, and when a person seeking information does a search, the article will be there. What is all this officious busy work in deleting articles all of a sudden? Wikipedia should cover every conceivable topic. Another point is that it is an antithetical position to Original Sin.--Drboisclair (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:Notability (books), we expect to see independent third-party coverage, showing the book's importance, and evidence of the notice that has been paid to it, to justify keeping a separate article on a book. Given that the article has no sources, there may not be enough material here to be worth merging. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matthew Fox (priest). ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Matthew Fox (priest). No need for AfD when {{mergeto}} will do. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matthew Fox (priest) - it's a term invented and used by him. So it can be a simple paragraph in the bio. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge no sources, no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep. The sources aren't very good quality and many are just mirrors. There's clearly no consensus to delete though, and the default outcome is keep. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Island[edit]

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

The location name is not in use officially. I've lived in the Upper Peninsula for 28 years and never heard of that area being called anything other than the Keweenaw Peninsula or the generic Copper Country. The article contains only one reference which describes the routing of only one of the three highways in the area. A Google search shows this article as number 1 with the other mentions to a record company in Wales, an island in Russia, an island in British Columbia and an archeological site in Cyprus. In fact most of the Google hits are related to the island in BC. The only related mention is a ski race held south of the area claimed as the island on the "mainland". The only assertion of notability is the unreferenced mention of the area once being called the name in Finnish, which isn't verified/referenced. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am in the middle of a project, but putting in some line cites, etc. should be not that difficult. Hope somebody can do something to appease the wiki-gods. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
    • Please reference where this name is "recognized" as a geographic descriptor for the area. The state of Michigan and the USGS don't call it this. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link is to a copy of this article, not a unique source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(repeated edit conflicts)

Three of those links are copies of this article, not a unique source. The fourth is the previously mentioned race which is held on the "mainland" not the "island". We don't have an article Queen City of the North even though that was once used to describe Marquette, Michigan. Nothing you've presented points to the a neutral, verifiable, reliable source that this name is in fact in common usage. The lecture summary on that last link only uses it in the name. The announcement even calls the area Michigan's Copper Country. None of these links are in fact referenced in the article. The MTU link only references the once-applied Finnish name. Once again, none of this shows that the area is called that today by the locals. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a current one out of the Houghton Mining Gazette of Augus 20, 2008. http://www.mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/501559.html?nav=5006 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
[https://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=153515 New York Univeristy, From the Emerald Islle tto the Copper Isle.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Copper Island Cross Country Ski Club. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
History of the Finns in Americxa.
Copper Island Printing, Calumet, Michigan. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Reference to the Copper Island Sentinel, the local paper. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Finish names, Finish geneology.
7&6, you keep adding links which are copies of the Wikipedia article -- they're automatically generated copies from sites who like to copy/backup wikipedia. They are not useful as sources. -- dcclark (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this article has had an important effect on other sources, which just lift the article, and then don't give it as a source (only rarely). I googled "'Copper Island News' Michigan" and when I had it show me all the sources, there were three pages (24 or 30? didn't count) (I had to tell it to show me "similar" pages to get that number) that bleated back the article, and would not be considered to be independent sources. However, putting a more positive spin on this, this article is a sourced of information for a lot of other websites. 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan
[[1] Keewenaw Water Trail, "Circumnavigation of the Copper Island"] is a current usage by the Keewenaw Tourist & Convention Bureau, and plainly is not a quote or offshoot of the Wikipedia article. I can put together these sources into the article, I just can't do it today or tomorrow. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hancock astronomy article mentions "Copper Island" 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[http://habitant.org/houghton/fcgenealogy.htm French Canadian Geneological Research sources} concerning Hancock County, mentions "Copper Island" and also document the publication dates of one of the newspapers that were so named. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Island Behavioral Health in Hancock, Michigan.7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Stan -- no, there are many sites out there which duplicate Wikipedia whole cloth. The presence of the Copper Island article on them means nothing: it was on Wikipedia at the time that their bot downloaded everything here, and so it's on their site as well. -- dcclark (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Copper Country. Also try this (more appropriate) google search. Links include several businesses currently using the name as part of their business, the "Copper Island Classic" race (as mentioned in the article), a defunct newspaper, etc. It's certainly not a widespread name, but in the area it is used. It's very silly to suggest that just because the area containing Copper Island is more commonly called the Copper Country, that the name isn't valid. Similarly, it doesn't matter that the Copper Island Classic is held on the mainland -- it's a proper use of the name. The worst that should be done to the article is to merge the description into copper country, which is a superset of Copper Island. -- dcclark (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A WP:RS is in the article showing the origins of the name; and Google searches ([53], [54]) turn up the name used for businesses, ski clubs, and on tourism sites about the area - so there appears to be adequate material to show that the term is in regional usage. The nom not having heard it himself is an odd reverse-type WP:OR to justify an AfD. Admittedly the use isn't widespread, but it is in use within the region. I agree that, worse case a merge and redirect to copper country may be reasonable; but I feel there's enough here to justify an encyclopedic entry for this region. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — at the time I found the article, that source wasn't there. Since this article is Copper Island and not Copper Island, Michigan I googled the article's title and found far more references to an island in British Columbia that actually carries the name on the map. I've never seen this name on a map and the only hits I found for it were similar to many of 7&6's links which are copies of Wikipedia content and not separate articles. The only business name that came up was a printing place with a d/b/a for another name. At the very least, the article needs to be renamed since it is not the only "Copper Island", and it should be merged into the Copper Country article, IMHO. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving it to Copper Island, Michigan? However, there is already a very clear otheruses template at the top of the article which tells you that it's about the region in Michigan. -- dcclark (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an issue to bring up on the article talk page. I would support renaming it to Copper Island, Michigan, then move the existing disambiguation page to Copper Island. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Copper Island is in fact the correct name according to...

Copper Island is an island in Lake Superior comprising the northern part of what is often inaccurately called the Keweenaw Peninsula (in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, United States of America) but is in fact partly the Keweenaw Peninsula and partly Copper Island, which is separated from the rest of the Keweenaw Peninsula by Portage Lake and the Portage Lake Canal; it was formed by dredging in 1859 and the construction, in the 1860s, of a ship canal from Portage Lake, which was on the east side of the Keweenaw Peninsula, to Lake Superior on the west.

Copper Island article - KnowledgeRush

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's yet another copy of the original WP article. Just how many sites out there copy WP like this? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Look closely at the mention in other sites. The one you point to shows at the bottom "This article ... uses material from the Wikipedia article 'Copper Island'." So, it's a circular reference - an article cannot be justified by something that uses that same article as a reference. I agree with keeping, but for other reasons given above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both of you are right...I didn't see the reference to WP and thought it different enough to be original. An earlier version didn't occur to me. I was wrong...sorry for that.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're adding references and facts to this article as we speak[edit]

Rather than burden this discussion with more facts and references (I did find documentation on the second newspaper, and also of a novel that is entitled "Race to Copper Island") and that's all in the article, are will be in the next few days. I would request that you not be precipitate or o'erhasty in your decision. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

This is NOW better sourced and linked than a lot of Wikipedia articles that aren't up for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I would respectfully suggest that you have made us improve the article and accomplished a great deal in that the article is niow in compliance with Wiki standards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumon Bari[edit]

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

Also nominating the following article for deletion:

Alexandrino Kirton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And also see the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akeem Dodson.

Neither player passes our notability criteria for athletes. Youth cricket - the only form these two have played - is not major cricket, and so is not performing at a professional level or the highest amateur level. No significant major coverage to establish notability otherwise. See related Cricinfo & CricketArchive links concurring they have only made youth-team appearances: [55][56][57][58] AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ffm 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area 58[edit]

Area 58 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article popped up yesterday on a routine flyby of the {{blackproject}} template and its associated links. A cursory glance at the article suggested some notability, but when I get no hits from the google test I became suspicious and asked for an outside opinion from the milhist editors. It seems this article may not be a hoax, but it still has issues with reliable sources, appears to cantain a lot of Original Research, and does not really assert any notability. In lew of this I have decided to file an afd and let the chips fall where they may. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met[edit]

List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failed prod. How is a list of the foreign leaders that a person has met encyclopedic? DCEdwards1966 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per [Criteria #1: Patent nonsense, and #10: Only meant to attack another subject (Sarah Palin). The creator should also face sanctions. Grsztalk 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Backdoor attempt to score political points. Even if I stretch my imagination to the limit and AGF and assume that wasn't the intent, this list isn't encyclopedic. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Barneca; this list is really just the same list in the Washington Post story linked as the lone reference. Cliff smith talk 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring accusations against the primary author, if we let this stand we'll have to create List of foreign leaders XXX has met for every statesmen, head of government, deputy head for every nation of note. Then the candidates. WP:NOT, common sense, toss it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with multiple good delete reasons already stated above.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not clear Biden was conscious at the time. Seriously, I agree with the reasons described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. I must say that I think it is quite inappropriate to cast aspersions on the motives of the creator of the article and those making such comments should retract them. This user has been on Wikipedia little over a month and this is not a good example of how to treat new editors. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bahahahahahaha. -Gr0ff (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sneaky ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G12) — Copyvio. Information cut-and-pasted from the Washington Post article as explained above, which is a copyright of The Washington Post Company. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, all reasons listed above. However, I do not believe that action should be taken against the editor (he's ~relatively new) other than possibly a warning. - Oh man just copy and pasted via MuZemike, definitely delete. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: A copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would prefer a bold admin (not me, I opined) come along and snow close this; if it's just speedied as a copyvio, it could easily be reformatted and show right back up here in a couple of days, and we'd be back where we started. Better to have a definitive decision that the article doesn't belong here, copyvio or no. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Joe Biden article unless it's too long. Otherwise Keep. This discussion should not be snowball closed after only 2 hours. People need time to have their dinners.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think that if this is shown to be a copyvio, it should be deleted. The information however, should be cleaned up and kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more than adequate to say in the Biden article that he has met X foreign leaders of Y countries over the course of Z years (and that he has been on W taxpayer-funded congressional junkets overseas, has made U speeches in the course of his career totalling T minutes).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOT, among the other reasons cited above. Bfigura (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Not notable, anyway. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there room for one more Delete? Everyone else said it best (and first). Though I am curious to know what Biden and Nursultan Nazarbayev talked about. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's a copyvio, because facts can't be copyrighted and there's no obviously distinctive phrasing used here, but it's not encyclopedic. The Biden bio article can include the number of leaders he's met (referencing the source) and discuss significant meetings in more detail. JamesMLane t c 00:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facts can be copyrighted. If they couldn't be, then all non-fiction books could be copied without permission. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas)[edit]

Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. Original author contends blue-ribbon award is applicable for notability. Three schools in the district were given blue-ribbon, which further begs the question,"Then what is notable about it?" Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per nom. unless otherwise notability can be found (ie building has historical significance, first school in the district, or state to achieve such an award, etc.) Else, we can expect 4000 elementary schools per year being added into WP Else we can expect all 4000 such schools to be added as well. This award isn't a Nobel Prize or anything. In WNY pretty much every school in the Buffalo Public School system deserves an article, do to at one point in time or another receiving this award or one similar. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps look at this example: West Hertel Academy(Elementary) - Blue Ribbon Winner (Throw in the ref, it's there in the PDF for the Blue Ribbon List). Now the school is closed. (End Article). Delete, or hope to expand it? How can Blue Ribbon award be the only reason for notability? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, some objective touchstone is needed to guide notability and for elementary schools in the US, through many discussions, this seems a reasonable one. However, Blue Ribbon status is not the only claim to notability; there are multiple reliable sources that meet WP:N. Unfortunately, adding them is not easy since they are mostly behind paywalls but they are there. Notability is not temporary; which is why notability does not cease on the death of the subject or the closure of the organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only references provided are articles relating to it getting awarded a Blue Ribbon. This would indicate the only notability it meets is getting a Blue Ribbon. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My thoughts on the blue ribbon award and why it meets notability requirements can be found here. --Jh12 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject has on-topic coverage in the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and other reliable third-party sources plus there are more sources to be mined about the school's award-winning teachers [59], a 1987 visit from Lynne Cheney [60], controversies over busing [61], and much more. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dravecky, the one about the teacher awards has to do with the Lakewood Elementary in Euless. I haven't determined which Lakewood Lynne Cheney visited (a DMN subscriber can help!). But the last one does have to do with the Dallas school and that should be enough for notability. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems fine to me given all the awards and broad coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Markcho world order[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete as non-notable club or group (random neighborhood wrestling group). ZimZalaBim talk 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markcho world order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this a joke? A hoax? Surely does not meet notability standards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral - restored Afd tag as it was corrupted by pages creator. Notability is questionable.PB666 yap 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per nom. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable club or group (random neighborhood wrestling group). ZimZalaBim talk 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailor hood wrestling federation[edit]

Trailor hood wrestling federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable backyard wrestling group. Only sources are MySpace and YouTube. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Turk[edit]

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

Unsigned musician known primarily for his song No Sex Allowed. He was on Jimmy Kimmel's "up and coming talent" segment and appeared in the first round of American Idol 7, but he doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Additionally, other than his Myspace page and entry on CD Baby (where literally anyone can sell a CD), he has no independent references. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Though he is unsigned, his itunes does check out, just searched it. There is even a music video to it. So that does add one to the WP:NM. Maybe to find more than that, unsure of keeping or deleting. I want to establish he isn't mainstream or indie. To me he is just another William Hung. XXalyXx (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD:G11 Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Choice International School[edit]

Parent Choice International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails verifiability; notability and is written like an advertisement piece. Shovon (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ffm 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System of Imagination[edit]

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

Contested prod. Pointless topic made up in school.  – iridescent 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Vanderbilt Cooper[edit]

Carter Vanderbilt Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable brother of Anderson Cooper. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing WP:BIO. Notability isn't inherited. Bfigura (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Bio. Notable family or relationships does not make one notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. If his life or death is significant in the lives of the notable people he's related to, then present the relevant material on the notable people's pages. --Atemperman (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom South-East7™Talk/Contribs 10:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the subject himself fails WP:Bio. But I agree with Atemperman that if his life/death is relevant to other notable people to whom he's related, then perhaps some of the material contained in the article should be merged into those other existing articles.Austin46 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beautiful[edit]

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

This article was speedily deleted a number of times in the past for being non-notable and POV. Recently, User:Eastmain tried to make the article decent for Wikipedia, but I still feel it's non-notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Instead of speedying it again, I have put it up for AFD so a broader consensus can be reached. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons, plus WP:COI.

Dan Bradimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack for Scenario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Neither article meets the criteria for notability at WP:BAND. The awards claimed in both articles fail WP:V and are not "major music competitions". --JD554 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm the fool that created this mess in the first place. Last week, Soundtrack for Scenario was up for deletion, because at the time, the band was red linked. I moved Eastmain's project page to userspace and asked for the album to be kept because the band, at the time, seemed notable to me. Now I realize I've just created a big mess, and would agree that deleting everything is a good idea here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The media references pass WP:MUSIC. --Eastmain (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This band doesn't meet the conventional criteria of WP:MUSIC for being an important band: no national tours or well-known awards, and they are not issued by a major label. The only way they could qualify is if their press coverage puts them over the bar. I don't see the listed references as showing importance. There is no full-length review of the music listed there by anybody who I recognize as being a reliable independent reviewer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the band does meet WP:MUSIC. They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial independently published works including Chart (magazine). They were placed in heavy rotation on MuchMusic and regularly played on CFNY-FM. Their debut video peaked at second place on Much On Demand’s Daily Top 10. They are currently on a national tour.[62] The article doubtless needs improving and better sourcing but that can be done in time. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello Beautiful and merge the other 2 into it. Just passes WP:BAND based on coverage already identified in the article and these: [63], [64], [65], and current national tour appears to be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent rescue job here, and for a Canadian band at that (no small task, that). Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In need of expansion though. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Urban[edit]

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

An active young computer scientist but does not yet pass WP:PROF. A recent PhD (2004), modest citability record according to GoogleScholar[66] and WebOfScience. No other major achievements listed. The second prize in the SUMO reasoning prize competition is good but not sufficient for passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May very well become notable in a few years, but as outlined by Nsk92 is not yet at that point. --Crusio (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a directory of assistant professors. No mention of Urban online in Czech language sources. (Note that Josef is common Czech first name and Urban common surname.) The article for an Austrian architect could be created instead. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The citation record looks decent for his level of seniority, but far from enough to override the default presumption that junior faculty are insufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambat family[edit]

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

The article has several issues. First - notability, second - verifiability, third - COI. Shovon (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as COI etc. --Lockley (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Vibe[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Article is written like an advertisement, and there is an obvious conflict of interest with the main contributor. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)[edit]

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article for a film that "may" be released in 2010! While there are a few sources on production, I don't think its enough to meet WP:NFF, particularly when its already been "in the making" for a year, and the supposed release date pushed back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that it's a notable film being directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp. (If it was some no-name independent film with only a blog for it's source that would be another matter entirely) Unless it's a hoax or not going to be made.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Yes, the talent line-up is impressive. But announcing that a film is going to be made is not the same thing as actually have a film that is in progress or has been completed. I can't support keeping the article, as per WP:NFF. Changed to Keep following the arrival of new sources that were cited below. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, like Ecoleetage, since I don't see any verification that shooting has begun. Cliff smith talk 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep per new sources cited below. Cliff smith talk 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No verification that shotting has begun. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't this article indicate that it's being filmed?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article gives the impression that some sort of second unit shooting just began (there is no mention of any of the stars being present or comment from Tim Burton on what's being made). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The director and the star began filming last Monday. It's being made. Perfectly fine under WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per sources above, some filming has already started or will start in October. Sources exist and the time frame is short (or already here) for filming to start. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Google News and articles [67], [68], [69], filming HAS begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NFF. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Films in production are perfectly notable if there are sources confirming production is underway - and there are plenty. The fact it's been in production for a long time is irrelevant. Shrek was in production for so long its original lead voice actor died. James Cameron's Avatar has been in production for years, too. 23skidoo (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout[edit]

Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTHOWTO - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a DIY manual. nancy (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SNOW. There can be no more classic case of a DIY manual within the wikisphere. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure the article is dull, but its information and quite useful. So how to make it not a how-to page to make it more ‘’encyclopaedic’’ would be helpful. To quote "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain". I think this ticks the box despite the limited scope of the article. Andrewray99 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (moved from AFD talk page nancy (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Aldridge[edit]

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

Tagged since June for multiple issues including WP:COI. Also has potential issues with WP:BIO, WP:WEB Tmore3 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At a quick glance she seems notable enough. However the article as it is is bad, as tagged. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the time comes, someone other than the subject of the article will create it DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep seems notable enough, but the article needs some clean up and needs sources, other than that it looks passable. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgot to mention a few things I noticed about the references which seemed to provide virtually no backup to most everything written. One reference is her own website another is nothing but a gallery of self published pics and two of them KARE-11 and Metromix I could find not a single mention of this person. The one article that actually had anything written about her (Minnesota Monthly) didn't seem to indicate any significance or notability she has gained in her field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article makes credible claims of notability for the subject. While WP:COI may be a genuine issue for an individual editor, there is no irrevocable taint for the information, which has since been updated by multiple editors. Article needs better sourcing and expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where exactly are these "credible claims of notability" neutrally referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Minnesota Monthy shows she's notable. So its a keep per that and search 1, 2, and 3. Notability is there. Article simply needs a major overhaul. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but one article that only goes so far as to expound on her favorite foods would not clarify a person's notability in the least WP:BIO - Basic Criteria, and neither does a series of self promotional links or her own interviews as seen in searches 1,2, and 3. WP:PRIMARY,WP:CREATIVE. If the credible secondary sources are there to support 99% of the article, go ahead and put them in. Otherwise this article's narcissistic tone and serious lack of reliable references have been given more than enough time to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 primary argument by those !voting to keep was a reference to all the previous AFDs, but consensus can change. There were other weak arguments either way, but nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues. I've thought about this closure for quite a while and won't be changing it; DRV is thataway if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is committed to three things: verification neutrality and fairness to living subjects. This article fails these tests, and indeed cannot pass them.

  • Who is a "big busted" model is subjective. It is culturally variable. Ultimately any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". So it is opinion not neutral fact.
  • The current criteria offered is the consensus among many independent web sites - eh? 1) That looks like original research - who says that's the consensus? verification? 2) Why are websites the standard anyway? Who says? The judgements here fail WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:OR
  • The items on the list are unreferenced. Where is the evidence that any of these performers are know for their breasts?
  • There is a BLP issue. We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers. Evidence? Neutrality?

Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article of the worst kind of subjective internet trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. True, that "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete, but nor it "I like it" and I reason to keep. So we fall back on objective criteria WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and by those policy standards this does not belong.

The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've got a better understanding of neutrality and verifiability since then.

Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This nomination is quite condescending, especially that last quip. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's bury this BLP-violating hellhole on the sixth[?!?!?!] attempt. Violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and is all and all a very bad idea for an article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom puts it well: OR trivia. I give this list a double F. (Kidding -- I was actually tempted to vote weak keep...) IronDuke 15:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although "demeaning and sexist" is no reason to delete an article, this is, in my eyes, comparable to an article titled List of important countries or List of important people. The criteria is apparently determined by 'many important sites and magazines', or words to that effect, which is open to too much interpretation. I agree 100% with the assertion that any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inclusion criteria for this list is subjective and original research. Epbr123 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • double-D-Delete. If the inclusion criteria were determinable, it should be a category. However, the history of the AfD's shows that the criteria haven't been determined yet, and the matter was brought up at the first AfD. That seems adequate time for the criteria to be established, to refute the statement that no such criteria can be determined. (Note also that the primary nomination reason fails, as noted by the Cavalry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the long string of previous, failed deletion attempts. I frankly find the nominator's tone quite uncivil and in violation of the assume good faith policy, given that he preemptively claims that this is a "demeaning and sexist" article, and that anyone who would choose to keep it hasn't "grown". Truth is, the dissemination of images of big busted women is fairly obviously referenceable by publications that the nominator might be embarrassed by. There aren't any problems here that aren't repairable by normal editing. And lists of people who qualify for their own articles do not need separate references in the list if their qualification for inclusion is verified on their own articles, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid you miss the point. I was trying to indicate that the fact I found it "sexist and demeaning" is beside the point. Ultimately this comes down to the fact that ANY inclusion criteria will be wholly arbitrary. So, leaving aside how I, or you, might subjectively react to the subject matter, can you address the issues I've outlined in the nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure that Juggs Magazine has "wholly arbitrary" criteria for inclusion; if they did, they wouldn't be able to reach their target audience, now would they? (Not sure if they accept freelance material. If they do, they surely have published a guide to would-be contributors.) What constitutes a big-bust model may well be a cultural construction. This does not make the subject indefinable or so vague that it becomes impossible to speak coherently about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, you can speak about it. I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views). But what you can't do neutrally is make a binary decision on whether to list someone. Some subjects are suitable for articles but not lists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least one of the AfD's led to deletion, overturned on DRV, for no apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of defined inclusion criteria and everything else that has been said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aboutt the BLP issue, most busty porn stars are famous BECAUSE they have big breasts. Minka, for example, rose to fame as being the worlds bustiest Asian. Keep per every other AFD. The only problem is trying to decide what is considered busty (my opinion is D-cup and above, which from my personal experience is also what big bust DVDs tend to use as well). TJ Spyke 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criterion will always be "in my opinion" or "a consensus of wikipedians" that's the problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's reasoning, with particular emphasis on the silliness of having an article with criteria from "consensus among many independent web sites", whatever on earth that means. I trust that the closing admin will ignore any and all "votes" with a reasoning consisting merely of pointing to previous AfDs--The last time this was kept by consensus was 2006, and wikipedia has changed and evolved significantly since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be busted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they are notable. and if their large bust is why they are notable, then there is nothing wrong with such a list. A reliable source should be included for each member to verify they are considered a "big bust model or performer" beyond the original research or opinion of the editor adding the name. If this list is deleted you might also take a look at many lists of people found at [70] which are equally or more deserving of deletion. (This is in no way a keep argument based on "other stuff exists.") Edison (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article differs from other lists of people as there is no established definition of a "big bust model or performer", and any attempt to define it would be original research. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the lists have inclusion criteria as arbitrary, or more arbitrary than this on. How deaf is a deaf person? How obese are the "most obese" people? How bipolar is bipolar? How depressed is a "depressed" person? How "bratty" and how "famous" is a is a "famous military brat?" How "famous" and "young" to be on the list of "famous people who died young?" I am just noting that many lists have membership criteria which are not easily defined. In List of deaf people#Musicians with a hearing loss I expect that almost all rock musicians and many band musicians have "a hearing loss" due to exposure to sounds way over 100 dB for prolonged periods. How many dB of hearing loss is certified for each? Edison (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per a few criteria. Aside from WP:NOTAGAIN (seriously, is this going to become an annual event?) there's also the fact a previous delete was overturned at deletion review, and the fact this has survived multiple AFD attempts (whether by keep or no consensus) says something. Every individual listed here is a blue-link, and therefore additional verification that they base some of their notoriety on their bust size can reasonably be expected to be found there. And the main list is sourced. There is no BLP issue that I can see. The statement by the nom about "maybe we've grown" I'm afraid taints this nomination with WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if this is not a message the nom wants to make I'd recommend removing that wording from the nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:NOTAGAIN an argument to avoid? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The selection criteria for this list are neither more nor less OR than any of dozens if not hundreds ofother entertainment category lists. I mean, [List of Obese Actors]? I know, otherstuffexists, yada, yada. But fundamentally, any entertainment/art category is subjective, because art and entertainment is subjective. As has been pointed out in other AfD debates - how funny does one have to be to be in a list of comedians? How Emo to be in a list of Emo bands? Each case can be settled by defining a suitable criteria from a third party source - and selecting a criteria in such a way is not OR. I can easily conceive of criteria for this list - "self described as", "marketed as", etc. We have a "list of horror films". Yet, surprisingly, it doesn't include Ishtar. Which I'd consider horrific, especially if I'd been paying for it. Long and short of it (or flat and busty of it, if you will) - subjective lists are inherently part of entertainment classification. There's nothing special about this one, except some people are being prudish about the topic I think. MadScot (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete due to ambiguous and arbitrary inclusion criteria. What would be the cutoff point? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how such a list could ever do anything other than violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. nancy (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get it over with I see the usual stupid and irrelevant "what is big" discussion going on here. The big bust genre is an identifiable, sourceable, verifiable genre of entertainment. This has been discussed half a dozen times at AfDs, so it is pointless to re-hash it. The Deletionists have been around this list like dogs around a bitch in heat, and it is inevitable that one of them is going to make the score. I was inexperienced at Wikipedia when I started the section on Japan, and I know now that already well-sourced section can be sourced much better with clear statements on the genre and its history. But I have intentionally not worked on that section since I first put it up, because I know that this list is going to be deleted eventually, and it would be a wasted effort. I would like to turn it into a good article at another, more honest project, and don't want to give Wikipedia any credit for any of it. So let's cut the crap, stop the bullshit Wiki-rule quoting, which do not support this article's deletion, stop playing stupid and just delete it. And if I haven't offended or personally attacked any of my fellow Delete-voters, I apologize. Dekkappai (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lets have less of that please. Tensions are high on important issues such as this, but keep it calm, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article does no significant good or bad in my opinion. The interest with large breasted women is culturally significant (breast implants exist for a reason) and there are various folks who have become plenty wealthy on their breasts. That having been said, its to me, the same degree of minutae as we might have for list of plus size models, list of fetishes, list of award winning barbecue sauces. So, if you think those should go, so should this, and vice versa. I'm not totally convinced either way at the moment.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Round and round it goes, where it stops, everybody knows -- it stops when the Deletionists get their way.  Xihr  21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really best if you give reasons that answer the arguments for deletion. Simply saying keep and attacking "deletionists" (which I'm not) isn't liable to count for much when the discussion is summed up by an admin. Your comments will be ignored. This is a discussion of the issues raised, not a vote.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given them the last times this article has pointlessly come up for deletion. At some point you give up; Deletionists just continue trying until they eventually get their way -- and they nearly always do. What's the point?  Xihr 
  • Strong keep There doesn't seem to be any controversy or confusion concerning who belongs in the list. The nominator's arguments aren't convincing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, there does seem to be some confusion. For example, why are Pamela Anderson and Gemma Atkinson on the list if they have never appeared in big-bust porn magazines or videos. Even most of the pornstars, such as Jenna Jameson, don't fit the supposed criteria. And Dolly Parton being in the list is a BLP nightmare. Epbr123 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then remove them. I won't complain. GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish someone *coughglasscobra* would write WP:BIGUNS or WP:TIGOLEBITTIES to complement WP:HOTTIE and ameliorate some of this tension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? I've not even commented, and I'm mentioned already? o_O GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Russ Meyer-Inspired Keep The article may need editing, but it doesn't deserve erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to address the issues raised in the nomination? This is a discussion not a vote. Unreasoned keeps (or deleted) will not sway it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I tried to, but here goes again : subjective - response, all entertainment and arts categorization is subjective. The current criteria offered ... So we fix the criteria. that a criteria could be derived by consensus is not at doubt. Again, what's the criteria for ALL inclusion on Wp for entertainment - notability - anything except subjective? unreferenced At best an argument to remove a specific item on the list, not the list. BLP issue I think if I'm being filmed or photographed for 'Big Juggs Weekly' or whatever that's unlikely to be an issue. I suspect very few if any of the list members are offended by inclusion. Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article Ah, the heart of the matter. You don't like the topic? Tough. Wp is full of stuff I might not like, but it's not about liking it.MadScot (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're attacking keep votes, Scott, I suggest you attack equally weak delete votes, as well. It seems you have no problem with Steve Dufour's completely worthless vote. After all, "This is a discussion not a vote.".. of course, unless it's a vote for 'delete'. THEN IT'S A-OK! SashaNein (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for neutrality concerns. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AVN Manages It. There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". AVN Awards are recognised by WP as conferring notability. If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can. Please stop saying its not capable of categorisation. Arguing that its not possible is like arguing that we couldn't have a catgeory for "animation" because there's CGI in "non animated" films. The Academy Awards manages it. Same argument here. You can dispute individuals, and maybe a different category to the AVN one would be bbetter. But that's not a deletion debate. MadScot (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can" - wouldn't that be original research? What we need is a reliable source that defines a big-bust performer. Epbr123 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily We have a list of Comedians and I bet there's no single list outside WP that contains all on our list. You could quite legitimately SYNTHESIZE a list criteria based on non-WP criteria. I can conceive of combining the AVN rules with some other rule. 'Self-described' would be one possibility. Provide the criteria are agreed and reasonable, multiple criteria which are related makes sense. (List of golfers winning one or more majors is technically synthesis, as each tournament has its own list of winners; in combining the four tournaments there's an element of synthesis. But provided there's general agreement on the four majors, where's the harm?) but again, deciding the correct criteria for a list isn't an AfD topic. Exactly such a list coupld be composed SOLELY of "female actress playing leading or co-=leading roles in a film eligible for the AVN Busty award". Completely non synthesized criteria. But selected and subjective of course. Just like any entertainment list would be. MadScot (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But having to choose the criteria for a list ourselves, rather than acquiring the criteria from a reliable source, is what makes the article OR. I'm not convinced by your comparison with this list to other entertainment lists. To take your "List of Emo bands" as an example, there are plenty of reliable sources discussing what an Emo band is. However, partly due to the lack of reliable media coverage pornography receives, there are few sources discussing what a big-bust performer is. Epbr123 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except the AVN criteria is that the video/title/series focuses on breasts and their size. There's still a very subjective standard on who the producer puts in his video but the AVN voters are not quibbling over specific "Oh, these tits aren't big enough". They are trying to figure out which is the most strokeable title that focus on breasts size. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of unambiguous criteria for inclusion on the list (and any such criteria are bound to be arbitrary, not to mention demeaning towards women). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' per MadScott. The existence of notable awards for this type of performer/model and others provides reliable sources. There are clearly more than enough sources to keep this. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not demeaning and sexists, except to the extent that the subject inherently is. I would replace the definition with one that specifies something like "models and entertainers with articles in Wikipedia who are publicly promoted or frequently referred to specifically for the large bust size". We're talking about a genre, not a dimension. DGG (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That criteria is still too ambiguous. What counts as public promotion? How frequent is frequent? Referred to by whom? What type of model or entertainer? Whatever criteria we choose, there'll always be too much original research involved. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An issue that has so far been overlooked is that the article is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the plentyful mentioned above (esp. DGG). Response to prior comment; we all know by now that Lists and :Cats can coexist, thats why that issue has been set aside. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A list should only coexist with a category if the list provides extra information on each item. However, this list doesn't, and is therefore totally redundant. Epbr123 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can find no such requirement in WP:CLN; indeed, it is stated in WP:Lists#Purposes of Lists that redundancy between categories and lists is "beneficial". Existence of a category in no way influences the acceptability of a list, or vice versa. MadScot (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I admit I'm wrong. The guidelines have changed a lot since I last looked. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Next issue. Why isn't this article being blanked for BLP reasons? Wikipedia currently has a high-profile article naming Dolly Parton, Gemma Atkinson, Maria Whittaker, etc. as pornstars, without citing any references. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Criteria for inclusion appears arbitary. •CHILLDOUBT• 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serious POV issues. What's the criteria? A certain size? The inclusion criteria is arbitrary and unknown. Additionally, it is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What an udderly ridiculous article, a mountain of BLP hell. Please, take a pair of bazookas to it and bust it into thin airbags. Place it on the rack with the other deleted articles. The creation of this list was certainly a boob and this sort of thing has to be nipped in the bud. I shall add this to my watchlist so I can be kept abreast of the situation. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MadScot. This is the entertainment industry. Ottre 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, pretty amazing that this has been nominated 6 or 7 times though. Wow. JBsupreme (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up valid concerns raised. Ensuring sources are added would also help clean this up. Dolly Parton has made statements about her breasts, their size, and the ongoing attention but agree this list should be more clear who is or is not included as the only reason Parton wouldn't be is the adult entertainer component. For the rest of us who are not into the subject it would be nice to add a bit of treatment of pre-implants and highlight some ... developments in the field and controversies. -- Banjeboi 12:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I swear I'm retiring from the project if this gets deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nooo! :O The closing admin had better take this into account, as the loss of such an outstanding editor will surely weigh heavily on his or her conscience... GlassCobra 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Still waiting for List of big-peen male models and performers :) - Alison ❤ 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not help to leave a note. You make me burst into laughter.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Achromatic (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seem redundant. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not manageable, too subjective. Perhaps a category would work, but the list looks like a bad idea. Moreover the name of the list does not speak about the specific sub-genre of pornography, therefore every actor with big busts belongs here even if she acts only in Shakespeare's plays...--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are reasons to fix an article - not to delete it. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, this is the sixth time we discuss it in an AfD and nobody fixed it till now. Therefore I came to conclusion that these problems are not easy to fix.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the first I've seen f this article and from discussion it seems it's a perenial favorite amongst our readers. I can't believe we have a policy that because a problem isn't fixed in ____ time it should be deleted. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Alison, Arthur Rubin, and Juliancolton. I understand that some editors fancy the topic, but please come up with a less subjective criteria. VG ☎ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like all lists, the criteria for inclusion should make sense, be clearly stated and enforced. These are WP:Problems that should be fixed. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been three years since the article's first AfD and the problems still haven't been fixed. The article will always be POV and OR. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles are always being worked on. The easiest solution is to tighten the writing and work towards sourcing the list. POV concerns should be fixed. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, echoing a couple others above, namely MadScot and DGG. The nom also appears to be misguided: "We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers." Ah, yes, actually; these actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts. While Ali's comment was funny, and certainly details the double standards of the porn industry, the solution is not to delete this article. It's also a shame that Dekkappai feels that he or she should not bother improving this article because of the constant threat of deletion. Perhaps it could be made into a decent piece if users could focus on improvement instead of removal. GlassCobra 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebDeck[edit]

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

Article for an insufficiently notable software program. No evidence this software has been the subject of significant coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Google News search produces 0 hits. Yahoo! News search similarly produces 0 hits. The limited search results from Google News Archive are press releases and trivial coverage.

Has been speedy deleted twice and prod deleted once, so comes here to determine consensus. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RAF Bassingbourn. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bassingbourn Barracks Golf Club[edit]

Bassingbourn Barracks Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This golf course/club is not noteworthy. To be noteworthy, it should have hosted a major event, for example a European Tour event, or Open qualifier. Wikipedia should not be used as a yellow pages for golf courses.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 event management. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party organization (event)[edit]

Party organization (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, none reliable found via Google search. Was tagged as such for half a year without improvement. There exist lots of unreliable and/or primary sources about groups calling themselves party organizations, but the article's content seems unverifiable. Huon (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin J. Martin[edit]

Benjamin J. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable opera singer, only recently finished training, with no significant coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related page because it is a substantial duplicate of the same article and created by the same editor Alymcgee:
Benjamin Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here is a review of his performance with Lyric Opera of Melbourne [71]. Other than that nothing else is coming up. Is he also a pianist? because the only Benjamin Martin coming up with some of the other ensembles listed is a pianist. Regardless, I don't think this is enough coverage to meet notability. Nrswanson (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regards to the above comment by User:Nrswanson - if you can't tell from those sources that are available, then he probably doesn't have the secondary coverage required for WP:N or WP:V. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per my nomination. I still haven't been able to find any significant coverage. He is not the same person as the pianist Benjamin Martin, who went to the Juilliard School. The review mentioned above was for a chamber production by "Lyric Opera of Melbourne" (founded 5 years ago), not one of Australia's top opera companies. More about them here.[72] Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Benjamin J. Martin. No evidence on notability found per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Restore original redirect from Benjamin Martin. No objection to deleting the article first. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without any doubt! In the article, it says He is now an admired interpreter of bel canto and lyric tenor heroes, oh sorry, never heard of him + sounds too "marketing for a newbie"! - Jay (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KDE. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kandalf[edit]

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

Non-notable mascot. VG ☎ 08:22, 19 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, ffm 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to KDE per above. ffm 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups identified by the Anti-Defamation League and Hatewatch as hate groups[edit]

List of groups identified by the Anti-Defamation League and Hatewatch as hate groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Useless and poorly-written list article. If people want to find an accurate list of what these organizations consider to be "hate groups", they should go to their respective websites. J332 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the article need better sourcing, it is neither useless nor poorly-written and neither of those are valid reasons for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is "not poorly-written"? It's not even an article. It's just a boring list separated by a variety of headings. Even the title is boring and pedantic. --J332 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 'Boring' and 'pedantic' are personal opinions. More important, they are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be better to include links to the sites of the two groups in the articles on hategroups, etc. That way readers could get the latest information without WP editors doing extra work to keep the lists constantly updated. WP would also avoid possible liability if a mistake was made and a group wrongly included. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This would probably be better implemented as a category or categories. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Combination of two groups in list is bizarre. What about the Southern Poverty Law Center, etc? Why these two groups. Therefore topic is not notable, even though it might be for each group independently... more extreme example... "List of fish species and oil companies" A list of two things is only notable if the intersection is somehow notable. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - add the list of groups identified by each organisation to each organisations respective page if its felt to be relevant and verifiable. Can't see any encyclopaedic justification for combining those two particular org's lists into one. -Hunting dog (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Merge Changing my vote based on Hunting dog's reasoning. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its present form, this violates WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we might as well have a page dedicated to groups that the KKK considers "hate" groups. 72.72.127.26 (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAPBOX as well as the above's comment regarding the KKK. The door swings both ways. MuZemike (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of network management systems[edit]

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

The problem here is dangerously close to CSD G11, but not so obvious as to warrant tagging it as such, so I've nominated for AfD instead. Network management system is a very broad term, enough so that most of the entries on this list are not network management tools, per se. Through marketing, companies have stretched the meaning of the term network management well beyond the concepts of monitoring and administration, so much that a list of "network management systems" is vague at best, and completely useless in practice. This classification therefore is useless as a list in its current form, and instead should be replaced by a category, e.g. Category:Network management systems. Todd Vierling (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The fact that the list is self-described as a partial list, with no particular criteria for inclusion makes it even further problematic. I think making the category will serve the same function. If nobody objects, I may WP:BOLD-up and just do it. ArakunemTalk 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The list can add more information than a category, but we need to clean off those without an article, and set a standard for what is a network management system. A list of commercial products is a fair thing to have, it in the same category as list of airlines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me. If the term is indeed vague, Wikipedia could actually be of use in making it more clear, and perhaps provide more succinct and focused lists. Warren -talk- 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I listed the original so I can't vote again; however: I disagree that it's even possible to come up with hard criteria for what belongs on a "list of network management systems" (see original nomination comment). I suggested a category as an alternative for precisely the reason that a category doesn't allow describing entries in more detail; that is inherently more immune than a list to spammy content and marketspeak-stretched definitions of network management.
  • Delete, per WP:LIST, the three main purposes of a list are information, navigation and development. In this context without some sort of stringent inclusion criteria, development means attracting spam. Navigation isn't served due to the inhomogenous nature of the entries; it might serve information purposes, but would have to be rewritten completely to do so. Roughly half of the linked pages I checked didn't contain any reference to network management, making it something of an indiscriminate collection of information. Huon (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no encyclopedic reason to have all these together in a list, and some of these are very different products that happen to have "network management" in the ad copy somewhere. These range from SNMP-based tools to manage communications equipment, to monitoring tools, to programs that graph traffic statistics, and even proxy servers that censor which web sites you can see at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value. I agree with the comment by Squidfryerchef above. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 09:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NTNU School of Entrepreneurship[edit]

NTNU School of Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a specific specialization of a Master's degree at a university. There is absolutely nothing notable about this line. Arsenikk (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect. As it is the article is almost advertising, any reliably sourced information on the course that can be found can be included in the main school article if suitable. The course itself does not seem to have received the kind of coverage from which a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article could be written. Guest9999 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability, almost an A7 speedy case. No secondary sources, either. I don't think we need a redirect; the title doesn't sound like a likely search term. Huon (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot determine if its a school in the sense of a US college--a major subdivision of a university , or an academic department. Given that there isn't even that amount of information,I'm not sure what is worth merging. Their English website is similarly unrevealing. DGG (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for this sound nomination. Feel free to give me a heads up next time the debate turns out to attract few people (this was relisted once). Punkmorten (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Zeidan[edit]

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

Unnotable news journalist with no reliable sources to pass WP:V. There doesn't seem to be much coverage on her beyond what she covers herself. Tavix (talk) 01:03, 19 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 17:57, 23 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, Tavix (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS and no one rising up to dispute the AfD--it could have been PROD'ed by now. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Elkins (musician)[edit]

Suzy Elkins (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) - (View AfD)

Delete A Google search resulted in very few references and all that I found were promotional, nothing to suggest someone of notability. The article at the moment reads like a list and I see nothing to prove that this is a person worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hndis (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person. 68.237.226.229 (talk) 06:25, 23 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, ffm 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person. 68.237.226.229 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam; redirect to Rybka as suggested. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rybka 3 Aquarium[edit]

Rybka 3 Aquarium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN GUI. Written like an advertisement. Doesn't assert notability. Would be better off as a redirect to Rybka, to be honest. Utan Vax (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audiopathik[edit]

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

Barely coherent article about a band that seems to lack notability. MBisanz talk 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. As an editor, I highly suggest converting the below into lists, looking at a featured list for inspiration. lifebaka++ 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi clubs at the AFC Champions League[edit]

Iraqi clubs at the AFC Champions League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article listing the results of Iraqi football clubs playing in a continental tournament. IMO this falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as I can't really see that much point to it. The information already exists on the articles on the tournaments themselves, e.g. AFC Champions League 2007. A debate on an identical article on Iranian club results ended as delete.

I am also nominating Thai clubs in the AFC Champions League and Thai clubs in the Asian Club Championship for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per past precedent. – PeeJay 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are way too detailed and should not exist, but I'd say merge the first sections only to Football in Thailand. There is no football in Iraq article, so merging's not an option there. Punkmorten (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - organised, discriminate, encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You have no idea how hard to create an organized article, I wasted 8~12 hours on creating and editing the page. Mussav (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much time you spent on creating an article is not a valid reason to keep it and repeatedly removing the AfD tag is not helpful either. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page is totally useful, you can't ignore that, you can know everything about Iraqi clubs in the Champions League in one page. The page is organized, improved and contains useful information. So why the delete? Mussav (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a good basis for an article. I'd trim it down a bit and rename it to Iraqi clubs IN the AFC Champions League, but the basic idea is there. - fchd (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if converted to something more akin to List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup, which is a Featured List -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FCHD & ChrisTheDude. GiantSnowman 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a heads up, but like the Iranian article's AfD, this one has also been the victim of a WP:CANVASsing campaign. [73][74][75] пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I send notifications to the people who shared with me creating and editing the page, they have the right to defend their work just like me. besides they did not respond yet. Mussav (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but you just can't do that - the three editors you canvassed had never actually edited the article. Try actually reading the guidline before replying. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Al1976 actually did edit the page, any way the reason why I send messages to Chaldean and mo1993 because this square Me and Al-Mo-Chal are the most active users in editing the Iraqi soccer related pages. so I thought they edidted the page alongside with me and Al. But thanx to you, you reverted it. now we can continoue voting without worring about the CANVASS. Mussav (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies - my mistake. However, only one of the three has ever edited the article in question, and he/she only made a single edit. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I just realized that after checking the page's history, but again we four are the most active users in editing the Iraqi soccer related pages, so I thought they edited the page too. any way, you have reverted the messages, so I don't think there is any problem now. Mussav (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice that two of the articles were created by User:Mage2one but I can't trace Number 57 notifying that user as would be expected. User:Druryfire has also contributed significantly to those two pages. I am adding the notification template to their talk pages. This is permitted by WP:CANVASS as a 'friendly notice' "to editors who have substantively edited ... an article related to the discussion". TerriersFan (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, i can now have my say on the debate. To me, the history of the teams taking part in the competitions from each country is unique. People want to know this information. It simply is a collection of data that is all fact and collated into one page to suit the nations, Iraq and Thailand, more could be added. People use this information to get a better understanding of these football leagues and generate a bit of interest. Simply saying you can find it in the AFC Champions Legaue articles is misleading as they are over numerous pages. But if you true statistical information with the touch of a button then it is all their for you. Recently, myself and a few overs have re-made the Thai football pages to show to everyone on Wikipedia what Thai football is about, this information would neve rbe found anywhere else. Simply put, if it is removed, then their would be a hell of a lot more pages on Wikipedia that should be removed, as many do not have any sense of purpose or could just be fiction.

Druryfire (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - I think these articles are useful.Shahin (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 4~5 days have passed, today should be the final result. Mussav (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:IINFO applies. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was move to writing in space. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in Space[edit]

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

Unsourced. Badly written. Improper title. I don't oppose the existence of an article on that topic, but it would need to be extensive sourced (possibly citing the space agencies themselves when useful), be written with a more chronological perspective (the current article looks too much like a list), and have a decent title (Writing in space — with a lowercase S — would be better, but that isn't perfect, either, and I couldn't think about a better title right now). It is not clear that the article as it currently exists is better than no article at all. A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essay. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covers an interesting topic and contains some solid information mixed in with speculation. It is definitely not nonsense, although it is poorly written and needs some work. It has more references to reliable sources than most articles on Wikipedia. If it was well written it would cover aspects of writing in space that can otherwise only go in Fisher Space Pen, which is an article about a specific product. However, the stuff about printers has to go, since it is not related to the topic. I'll see what I can do about improving it. Wronkiew (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stubby but it has references and factual prose that can be improved on. Getting rid of the list format is better done using the "edit" link than the "delete" link. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Converted the list into more fluent prose. However, I haven't had the time to inline the references. This looks more like a keepable stub now. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Pegasus made that changes, I vote keep provided that it's moved to a more reasonable title (e.g. Writing implements used in space missions) and de-ORPHANed. It still needs massive cleanup, but there is no deadline, and templates from WP:TC might be useful meanwhile. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Grillz: The Movie[edit]

Gangsta Grillz: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

totally non-notable mixtape which doesn't have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. PROD tag removed without reason or improvement Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stubified to remove copyvio. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Mindanao[edit]

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

Tagged originally as COPYVIO; author (non-admin) just removed the COPYVIO warning before having transferred the entire article to the Talk page; now, it has chunks of text that are still word-for-word copyvios, with only one or two words not matching a Google search; has been editing on it non-stop apparently (perhaps a 3RR?) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 09:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Williams (Australian Idol)[edit]

Tom Williams (Australian Idol) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

current contestant in tv talent show. has not won or placed. not notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.Net[edit]

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

Article was incorrectly nominated by Yoryx, so I am fixing it and relisting, Yoryx's rationale is found below, my nomination should not count towards "delete" Equendil Talk 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sandbox for advertisement on an irrelevant information people can easily obtain themselves by visiting the site in question. The previous deletion discussion was on the basis that the site should stay for reasons unknown rather that by a solid reason for its own existence. As you can see from below, the people commenting that the article should be kept did not provide a sufficient explanation. Having 2800+ members is not noteworthy and by that reasoning, we should include NeoGaf, SomethingAwful, etc, into wikipedia? I hardly think not. If you also pay attention to some of the references that they're linking to, a couple of them are from sites identified as blogs (Kotaku, for example) and is not considered to be a reliable source of information. The other magazines are listed but there's no realistic way at the moment to verify the content. I am pushing for this article to be deleted and removed from Wikipedia. Yoryx (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Looks like another prior nomination was not done correctly either and was not mentioned on the discussion page, and there were two VfD nominations so this appears to be the sixth nomination. Prior nominations occured in that order:
Equendil Talk 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, sorry, I'm reverting that, article has been nominated and kept several times, and is currently going through AfD, let's not add a speedy deletion to that mess. Equendil Talk 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the logs the article was rewritten and later restored based on the rewrite [76]. I have no opinion about the article but I thought that should be cleared up. --76.66.181.114 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, or speedy delete it if it hasn't changed significantly since the last consensus to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that due to the references and everything are enough to keep it in. After all, it's a large enough website to keep going. If we're going to delete this we might as well delete Zophar's Domain. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Equendil Talk 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing Zophar's Domain which is visited by a wider demographic of people to Starmen.Net which is visited to a handful of people specifically interested in the game related to EarthBound is unjust and inaccurate. Note, Zophar's Domain is not in question in this deletion discussion, it's the Starmen.Net article we're talking about. Yoryx (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only edit by IP. Equendil Talk 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is not "plenty" notable if I were to remove all the questionable references. You will likely to be linked to an incomplete/incoherent article as a result of that. This "Keep" should not be accepted on that basis. Yoryx (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I forgot to add, Starmen.Net has a "stonehenge" section on their site which includes all the data necessary to inform their members. By that reasoning, a wikipedia article is redundant. They have their own information, we can remove this advertisement and redundancy. Yoryx (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, I give up. I friggin' hate how this place works. 24.218.12.158 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable video game website. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as first discussion closed as keep, this nominate it until it’s deleted nonsense is for the birds.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change over the course of a year, so WP:NOTAGAIN doesn't necessarily apply, especially when the article has not improved. Also, an AfD cannot be closed as a speedy keep if others support deletion and there is no evidence of snow. MuZemike (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — Possible attempt at canvassing may be going on at the website's forum here. MuZemike (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable due to a lack of appropriate sources. Randomran (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this organization has been mentioned multiple times by big names in the video game industry such as Nintendo Power and IGN, this site has a major influence on this series, and the game industry as a whole. Kuro ♪ 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, citations from reliable sources aren't present so I am inclined to believe the verifiability policy is not complied with. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to show this site is especially notable. The current sources are neither reliable nor notable, and if they are disregarded, it fails verifiability in addition to notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - badly fails WP:WEB, as well as WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Paressant[edit]

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

Well, at least there won't be any "delete per nom"-ing on this particular one… A can-of-worms one; those of you familiar with a certain other person who recently flooded Wikipedia and multiple other sites with "photographs of herself" may find this sounding oddly familiar. This is a Very Strange One, so apologies for the long story.

In 2006, Paressant received fairly significant media coverage as "a model and girlfriend of Ronaldinho" (see [77] for example). In 2007, similar allegations were made regarding her and Tony Parker. Parker then took legal action regarding the allegations about himself, which have since been retracted. However, I'm unable to find any similar retraction regarding the Ronaldinho allegations, despite coverage in the UK press (see the Sun link above, for example), despite Britain's notoriously strict libel laws.

In late December 2007, it was alleged (note the emphasis) that the photographs of "Paressant" were in fact German model Hana Nitsche, that the story had been fabricated by bulk-spamming blogs and wikis, that Paressant had never met Ronaldinho or Parker, and that a possible motivation for Paressant's self-promotion could be found here.

Googling Paressant's and Nitsche's names together throws up a lot of allegations, but not one of them seems to be from a reliable source – and I would have expected a case involving such high profile people to have far more significant coverage.

So, what do we do with this? As I see it, the possibilities are:

  1. Paressant is exactly who she claims to be, and the article may need cleaning up but is viable. A Google image search does bring up the volume (and type) of pictures consistent with a genuine model, and this story was covered in reliable sources, while the allegations against her seem to come mostly from blogs and chat sites.
  2. Paressant is exactly who she claims to be, but (as notablity is not inherited) she isn't successful enough as a model to warrant an article.
  3. This is a hoax and should be deleted as such.
  4. This is a hoax but the hoax itself has received enough media coverage that she warrants an article as a notable hoaxer.
  5. This may or may not be a hoax, but either way is problematic; if we're not sure, than "her version" is a potential BLP violation against Ronaldinho and Parker, while the "she is a hoaxer" version is a potential BLP violation against Paressant, and unless/until we can be sure of the truth the whole thing is causing more trouble than it's worth.

Over to you… Given the nationalities of the persons involved, there may well be far more reliable sources in French and Portuguese, if anyone is in a position to dig them out.  – iridescent 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete provided no one drags up some foreign-language RSs to corroborate exactly who she is and what's true or a hoax; otherwise, the BLP issues make this an exception to the "improve, don't delete" argument; no prejudice against recreation in the event that RSs emerge. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You probably made the right choice by bringing the problem up here, or anywhere for that matter. I think it's best to keep the article because the person is notable, and I would say keep the article as a hoax. As I told you I'm part of the fashion wikiproject and a brief search at the right places proved me that she uses photos not only from Hana Nitsche, but from various other models to publicize herself (sent to journalists and on her myspace page as well), such as Zoé Duchesne (1, 2, 3), Bianca Balti (1), Alexandra Kabi (1), Adriana Lima et caetera. She also claims to have been part of the Victoria's Secret fashion show and the most reliable source I could find online (the imdb) shows no sign of her anywhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Finally, no model agency she claims to be part of is listing her. Problem is, very few journalistic sources even bother to investigate her claims and maybe it's not our job at wikipedia to take sides but all the elements are here. By the way I'm french and I don't think keeping the article as it is now is a good publicity not only for my country but for wikipedia as well. I say keep because given the notoriety of this person/avatar, the article is at a high risk of being re-created anyways. Thiste (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your evidence that this is a hoax is pretty convincing. Problem is, we can't keep the article as is, since it appears to be substantially false and lacks reliable sources for claims about living people; and I don't think we can -- yet -- rewrite the article to say this person's claims are a hoax, because your evidence (while convincing) is original research as far as Wikipedia is concerned and that would probably violate WP:BLP. Now if a reliable publication picks up the story of this hoax and writes something suitable for citing, then that would be an appropriate source to use for a Wikipedia article, but does such an article exist now? If not, I think this has to go for BLP concerns. TheMolecularMan (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well maybe these articles would do : two from PEOPLE magazine (1, 2 (scroll down a bit)), this one from the Huffington Post (1), and this one in french -- the first one chronologically (2006) -- from football magazine SO FOOT (1, 2, 3, 4). I probably could find more if I did more searching but that's probably enough. Thiste (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just kidding. Ok, I'm french so I tried to dig up some stuff about this, it appears to be a hoax that has been the subject of *some* coverage. TF1 (#1 french TV channel) ran a (in depth) story about it in the TV programme 50 minutes Inside [78] (link is a blog, but hosts a recording of TF1). Le Figaro (major national newspaper) has a story on this [79] presenting it as a hoax as well. Both reliable sources (well as far as TV/newspapers go), and there are probably more out there. So basically, that leaves option 3) or 4). No doubt it's a hoax, but it seems to be a notable hoax as it's all over the Internet apparently, and we have decently reliable sources to write an article that is not original research. I'll go for a keep (and rewrite/expand). Equendil Talk 10:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write as a notable hoax. The sources listed above seem to me to both show that this is a hoax, and point its it's (somewhat weak) notability. The new article probably should contain a line that the subject (or a woman who claims to be her) maintains that her version is the truth, but that no independant verification has been forthcoming. I'm slapping the hoax template on the article in it's present form. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Showalter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Showalter Showalter[edit]

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

Non-notable web series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete by Travellingcari , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David (2009 film)[edit]

David (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existent film with no reliable 3rd party sourcing. Probable hoax. PROD removed without comment Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As is customary, the "votes" of new and unregistered users have been given reduced weight. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brookers[edit]

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

Reason the page should be deleted Nor3aga (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This person is of no notability. one or two articles referencing her were MINOR articles, and she has not made either the news or the internet news in a VERY long time. Furthermore her pages starts out with no facts. The phrase 'believed to be' is not encyclopedic. Maybe we can remake this page when she is big news but she is not and therefore should be deleted. Nor3aga (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the early days of silent films, names of the actors were not given in the credits. In 1909, Mary Pickford made more than 50 films before anyone knew who she was. Think about it. Pepso2 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't watch this person's stuff, but I see plenty of references to establish notability in the article. One more that I didn't see in there already: USA Today - Also signed by Carson Daly, for whatever reason. SashaNein (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lots of reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Cited as a prime example of a YouTube celebrity managing to cross over into "old media" outlets, to cite the Wall Street Journal. Huon (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if her influence has waned, she's notable as one of the first viral video stars and did get a network deal out of it. Notability doesn't expire. Nate • (chatter) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah she got a deal but she hasn't done anything with it. This girl has no reason to be here. 214.13.192.187 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is remarkable about this woman, Brooke? She made a few Youtube Videos, some agents contacted her, and nothing else happened? Just because you are well known on Youtube is no reason to be included in Wikipedia. TDoggShabozz (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contadina only got "eight, great tomatoes in that little, bitty can" but Brodack got 40 million views. Note that the opening paragraph (part of complaint at top here) has now been completely rewritten to establish notability. Pepso2 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides Brodack getting a lot of yutube views, she really isn't a remarkable person. The article states brodack works at the 99 and was a volunteer? Other than the one notable fact about her, she is a small fish. When she does something big then she can included here, —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHodgez (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When The New Yorker calls someone a "star," it seems doubtful that "small fish" will float. Pepso2 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now we use the New Yorker as a standard? Look when they FEATURE her work or she makes the cover, then we will talk. Her career was never started and never went anywhere, that's why she worked as a waitress. This page is nothing but fanboys of hers trying to protect a page. Wikipedia needs money and saving them this 35kb of diskspace is a good start.
  • Keep certainly enough independant references to establish notability in the first place and once properly established it doesn't go away. ViridaeTalk 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is not a 'whos who' of Youtube. That is Youtubes job. We need to start pruning these nobodies now before half of wikipedia is Youtube users. Like John said above, there is really nothing notable about this broad other than the fact that she has a lot of youtube views and was talked to by Carson Daly. I haven't seen her work featured ANYWHERE but youtube. We need to get rid of lame articles like this that consist mostly of a person's career in food service. 208.79.15.100 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Meets WP:N and isn't a dicdef according to consensus (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatsuit[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a dictionary. As far as I can see, this is just a dictionary term. No reason for an article. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Description of an uncommon physical object, complete with examples of how it is used? Sounds like a keep to me - this is well beyond a dictionary definition, even as a stub. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for usage/references see e.g. [80], [81]. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second reference does not count, as it is not independent from the subject.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hardly commonplace, but that's why we need an encyclopedia to explain it to us. Shallow Hal alone should be adequate justification for notability and WP:RS. Expansion please though, especially some photographs! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please see, notability is not inherited. Of the current explanations of why this subject is notable, I see none. It's an item used in movies for special effects, since that is the argument you are using for notability concerns, should we have an entire article on a specific type of lens filter?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
should we have an entire article on a specific type of lens filter?
Oooh, please do! Are you a cinematographer? This would be great, there are so many interesting filter effects around, it would be great to expand encyclopedic coverage of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, to rephrase, should we really have an article about every piece of equipment used in movie-making? I really don't think so. Secondly, those of you arguing that this topic is notable. Where is notability stated? I don't see any sources or claims of notability in the article.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
should we really have an article about every piece of equipment used in movie-making
That would be so cool! Subject of course to WP:N 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Did you even read the policy you cited? Try WP:GNG, there is no amount of significant reliable sources independent from the subject matter.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... You haven't been here very long, have you? Why don't you take some time to read up on policy, and it is not my job to fix it, it is the job of the creator of the article.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not your job to fix it? How is this reasoning valid for not fixing it?. Mythdon (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my job to fix it, it is the job of the creator of the article. I'm here to get the article deleted, as it does not meet policy, I'm not here to fix it, I shouldn't have to explain why it isn't my job if you've been here long enough. When someone lists an article as having no sources, it is not that person's job to find sources, but the job of the one who wants the tag to go away, or the article to stay. It isn't my job.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the job of the creator of the article" I think you ought to think about how a collaborative wiki works, and in particular to read WP:OWN. If it's anyone's "job" to fix this this, it's either the person offended by the issue, or the community offended by its breach of a community-endorsed policy. You're not at work now, we don't have underlings that we schedule the work out to. The article is open to anyone to fix it - we've all (our personal time availability permitting) got the same opportunity. Fatsuits aren't rocket science, proving notability of an obviously existent concept isn't asking for much. If someone with an interest in film history wants to expand their history that would be great, likewise someone who works with costume or prosthetics wants to explain how you stuff them. (Oh, and I'm not that Andy Dingley - Wish I was sometimes, he gets much more fun!) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you need to re-read WP:OWN, as that is not the case that I am refering to. We all have our own views on things, but this, as stated previously, not my job. I am not going to argue my views with you, so how about you back off and stop throwing policies at me that you don't understand.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make it even more clear, you're saying that if I created an article which did not assert notability, nor did it have reliable sources, it would be your job to fix it? I think not.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is everybodys to fix it. or shall i say anybodys job?. There is no "it is not my job" on Wikipedia, period. Mythdon (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. Last time I checked, I don't control the actions of others, and neither do you, further, last time I checked, I acquired the it's not my job tidbit from a previous AfD. It is always the creator of the article's job to source said article, as, if they think it should be included here, they should state why and source it, not leave it to others, that would be discourteous.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing Do not argue with me about how I do things. This is a discussion on why or not this article should be deleted, not my editing habits. Keep on topic please, and address my questions which you have yet to answer, please.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is encyclopedic, notable and useful for readers. There is no reason to delete it. Theres every reason to keep it. Mythdon (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Zetawoof said it all. It looks like the snow is melting.--Pmedema (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fairly common special effects technique. Current article is a little on the weak side but should be fixable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Fat Keep The subject is notable, but the article needs a clean-up. Can anyone get a photo to run with this? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To all those voting to keep on the claim that the subject is notable, I do not see any sources claiming such, nor is there an assertion in the beginning line that the subject is notable, so, if you would, please describe how it is notable.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I'm not sure why I created this AfD, now that I look at the article, it appears to fall under CSD A7, and 80% of the people that posted keep here haven't come back to respond or discuss. AfDs are about discussion, not voting, that's why it isn't called votes for deletion.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really do need to reference those policies before citing them, "WP:CSD#A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep To save nominator any further embarrassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and I could add to this article if it isn't there already, ways in which a fatsuit is used in diet and weight loss programmes to show the client what they could end up looking like, etc. The nominator needs to read the wikimanual or something. Sticky Parkin 15:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability criteria, not much more to be said. Verbal chat 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn, now clean-up issue. TravellingCari 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mole (Australia season 2)[edit]

The Mole (Australia season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is some sort of social activity. It is not notable and not sourced. Grahame (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may actually be a TV program on further research, but it does not currently make a claim for notability.--Grahame (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appstarter[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable / non-notable software application. Very limited ghits outside of the 'technical forum' context. CultureDrone (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. The speedy was declined. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No claim of notability, no references after a month. Bongomatic (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sneaking suspicion that the prod tag was removed by the original user logged out as a bonus --Blowdart | talk 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a spammish article about non-notable software. Bfigura (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. J.delanoygabsadds 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound tockey ball[edit]


Rebound tockey ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made in school one day - this was made up one day "from the humble hotel tennis courts of cairns, Qld." Wongm (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could you prove that? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how could you prove its not a real sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.77.34 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) — 123.211.77.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are no reliable sources to indicate the existence (and encylopedia-worthiness) of the topic, Wikipedia does not include it. Anomie⚔ 11:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't bother trying to reason with that one, he's been going around vandalizing userpages of half the people who have voted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't hurt to give him the benefit of the doubt. Anomie⚔ 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailorsing[edit]

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

Possibly should have been considered for CSD G8, otherwise WP:NEOLOGISM and Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Submitted for CSD A1, but contested. Reads like a very sly G8. —  X  S  G  05:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears to be that the article has been improed since its nomination. Remaining issues are editorial ones. TravellingCari 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiverton Preedy[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE: the founder of a football club who isn't even mentioned in the article of the football club he founded (which does contain a history section). Current sources (http://www.chrishobbs.com/tivertonpreedy.htm and http://www.chrishobbs.com/tivertonpreedy2) are not "reliable". Half the current article is about his death: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No backlinks. I nixed the CSD A7, as importance is asserted. {{prod|No [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] found to [[WP:V|verify]] [[WP:NOTABLE|notability]}} was removed with comment "as feel this article has improved and will improve more in the future"; not addressing the issue of verifiability or notability. —  X  S  G  05:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The book ref I added has some on him.. Googling, among other usable sources one gets [82] from the Guardian, a review of Thank God for Football! By Peter Lupson "which digs up much more than we knew before about the people who established these clubs and the principles, of "service to the poor and deprived", which motivated them." and has a chapter on Barnsley, founded by Preedy. ( here is a review from The Independent.) The Chris Hobbs site's article is well sourced, referring to public records and newspaper articles on Preedy. Barnsley's site and publications are RS's on their own history, and they have some. Lack of mention of him in an article on Barnsley is a defect of Wikipedia.John Z (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If all of what you just wrote finds its way into the article, I'm guessing it'll have a good chance of passing this AfD. —  X  S  G  06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad to see ChrisTheDude has largely done so. The book by Lupson should have a good amount, but there's no preview, so all I can add is putting it in further reading for now. One always learns interesting things down here in AfD. Regards,John Z (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Barnsley F.C.. The article is shaping up very nicely. Some of the reliable sources just mention Preedy in passing, as the founder of the team, which would indicate that he warrants a mention on the team's page and not necessarily his own article. —  X  S  G  16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to endeavour to get hold of the book mentioned above before this AfD ends - if Preedy is found to be the main subject of a chapter of say, ten pages or more, would that be deemed sufficient (in conjunction with the existing web-based sources/references) to keep the article in its own right....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. You'll also find that I'm a bit more conservative in my adherence to Wikipedia guidelines than the average editor. The fact of the matter is, we're dealing with guidelines, here, and not policy, so you may not even need to. So far, I suspect a Wikipedia admin would close this discussion as keep, so finding the book in question may not be necessary. Regardless, I'm going to see what Google Book Search has about that book... —  X  S  G  21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've merged most of the information from this article into History of Barnsley F.C./Tiverton Preedy merge for demonstration purposes. I think it works and I hope all will agree. —  X  S  G  21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JohnZ and ChrisTheDude's research on the article which, in my eyes, establishes notability. GiantSnowman 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Inlcude short section in Barnsley article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now the article has been expanded (and very well), he seems notable enough, multiple independent sources & books back it up. Qwghlm (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well reference article. Don't see why it should be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films on television[edit]

James Bond films on television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete and utter OR. Corvus cornixtalk 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Every movie on TV gets editing, period. Bond movies are no exception. WP:OR and does anyone really care about a font face change during a movie opening? Nate • (chatter) 08:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 10:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the above poster noted, EVERY movie that later airs on TV gets edited (for time reasons to have commericals, cropped to fit 4:3 TVs, for content, etc.). At best, these could be mentioned in the individual movie articles, but even there this info could be considered cruft. TJ Spyke 16:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge notable examples with the main article on the film series. It's not OR because the edits themselves can be examined for verification (no different than examining a specific edition of a book). However as noted the fact a film is edited is not enough to make a viable article. There have been some major examples of edits, particularly with the original showing of OHMSS, and the fact it's well known that ABC for some reason treated Bond films differently than other movies - to the extent of event using a unique disclaimer addressed at parents - because of the family-friendly stereotype attached to the films. Alternately, just the ABC treatment of Bond could be incorporated into the main film article with the bit about the reediting of OHMSS into a miniseries could be moved to the film article (though I believe it's already discussed there). 23skidoo (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Delete - I thought some of these examples look familiar -- I wrote them for the IMDb. Most if not all of this article is one big copyvio from IMDb. 23skidoo (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced violation of WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Also, I don't know what ABC the author was referring to -- the author mentioned that the iconic gun-barrel opening was edited out in some films, though, when I watched the films on ABC (in the US), they always shown the opening. Also, in the US, it was not the ABC Bond Picture Show, it was seen on the "ABC Friday (usually) Night Movie". -- azumanga (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because of lack of references. SkierRMH (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Becker Westphall[edit]

Carlos Becker Westphall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Created by Westphall (talk · contribs · count). No independent reliable source proves notability (academics). Deleted on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Carlos Becker Westphall. Speedy/Prod deleted several times: [83], [84], [85], Tosqueira (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I am not completely sure about this case. On one hand, the CV shows a huge publication list[86]. It is also confirmed that he is an editorial board member for one journal [87] and a "senior technical editor" for another journal[88]. On the other hand I could find very little evidence of citability of his research. GoogleScholar gives very little[89]. I also checked both WebofScience and Scopus and there is very little there in terms of citability of his papers, with top hits in low single digits. It is possible that somehow all of them miss a substantial number of sources, but unless someone can actually demonstrate this, I am unwilling to give too much weight to the two journal editorships and being on the organizing committees of various conferences. In computer science I would have expected to see substantial evidence of citability of his work detected somewhere. Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not editor of the journals, member of the editorial board of one, and "technical editor" of another. the long list of publications are almost entirely local conferences. Neither scopus nor WoS are particularly strong for computer technology, so I also checked Citeseer, and a vareity of similar approaches to computer conferences, and found nothing significant further. DGG (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have made much impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nsk91 and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether the article should remain stand-alone or be merged or redirected to the section of freemasonry is a matter for talk pages. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic ritual and symbolism[edit]

Masonic ritual and symbolism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

When this was created at the end of August, I was concerned that the article was going to be a POV fork, and it seems I was right. After almost a month has passed, the only difference to this article as compared to the section in Freemasonry it was taken from (Freemasonry#Ritual, symbolism, and morality) is the addition of a "Controversy" section detailing the objection to Freemasonry by certain Christian denominations (which was put in on the same day it was forked). The question of Freemasonry and Christianity has two entire articles devoted to it already; it does not need a third directing people to nothing but more controversy to SOAPBOX or make a POINT. MSJapan (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the original section it was derived from. My inclination is that taking this away from the main freemasonry page creates a need for substantial context, essentially duplicating the parent article in a way which is disproportionate in comparison to the unique content. There is some potential value in future, but the volume of unique content does not support the separation at this time. My assessment of the creation, and subsequent activities, is that it does serve as a vehicle to imply much, but substantiate little. It essentially exploits the gaps between policies and guidelines to create a POV fork, and provide a vehicle to support the migration of material from unreliable (and frequently inaccurate) sources. In addition the various criticisms are already discussed in a multitude of other articles created as part of the growth of that aspect of the topic.ALR (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the main article from whence it came. There is some value in the content of the article, but not worth a separate article. And the controversy section could be added/merged into main article, and this section seems to be the only reason for the separation from main article (To keep it out of the limelight so to speak). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Freemasonry#Ritual, symbolism, and morality. I wish we could have an article on this topic (it is a fascinating topic that many people will want to read about), unfortunately there is a problem with any article on Masonic ritual that must be considered... it isn't uniform. There is no single "Masonic Ritual"... instead there are many different Masonic rituals. This means that we can not really expand the article beyond the very broad generalizations that were copied over from the main Freemasonry article. We can not expand the article to discuss the details of "Masonic Ritual and Symbolism", since any statement based upon one ritual will not accuratly reflect the facts of another ritual. We can not even do compare and contrast type statements, as there is simply too many variations to consider. As for the controversy, this is already discussed in the Freemasonry article, as well as in multiple other articles (it is discussed at Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, and Catholicism and Freemasonry, all of which are pointed to in the main Freemasonry article). In fact, I am beining to think that we give Anti-masonic claims undue weight here on Wikipedia... not in any given article, but project wide... by the sheer number of articles devoted to such claims. I am thinking that some consolidation may be called for. But that is an issue for another day. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to its parent, merging as necessary. This is a tragic example of an article title for which a competent, quality article could be imagined, but for which we have nothing of the sort. As related commentary -- an evaluation of the Freemasonry articles as a collective whole is probably a good idea. Blueboar's concerns about subtle POV creep across multiple titles in articlespace seems, on its face, warranted. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion is still under way. There are a variety of Masonic sources, dictionnaries, encyclopediae, reference works, that do find a way of adressing the variety of masonic ritual and symbolism. They might be considered usefull source material for Wikipedia. The subject is now taken hostage by the absurd sofistry of some self styled guardians. There are a variety of symbols in common that have not yet found their place in the article. Of course if one such a guardian has it that "Freemasons do not actually have "symbols"..." (sic -see article discussion) then there is little left to say.
Lunarian (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lunarian takes my comment about Freemasonry not having symbols out of context... what I was commenting on was that Freemasonry talks about emblems, not symbols. There is a subtle difference between the two terms (see the article on Emblem if you are interested). The fact that we are having a discussion about the terminology has no impact on this AfD. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A further review odf the discussion will also show that Lunarian is being very disruptive as regards this article. He quotes from sources, but in quite a number of weeks has not stated what point these sources support, despite being asked directly to do so, and does not apply RS to said sources. He has also not stated what the point of the rambling discussion on the artice talk page is; it's certainly got nothing to do with article improvement, because no one has made a single edit to it in weeks, not even Lunarian. MSJapan (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSJ, I take it with the territory when you make wild accusations against me but please stop trying to poison the well on this subject. I could point out how four of the nominees are FreemasonsJASpencer (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited just now.
Please compare with discussion (Blueboar's POV)
Lunarian (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is clearly notable as Masonic rituals have been practiced at some time by millions of men (and quite a few women), that some Masonic symbols have arguably seeped out into popular culture and Masonic ritual is mentioned in detail in various sources such as Pierre's initiation in War and Peace. I'd prefer if this was in two seperate articles, but that's not a reason to delete. JASpencer (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, Masonic ritual has been practiced by many people. However, it's not all the same ritual, so there's no way to generalize - anything that can be found about a ritual is only pertinent to that ritual. Now, because there is no standard ritual, there is also no standard set of symbols (or emblems or what-have-you). All of those points have been stated in discussion. We may have a fascinating topic, but there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic that we can say about it that hasn't already been addressed in the main article. An article on ritual needs to address ritual content directly, and it can't because the content is different. If we want to talk about what ritual teaches, that's principles, not ritual, and is more covered elsewhere in the main Freemasonry article. Similarly, the material in War and Peace will be representative of an English translation of the Russian used by Tolstoy, which may or may not be an accurate representation of what went on; there is such a thing as artistic license. There are simply too many variables involved to write an article on rituals, not the least of which is that they do change over time. Furthermore, to sidestep the issue by writing articles on particular rituals requires that those rituals be notable, and there's no objective way to ascertain that - most people know there's a ritual for every jurisdiction and obedience, and that's as far as it goes. MSJapan (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a reason for putting a tag or two on the article not for deleting it. Christian heresies are many and varied but they are a recognisable sub group with their own artilc. Besides individual sections on rituals (or an expanded listing of those rituals) would sort that particular problem out. JASpencer (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is apples and oranges, because to be a heretic you need to diverge from a standard, and that standard simply does not exist in Masonic ritual. So there's no basis to even do what you say can be done. What it does show is a total lack of knowledge of the subject. What is not in doubt is that you broke the article out and did nothing but POV fork it into something you could put Christian criticism into, because apparently two whole articles wasn't enough. All these claims of things that could be done are moot because you didn't do them and didn't even try to do them in a month. The very concern I addressed with LHvU when you started this is exactly what has come to pass.
However, in the interests of fairness, let's address some of your particulars: "individual sections on rituals" - How? Many of them are in mnemonic codes, and some aren't even written down. If you don't know it already or know someone to ask, it's very likely whatever one thinks it is is wrong. Between the US and UK, there are over 100 rituals in use in mainstream Freemasonry alone, and that's not counting any of these other little groups that we would have to incorporate to meet NPOV. So as I see it, you would like a repository with a plain-test list of the content of hundreds of pages of ritual books here on WP that I or another WP:FM editor is going to need to ask hundreds of people to do, because that's the only way the topic is going to get addressed within the context of the article. That is an absurd and impossible task, and not appropriate to WP. The assumptions made about the topic are fundamentally flawed. MSJapan (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's an odd feeling to look at an AfD and find a well-reasoned, apparently-balanced, fully sourced, illustrated and cogent article like this one. The legitimate points above, about the local differences in ritual, that can easily be accommodated in the article, I think. --Lockley (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I received this message on my talk page, and wanted to reproduce it here as part of this debate:
Just as an indicator of the "local differences" you claims are easy to be overcome, every jurisdiction has its own version of the ritual. That means there are 50 in the US alone. In England, there has never been a standard set. As a result, there are at least 47 different Masonic rituals in use at last count. That, also, is simply the rituals in use by lodges in the UGLE branch. There's also the Grand Orient de France branch, the Prince Hall branch, the Co-Masonry branch, and each group's individual version of the Scottish Rite and York Rite components. There's also the Swedish Rite, Rectified Rite, and probably a few others I can't call to mind, not all of which are even in English. So I would ask that you perhaps reconsider the ease of which the problem can be surmounted. MSJapan (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is fair comment about the differences in Masonic ritual worldwide, apparently factual, and btw interesting. So this should be included in wikipedia somewhere. I agree it would be "absurd and impossible" to fully explain each individual ritual. But I still believe it would be quite easy, and valuable, to modify this article to mention these variations, in a paragraph similar to this quoted paragraph. --Lockley (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lockley, a statement about the differences in Masonic ritual wourld wide is included in Wikpipedia... in the main Freemasonry aricle. This is yet another reason why the ritual and symbolism article should be deleted and redirected to Freemasonry. It is redundant. There is nothing that this article can say that is not better said at the main Freemasonry article. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Valid and well-sourced article. I am puzzled about the SOAPBOX accusation, I haver no idea how this article has anything to do with SOAPBOX. The article describes an important aspect of a particular group and it is a valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's to do with the fact that there is a two sentence controversy section. JASpencer (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Freemasonry article. There is a reason why we use categories. Ottre 14:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Question. Sorry I can't understand the connection between categories and this article. JASpencer (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Tavern[edit]

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

Non-notable pub. Sgroupace (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content remains. Improvements have been made and I don't see issues with sourcing. TravellingCari 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kissy Simmons[edit]

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

Poor Kissy appears to fail WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gonna be hard for Ms. Simmons here to make WP:N, as she's only playing secondary parts in the plays she's been in. But, she's moving up - narrator from Joseph to Nala in The Lion King. Then again, entertainment is a bitch of an industry to make it in. Certainly she's talented, though, if she got Nala. Break a leg, Kissy - we'll see you here when you make the big time. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete -- I think she almost makes WP:N but not quite. My Inner Deletionista guides me here. Sorry Kissy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Have just expanded the article, wikified, sourced, and cited. I found plenty out there toward her notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to belittle your efforts, Michael, but some of these citations that you added do not appear to meet WP:RS requirements. And a lot of these news stories look a lot like press releases, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northshore School District#Elementary schools. The content is under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokanee Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary schools, for the most part, are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards -- and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this school meets WP:N standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animax Asia[edit]

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

non-notable "spinoff" or whatever which fails to be verifiable through reliable 3rd party sourcing covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. Content is a virtual mirror of most of the other Animax pages Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Animax only caters Japanese viewers, Animax-Asia caters other Asian countries. If this article gets deleted, I think Animax Hungary should too. E Wing (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the Animax Hungary article (which may in fact not be up to standards (I honestly haven't looked yet) If reliable 3rd party sources which cover Animax Asia in a significant manner are found and included in the article than so be it. At present none exist nor have I found anything so far. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm willing to grant that some of what is here may in fact be significant. Perhaps it should just be a case of restructuring the articles (merging Animax India and Korea and such into Animax Asia & spinning out an Animax Europe article which could incorporate the significant stuff from the Hungary article and the main article. That would take care of the duplication and such and move the group of articles towards a consistency of sorts)Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 19 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) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National cable networks in major countries tend to be notable, and when they span several major countries even moreso. Particularly telling quote from the article itself: "It currently airs across over 28 million households..." That's notable by any remotely reasonable definition. The schedule table should go though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kung Lao. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Kung Lao[edit]

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

Originally proposed to merge this into Kung Lao, but closer examination indicates the character is even more minor than it originally looked. Google test seems to indicate the same, with "Great Kung Lao" giving only 587 hits. Deletion seems to be the better option for the subject. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Yes it's minor but a sentence or two and a redirect would take care of it perfectly well. It's a possible search term, so there should certainly be a redirect. DGG (talk) 00:58, 20 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) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kung Lao. The Mortal Kombat novel by Jeff Rovin has this character play a major role, though that is a primary source; I'm not aware of any secondary sources or reviews of that book. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The two are ancestor and descendant, and a short section in the Kung Lao article would enough for his ancestor. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and tag with template:afd-mergeto), since there might be some reliable third-party coverage out there, but it hasn't been found yet. A short summary would suffice in the meantime without violating WP:V. Randomran (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible. Not enough content to justify a separate article. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack for Scenario[edit]

Soundtrack for Scenario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album by non-notable band which fails WP:NM#Albums. No band article to merge into. Author removed PROD without giving reason. JD554 (talk) 13:03, 19 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) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malanka bus[edit]

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

This is a very silly article possibly meant as a joke, but that doesn't seem to fit a speedy delete category. Certainly not notable. Grahame (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the exact same reasons I speedied it last time. Not salted. Yet..  – iridescent 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lim[edit]

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

This article, originally created by the subject himself, has been speedied. It was almost immediately recreated by another account, and tagged for speedy again by myself. Then, Mr. Lim came back and edited the article, and removed my speedy tag. Delete and salt.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It met WP:N andWP:RS before the nom. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wirral Waters[edit]

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

Advert for a development project. WP is not a crystal ball. Tagged for speedy delete a minute after creation. Various tags, spam, unnotable etc. PROD removed. Operating (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this project has generated broad ranging publicity and controversy with reliable sources that meet WP:N. This is not an advert, but a sourced factual account. The proposed status does not make this crystalballism - it is already notable and any (unlikely) cancellation of such a huge project would generate vastly more controversy.TerriersFan (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be sufficient independent coverage to establish notability and future infrastructure projects are welcome on WP, if they meet notability guidelines, are they not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Confirmed projects are welcomed. This project is not confirmed and may never get past the planning stage. Operating (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - irrelevant - it is notable whatever happens - see WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No. If the project is cancelled the page becomes completely unnotable. Operating (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not so, it is notable now as proposed major infrastructure project; if cancelled it will become a notable controversy; notability doesn't expire. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Other Crap Exists is not an argument, but if you go to Category:Future infrastructure you'll see that there are subcats for planned or simply proposed projects. Seems to me a project of the scope of Wirral Waters is equally notable, even if it may never get built, if it has reliable independent sources, which it does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All of those projects have planning permission or have government backing. Operating (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you source that statement? Many are planned commercial projects - the first I looked at was Saudi Landbridge Project is a case in point. TerriersFan (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Saudi Bridge project is government supported, read the references. Wirral Waters is not. And indeed the government may block Wirral Waters. You're supporting a proposal, not a project. Operating (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important and controversial local project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is designed to prevent the inclusion of unverifiable speculation about future events, and so doesn't really seem to apply here, as we have plenty of coverage in reliable sources to verify the key facts in the article and to demonstrate notability. As TerriersFan notes above, a project of this size will remain notable even if cancelled. Scog (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's point seems to be that if a future project is not government supported it cannot be notable, regardless of scale or an abundance of reliable sources. I see nothing in WP:N to support this sentiment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /nom withdrawn. Whether or not a merge is appropriate is an editorial question. TravellingCari 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Marek (Starkiller)[edit]

Galen Marek (Starkiller) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub article about a minor Star Wars character, and you have to be familiar with Star Wars to realize that. This article belongs in Wookiepedia, not here. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you or anyone else can find significant third-party sources that address the character from a real-world perspective( mostly) independent from the game, I'll change my !vote to a keep. --EEMIV (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I will withdraw my nomination. Since I am not much of a Star Wars fan (though I did see all 6 movies), I was unaware of the very existence of the game, and the article (the revision I nominated) made no mention of it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It happens, thanks for eating crow when it came to that. Withdrawn arguments are often marked by striking them through, like so. --Kizor 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to significant coverage in third-party sources. Character appears in not just Force Unleashed but also SoulCalibur (both games that we can all agree are awesome to say the least!) and so only redirecting to one of them makes no sense. Articles serves as a map to the multiple works of fiction in which he appears and reveals the differences in those appearances. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, those are all sources that would help establish the game's notability, not the character's. Additionally, none of the reviews/commentary on the game or the book I've seen, or that's cited at Wikipedia, makes more than a passing reference -- with many none at all -- to the character. Can anyone find a book or game review from a reliable source that makes more than a passing reference to this character? The game might be "awesome" but still no one has provided sources to establish the character's notability outside TFU. (And the appearance in Soul Caliber is, essentially, trivia[l].) --EEMIV (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 and salt by Malcolmxl5 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy tree cricket[edit]

Snowy tree cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G3 Tadakuni (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete . The trash is overflowing today, Oscar would be ecstatic. Nerdluck34 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wiglesworth[edit]

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

Her only claim to fame is that she was on Survivor, which isn't notable in its own rights because of WP:1E. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd say that all of the Survivor season 1 contestants are notable, because that really was a TV phenomena. Wigglesworth, in particular, received plenty of coverage in reliable sources for several years after her appearance on the show. She also hosted a show on E! at one point, adding to her notability. See 2 of 26. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Runner up in S1 of Survivor and E! show host makes her just notable enough. Nate • (chatter) 09:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With article on "Survivor." Being a runner-up contestant on a reality show barely qualifies as notability, and the subject's post-"Survivor" activities are not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remember that season 1 of "Survivor" was not a typical reality show. At the time, the finale was the 11th most-watched TV series episode in US history. [90]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:24, 19 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) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As noted by Nate, the post-Survivor tv show hosting business crosses the bar for inclusion. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- A7 applies, as does not sufficient context. Not really nonsense-- just utterly unecyclopedic. Not clear on why this was brought to AFD. Dlohcierekim 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh dooley[edit]

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

Should be deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G3 Tadakuni (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as complete and utter nonsense. Why are these articles even at AFD? Nerdluck34 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 misformation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Petricone[edit]

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

This is non-notable. "Joke material" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Tadakuni (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is known good, has had notability established several times (see previous AfD collection), and the nomination at best a political statement at worst an attempt to cause drama by an account created only for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy[edit]

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

Notable only within the context of the project. Otherwise doing harm, and non notable in a global context. Segragate account (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I have no idea who is behind this newly created account for the sole purpose of an AfD -- and incidentally, the correct spelling is "segregate" not "segragate" -- but a GA-rated article, which is well-referenced using reliable sources from independent third-parties, is only one of many reasons why this highly stable article is still around, I suspect. Another (more important) reason is because authors are *still* talking about it. The Irish Independent, in fact, just published an article on 20 September 2008 (a few days ago) entitled "Lies, damned lies and the internet" in which the Essjay controversy was discussed. Since April 2007, writers and academics continue to publish on the "Essjay controversy" with articles not yet referenced in our article. According to Factiva, I count over one hundred articles in several different languages including Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and Italian -- all discussing the "Essjay controversy" and what it means for the internet. You'll also find articles discussing the "Essjay controversy" in other English-language media ranging from the Bangkok Post to the Jerusalem Herald. Donna Shaw wrote an academic article for the American Journalism Review discussing the Essjay controversy this year (February 2008). Then there are the legal cases. Last year, we were discussing in the archives about the possibility of creating a legal section in which we cite all the court cases that used the "Essjay controversy" as background. I suppose that section should be created now. Overall, based on the published evidence, the "Essay controversy" is still very much a relevant topic for discussion and debate among journalists, academics, lawyers, and internet activists. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per J Readings and also WP:SNOW. Dr.K. (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather doubt WP:SNOW applies when yours is the second comment. The AfD has only been open for a few hours, and it is not currently showing up on the AfD log, so that may be why it is not receiving many comments. Risker (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SNOW applies also when there is no logical way to think of deleting this article given: 1. Its past deletion debates and their results. 2. Common logic given its significance in Wikipedia's history. I could add a few more reasons but I think I made my point. Dr.K. (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No policy reason for deletion. Sources clearly meet WP:N and way way past. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 by Grutness, NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Swain[edit]

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

This is non-notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Tadakuni (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a BLP violation. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beast Wave[edit]

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

This is utter nonsense and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Tadakuni (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense/hoax. Search for 'Beast Wave +ship' amounts to nought. Nerdluck34 (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petricone[edit]

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

This is non-notable and patent nonsense. Tadakuni (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the new sources added (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Pitzman[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks just notable enough . That is, the sources seem sufficient. Hobit (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I've added more references, as there were several articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that discuss him to some extent. There is enough there for WP:N notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. or keep. Either way, no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mello[edit]

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

Contested prod. No charting albums. No reliable third party sources. No non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC in the worst of ways. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted (band)[edit]

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

Series of articles on non-notable band & its albums. Sources are either blogs or the bands/distributors websites, so no 3rd party WP:RS to establish notability. Including for same reason:

Llenandose de gusanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
El mundo frio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Se hace por los suenos asesinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Bsnowball (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the band - HG Fact seems to be, despite our not having an article on them, the sort of "important indie label" that WP:MUSIC asks for, though if someone with better Japanese than me can puzzle through their backlist and find they don't have enough history, I'd change that. But it looks that they are it is to me, and with the band having more than two albums with that label, meets WP:MUSIC C5, and as such is notable. For the albums, merge per WP:MUSIC into the band's article until and unless reliable coverage can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment edited for grammar, to clarify my intended antecedent. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above; also, I am 100% sure that third-party coverage can be found for their albums (at least one already has an Allmusic review on it, does that not count?). = ∫tc 5th Eye 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Quasirandom, but fix the album titles with proper accent marks. The fact that Allmusic bothered to review them seems to be a good sign too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the official album titles do not contain accent marks, even though in proper Spanish they should. see their discography page and album covers—no accent marks. = ∫tc 5th Eye 01:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The band is underground and it's difficult to find sources because of their media policy, but I've read articles on their work in the The Wire and in other places. I've also heard them namechecked by Peter Rehberg and Neurosis. Aryder779 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Iridescent , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DERIAN NEWMAN[edit]

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

Non-notable, most probably self-advertisement. Tadakuni (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Keweenaw Water Trail". Keweenawy Convention & Visitors Bureau. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_24&oldid=1081071660"