Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7. In the future, place {{db-author}} at the top of pages accidentally created in the article space. GlassCobra 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Cool Editor[edit]

Accidental Creation A Cool Editor (talk) 14:02, 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The result was Nomination withdrawn per snowball keep. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EFi-X[edit]

Contested prod. Computer hardware with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of the page has went and removed a speedy tag and an AfD tag from this article, as well as another article. This hardware is non-notable, and has no WP:RS to support such notability. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This product gained wide attention in geek circle. the product has been reviewed by most publication of this area ( tomshardware, gizmodo, cnet ... ) article should be rewritten though. --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us specifics? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search will show you the specifics. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many news stories about it show notability. --Itub (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above two; it seems notable enough. Even if the sources are not that impressive, there a lot of them. VG ☎ 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a few news articles on Google. Article needs to be expanded. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsport 4: The Dark Kumite[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this that shows notability on 2 Google searches, Rotten Tomatoes, and Movie Review Query Engine. Schuym1 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is part of a notable series of films, albeit perhaps a sign of how low the series can go.Eauhomme (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being part of a notable series doesn't make it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's counterintuitive. The fact that it is an official sequel and part of a notable series would most certainly make it notable. If the movie series is deemed notable then all movies within it are inherently notable. --Smashville^BONK! 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has to be notable by itself so the article needs reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ignore the guidelines for a minute and just use common sense. It's an official sequel to a notable movie whether or not anyone actually saw it. --Smashville^BONK! 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, ignore all rules and use common sense. --Smashville^BONK! 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a WP:IAR issue. You have your opinions, and I have mine. It has nothing to do with common sense. Schuym1 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Bloodsport (film) so as to keep series all together. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not really notable but generally verifiable and with a reasonably clear parent article. Alternately all three sequels could be merged into a single Bloodsport (film series) article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a direct-to-video movie so it's hard to find reviews from reliable sources. I've added a TV Guide review. Part of a series and features several notable actors so probably deserves its own article like the rest of the series. Gets about 37,000 hits on Google!!! miniluv (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's 37.000 hits for "bloodsport 4" and 24.000 for "bloodsport IV"!! This movie goes by several names. miniluv (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is THIS and THIS. Want to dig for a RS reviw, or shall I? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 25 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) 23:50, 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 db-copyvio. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log entry: 05:14, 27 September 2008 DGG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Beatific Vision (2008 film)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: of http://www.beatificvisionthemovie.com/syn.html) — Becksguy (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatific Vision (2008 film)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on 4 Google searches, Movie Review Query Engine, and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, there was a prod on here a few months ago.Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional tone, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per prior prod. MBisanz ^talk 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for blatant copyright infringement. This is a clearcut WP:CSD G12 deletion candidate, since it's a word-for-word copy of the official site synopsis [1]. Suggest speedy deletion without prejudice and AfD close per WP:COPYVIO. If someone wants to come back and write a non-copyvio version, with reliable sources that satisfy WP:V, WP:N, WP:MOVIE, etc., then fine. — Becksguy (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also tagged article with CSD G12. — Becksguy (talk) 03:44, 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 as failing WP:N. Sources only mention Ms. Colmenares in passing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Colmenares[edit]

Person only notable for being a spouse of a notable person. All sources found by main contributor aren't directly about the person, and a google news search appears to confirm that trend. NJGW 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its amazing that someone at this level of politics can have nothing notable, but is seems so. Mystache (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "All sources found by main contributor aren't directly about the person" - that is not sufficient for claiming lack of notability, in Wikipedia:Notability (people) it is clearly writte:

“

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability.

”

- such sources are provided and were diligently used to expand the article.

This article was not created yesterday or in the precedent month, it has existed tranquilly for 3 whole years without a single source in it and now, when I provide it with 8 sources from 5 independent countries, any proposal for deletion turns out to be sheer tendentiousness and inconsistence, to say the least.
(To the proponent) Would you deign to explain wherefore you do nominate for deletion it in September 2008, when it has 8 independent sources to defend the notability, and not in December 2005, when it had none?!
As already stated on the talk page, the fact of being spouse of the well-known president is sufficient notability - there are articles on family members of other rulers, who supposedly had a relationship with the person, whereas here we have a ruler of similar notability (length of rule and area/population of the country - see above link) who incontestably had a marriage with the person!
(Comment on googlenews) - I would like to remind that here non-English sources are not (yet) prohibited and if the English medias do not care about the person, that is their problem - El País, El Mundo, El Observador, Makfax, A1, Kommersant, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Japanese Empire, two Norwegian sources and many others in languages, which I do not know, do!Bogorm (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) "All sources found by main contributor aren't even in English." ([2]) - I strongly urge the main proponent for the deltion to refrain from belittling comments on the languages of the Earth, his incapability per se to read 5 of the most spoken languages in Eurasia does not concern the more knowledgeable editors, until it turns out to be an impediment for their activity. The issue has been addressed on the talk page, where the proper quoting and citations from the prominent sources (6 of them with articles here, which noone would ever think to nominate for deletion) and their compliance with Wikipedia rules have been demonstrated. Thanks to my knowledge of several foreign languages I have been able to contribute in 5 more versions of Wikipedia and thereby I assure the main proponent that no discrimination of the English language, which would show even the slightest resemblance to his quoted comment, is to be found in them and any further comments in this supercilious disparaging and supremacy-claiming tone ("aren't even in English.") are to be vehemently discouraged. Bogorm (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why are you responding to rational that isn't being used? NJGW (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The articles in Spanish are about Chavez, not about Colmenares; she is mentioned only incidentally. If the articles in the other languages are different, then fine -- but I'd be surprised. As for her having been married to Chavez, Notability is not inherited. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how on earth managed Geli Raubal, who was an alleged lover in lieu of a legal spouse, to inherit her notability? Quod licet Iovi (Occident) non licet bovi(rest of the planet), although the two countries and rulers are comparable in length of rule/population??? Bogorm (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response First, that argument is a fallacy, as any non-notable articles should be removed. Second, Geli has had several books written about her, as well as a proponent role in at least one movie. All the coverage used to document Nancy is about her ex-husband, and she is only mentioned incidentally. She should be mentioned in his article, but there simply isn't enough to support more than a sentence (maybe two) about her on her own. NJGW (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:INHERITED and lack of addressing WP:NONENG as requested. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; The sources do 'not have to be primarily about the person, just provide some substantial degree of information.Ing generation spouses of heads of state and heads of government are notable--the failure to find multiple good sources is usually merely cultural bias. DGG (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately even the Spanish sources just mention her existence (as an ex wife), and don't say any more about her. No "substatial degree of information" has been provided (or discovered in the multi-lingual news.google search linked above) besides her name. NJGW (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:Bio herself. Just being married to/divorced from a notable person doesn't confer notability. It should be sufficient to mention her existence on her ex-husband's page?Austin46 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "spouse-of" non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:39, 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 redirect to Judaeo-Spanish. Even the nom is asking for merge, not deletion. All info is already in Judaeo-Spanish, so nothing really to merge. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judezmo language[edit]

There is already an article created on this subject called Judaeo-Spanish. Judezmo is just an alternate name for this language (there are several alternate names). The term Judezmo currently redirects to Judaeo-Spanish, so there is no need for a duplicate article. Kman543210 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Eliyak T·C 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Eliyak T·C 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Avi (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Shows me what I get for trying to source stubs, eh? -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is always appreciated. Just as a note for everyone voting to merge, the article up for deletion is only about 4 sentences long with nothing new from the main article, so I'm not sure there's anything to merge. Kman543210 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judaeo-Spanish. It's a clear duplication of an existing article topic, and there really isn't anything in the article to merge that isn't already covered. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 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, withdrawing nomination, notability has been established and references added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Sinclair[edit]

No verification of notability, most of the sources are links to Wikipedia pages or do not mention Sinclair. I think he did exist, since he is mentioned in passing in this book, but this isn't enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does assert notability, but it doesn't prove notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: messy article, but the award of an OBE indicates notability.--Grahame (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "President of the Board of the Sydney Grand Synagogue seems to me to indicate a man of some importance in the Jewish community in Australia (if this can be sourced), over and above his OBE and AM (which certainly can be sourced). Certainly the article needs cleaning up, but is worth keeping. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think sources could be found that support notability, could you please find them and add them to the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, supporting the retention of an article does not make me responsible for improving it. Secondly, while unsourced claims can be removed from the article, it is not necessary to actually provide sources to support retention, merely demonstrate that the claims of notability are capable of being sourced. My location in small-town NSW does not allow me access to the full range of sources that may be available at the State Library of NSW, this does not mean that they do not exist. There is this source - Raymond Apple (Editor), "The Great Synagogue: A History of Sydney's Big Shule", UNSW Press, 2008 for starters. I have checked and there is not a copy of this book at my local library (I know the librarian!) The Its an honour website and/or the London Gazette should be sufficient for the OBE and AM claims. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, here is support for one of the claims. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awarding of the OBE in itself proves notability. Murtoa (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The commercial career is significant, and at least one or two of the companies would probably be notable if they were checked up on. In any case, and OBE is an accepted demonstration of notability. Th OBE was present in the article from the beginning-- I suppose it wasn't noticed when the nomination was made.

DGG (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:42, 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. X clamation point 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Matusevich[edit]

Living subject seems to have no notability--no external references, published work, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to suggest notability per WP:N, WP:V. Also WP:COI - article was created by subject. —97198 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google also draws a blank in Cyrillic. Most of those hits seem to be about other Roman Matuseviches, and any that may be about this one don't provide significant coverage. I would expect any notable person active in Russia or Belarus in the subject's areas of interest to have a substantial web presence. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:43, 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. Carioca (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Schanafelt[edit]

Non-notable self-styled "adventurer", COI issues. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable sources; No claims of actually having ventured anywhere notably. Mystache (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable expeditions yet undertaken (in as far as being picked up by independent sources – which is quite demanding in the adventurer field). Also, his company does not yet appear to be noted. Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage about the subject in reliable sources. The article sources are all self-published. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent sources lacking. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:43, 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-resident Nepali and Person of Nepali Origin[edit]

Delete There is no evidence whatsoever that these terms exist as official terms used by the Nepali Government as stated by the article. Indeed, the fact that the article still contains terms like "NRI" and "PIO" suggests that this article has simply been copied from the equivalent Indian article, and that these terms are (at best) non notable neologisms, and in all probability WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nepali Diaspora. Mystache (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non Encyclopedic title, may be neologism or a term which is yet to be coined. Article is copied from other related articles and thoroughly madeup. Hitro 13:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:44, 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. X clamation point 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coinflation[edit]

poorly written and very little text Catdog4169 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article Coinflation for deletion due to the reason it is poorly written and includes very little tex. Catdog4169 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, MAYBE Speedy in spite of the nomination. Both poorly written and "very little text" (ie: a stub) are not valid reasons for deleting an article. Sorry, please see this. In this example, notability is, as there are no sources given except the companies own website. The other source talks about coin melting, but not the "website" that is the topic of the article. TECHNICALLY, it might even pass as a SPEEDY DELETE (db|web or db|corp) since they don't even make a claim of notability, instead just saying the website exists. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no notability asserted. How the hell did this survive the last afd? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is notable, the website is not. Mystache (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G12) — " Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;" MuZemike (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The material is useful as part of our general coverage of inflation and its effect upon coinage and there are sufficient sources out there to make more of this. The article title is a useful search term and so should lead somewhere. Quite where is best I'm still not sure... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say keep and merge, but your argument sounds more like "delete content but change to a redirect". Are you saying that the website/company that the article is about IS notable? Otherwise, deleting the article doesn't stop the title from being used again as a redirect or another article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that a "coin-flation" sense is in significant use apart from the Web site, although a "co-inflation" sense may have some limited use (it looks to me as though most, if not all, of these are typos for conflation, however). A redirect to Coin#The value of a coin is possible, since the phenomenon is discussed there, but I can't advocate the redirect without seeing some evidence that this term exists apart from the site name. Deor (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:46, 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. X clamation point 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Universal[edit]

Clear failure of WP:MUSIC#Albums - no release date. Also unreferenced and contains little content. Ros0709 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Why the hell do people do this? Wikipedia's not going anywhere in the near future, it won't hurt you to wait. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Khaled's newest album came out last week! WP:CRYSTAL, and a trout to the creator for jumping the gun and claiming to know what DJ Khaled would title his next album. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above: total speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source in the article is dead. This is speculation. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:47, 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. X clamation point 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Biank[edit]

Not Notable afamiglietti (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure he's a brave naval aviator, I'm not sure he needs a wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afamiglietti (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although all admirals are probably notable, I don't think the same is true for Lt. Commanders. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No distinguishing characteristics that would contribute to notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above reasons. SchfiftyThree 21:56, 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 G3 by CambridgeBayWeather, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Wilson (Ty-Wil)[edit]

Hoax article Skitzo (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Zhang-Smitheram[edit]

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced biography of a living person. I cannot find any reliable sources with which to verify the content of the article and do not think there are any immediately available to be found. Guest9999 (talk) 13:18, 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. X clamation point 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academic Programs at Villanova University[edit]

Wikipedia is not a course catalog. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be useful to compare this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree Programs at Bowling Green State University as it appears to be a very similar or identical case. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror for the course catalog of any university, per WP:DIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a course catalog. Schuym1 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pile-on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Retracted previous Keep vote) nf utvol (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nf utvol is the article creator and only contributor. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to several university articles checked at random, Marquette University is an article about a similar Catholic university and it does not have this level of detail. In response to nf utvol's points, all of this information is available in the course catalog, which a reader can locate via the Villanova website. Truthanado (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to one point...isn't all of the information on Wiki available elsewhere?nf utvol (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Schuy. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the University We usually manage to list the academic departments in various places in the university article, but a separate list of majors makes no sense whatsoever. DGG (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The academic departments (colleges) are already in the article, no need to merge. Truthanado (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This type of information is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 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 speedy deleted as blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIE (band)[edit]

Does not meet the notability guideline for music artists. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self released albums (yea, my computer has a burner and I can get 100 copies pressed at musiciansfriend.com, too.). Plus one crystalball album to boot. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 as copyvio of http://www.executionroom.com/?page=biography, so tagged. Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of unfortunately-named Brands[edit]

Complete WP:OR and WP:SYN, extremely subjective. RGTraynor 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire Original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Created. Who defines "unfortunately-named" anyway? No real criteria (granted, much is obvious) but article isn't much more than trivial information about "funny" named products. I agree it is original research as well (now) but even with sources, the article is fatally flawed for the inability to define the very name of the article itself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above: original research. Cliff smith ^talk 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, only fit for BJAODN along with TheRapistFinder.com and Fücker Reisen. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminite OR trivia page. Wikipedia is not Engrish.com. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny as hell, and I enjoyed snickering at several of the names. I wonder if it is sourceable? Jay Leno often presents similar unfortunalely named products originating in countries whee North American English is not spoken. As is, it is original research. Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those names were sourced. RGTraynor 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a bit of potty-humour? Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, very biased on an admittedly vague subject. Volpeculus sagacis (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Folks thanks for contributing to the debate around the page I created recently. I look forward to a resolution on this and will respect whatever the community decides. I believe the piece should stay because I believe it meets none of the criteria for deletion clearly. Taking the objections above:
- Original Research - this is just a list, not a synthesis of ideas as might be expected in an article, and there are many comparable examples of incomplete lists on Wikipedia (eg List of Planetariums). These are original lists because they are added to by many authors. I respect the body of editors here who dislike lists in general but note that they don't currently violate Wikipedia policy.
- Who defines 'unfortunately named'? - I find it hard that someone who puts themselves forward as an editor here should be unable to see that Brand names such as 'fart' and 'jussipussi' are unfortunate! Wikipedia policy does not require a source citation for statements which are transparently widely-held truths.
- Trivia - there are plenty of precedents of articles here which are noteworthy to some readers and not to others. Much of my work is with marketing services businesses for which international branding is the core of their work. This stuff does matter - it is very hard to choose a brand name that works across all cultures.
- Indiscriminite (sic) - the list is presently incomplete. I apologise for not putting a stub notice on it. I have invited others to make it more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infilms (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but gently and with a sense of humor. Infilms, you can probably see where this is a little too subjective to be encyclopedic. Fun, though. Don't be discouraged.... --Lockley (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with pain in my heart) - It's the first list on WP I actually enjoyed. But it fails the guidelines.... ~~SIS~~ 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Party. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar party[edit]

Simply an unreferenced neologism. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:23, 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 A7 by Chunky Rice , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors 4 Christ Wrestling[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable company of relatively local scope, even though the article asserts notability. No reliable independent sources. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the article has been written by a user with the same name as one of the entertainers listed in the article. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Only 33 Google hits, none a reliable source, nothing in Google news. Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:30, 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 redirect to I'd Rather Eat Glass. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Hated Him (Don't Tell Me)[edit]

Non-notable single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Precious Roy (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, non-charting, non-notable single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to album. Schuym1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album (I'd Rather Eat Glass) per nom and TPH. Cliff smith ^talk 00:34, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Pure Breed[edit]

Non-notable product by a non-notable company, Pure Breed Products, Inc.. No reliable sources. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Corvus cornix_talk 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, spam. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 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 SNOW delete. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Viewed On YouTube[edit]

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

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

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

So many reasons, ... As an afterthought, this is proof enough for me that youtube needs to be put on a blacklist lol. Also this article promotes the sin of RECENTISM...How, or why, on earth have more people viewed "4 minutes" than "Thriller"? — Realist² 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Plus, those numbers will change all the time, how will it ever stay current? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just....Wow.. Obviously, I think this must be deleted because there is no possible encyclopedic value in it and per Hammer. More importantly, I want to see the rationale for keeping it, and I am sure someone will try to provide some. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total delete. Not only is this a directory, it's a piece of pure original research, and veering dubiously close to advertising. And of course, it's totally unmaintainable. – iride scent 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also seeing random new accounts remove AfD tag, shrug. — Realist² 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, impossible to maintain, arbitrary... yeah, definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ummm, yeah... WP:NOT#STATS -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE - This information is important for me and many others. It is interesting and useful and i hope you and other will help to develop it - rather than just delete!! Nr9krw
- Comment Your reasons are that it is "important", "interesting" and "useful". So, you like it then? This is the text book example I was looking for, thank you. And can I suggest this article for reading. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, stop it, my eyes are watering. :-) — Realist² 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - I agree i found the article very interesting. I would like to see more. Jonesbr02 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC). — Jonesbr02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Oh we know you like it, you popped out of nowhere and started blanking this page and removing the AfD tag. What drew you to this article is of interest mind...— Realist² 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jonesbr02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - I too enjoyed this article - why do some of you want to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.141.192 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh we know you like it, you popped out of nowhere and started blanking this page and removing the AfD tag. What drew you to this article is of interest mind...— Realist² 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This IP is likely the IP of Nr9krw. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, you think? – iride scent 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be sockpuppeting, would it not? PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, socky, Does an admin just want to close this as delete so we can go back to reality? — Realist² 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Technically, an admin would just ban the IP and username for a couple of days, and the debate would continue. It is still a valid AFD, just a lamer trying to !vote twice. Reporting a sockpuppet takes about 1 month to get results, however, unless an admin wanted to simply step up and fix the issue on the fly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - NO it's not actually!!!! Nr9krw
      - Actually, it is exactly sockpuppeting, textbook even. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (edit conflicts) Very interesting article, however my main concern is accuracy. Specifically, the list is inherently difficult to maintain and I fear that, due to wiki's high Google rating, a large number of readers may happen upon an outdated or inaccurate page. This could reflect poorly on the encyclopaedia. While this may be fine for a page of high import or encyclopaedic value, this is not the case for the article in question. Also, this is not an encyclopaedic compilation of various sources in order to provide a coherent article, it is merely sourced to YouTube which updates it weekly (according to the article). No need for us to mirror YouTube's directory. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt if need be) per nom. Totally unencyclopedic (though a wee bit interesting if I cared what people watched...I don't) and as Lazulilasher pointed out, virtually impossible to keep current and/or correct. I love the fact that it has citations though. Who compiled the stats? Pinkadelica (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Please refer to WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nr9krw for the sockpuppet case against User:Nr9krw, User:Jonesbr02 and 86.161.141.192 PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, well, well. The lengths people will go to in order to keep an article. Hmm, I mean, innocent until proven guilty...— Realist² 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total delete. For reasons already mentioned: The article is unmaintainable and purely original research. Tenho Karite (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's original research and the numbers change everyday.... It doesn't help that the creator is a suspected sockpuppeter...Ahem, innocent until proven guilty...Oh right, unencyclopedic...--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for statistics. Maybe this should be a snowball delete. Schuym1 (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I echo the above discussion, and I would have to agree that it is unencyclopedic and original research - Delete as such. SchfiftyThree 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Iridescent: it's a directory, it's total original research, and it's unmaintainable. Cliff smith ^talk 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, and as noted above by Gogo Dodo, these are statistics. Looks like it's about to snow. Cliff smith ^talk 00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it an unmaintainable list, the article does not list what its subject says. It is not the most viewed on Youtube, it is the most viewed of three people selected based on no stated criteria. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL COMMENT I don't declare wp:snowball very often, but in this case, the only !votes to keep are 3 users who are all reported as sockpuppets as the same user (see above and decide for yourself). All/he is the only editor/s of the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CLEAR DIRTY TRICKS GOING ON: Aside the sock puppetry, content is being removed from the article that will and already has swapped "votes" in this AfD. — Realist² 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, all the keep votes are sockpuppets of the same person, hense the snowball declaration. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary list with no unifying justification for selecting the particular artists presented. Also agree with prior comments of WP:OR and issue and maintainability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless, non-notable, and constantly changing list. At most, one or two of the entries might needs a brief mention in another article. But not an entire list. Ward3001 (talk) 16:13, 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. TravellingCari 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Communist Party of Britain[edit]

This article reads as mainly WP:OR and what is sourced comes mainly form the group's geocities pages. I have googled around the usbject and find no real evidence that this group has received non-trivial attention in reliable independent sources. Anecdotally, I live in the UK, work in London, was a student in the UK, and have never even heard the name of this group. The list of pamphlets and such suggests advertorial rather than encyclopaedic tone. I would say this either needs sourcing (from things which are not listed on gnews or scholar, since they both come up blank) and rewriting, or nuking. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though could be persuaded otherwise if reliable sources are added ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Changed to Keep - the new sources show notability, though possible copyvios need to be investigated. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may need severe pruning, but is unquestionably notable. It is covered in the authoritative Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations. A quick search on Google Books turns up substantial references in works ranging from Modern Britain Since 1979 to Marxism in Britain and the party is even used as an example in the The Oxford Dictionary of New Words. Warofdreams talk 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please. I searched and found nothing of substance; the couple I did find were just directory entries or namechecks. This article looks like it was written by Andy Brooks from his own records, virtually all of it is unsourceable from reliable independent sources as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The works I mentioned are at [3], [4], [5] and page 156 in [6]. Really, these are not hard to find - they are the result of two or three minutes searching, and I'm sure that there is much more out there. A quick search on Google Scholar also brought up some mentions of the group, although not in journals to which I have access. Warofdreams talk 08:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to be too patronising here, I do find it somewhat offensive. The first book you cite, I open the book in GBooks, search for "New Communist Party of Britain" within the book and get Your search - "New Communist Party of Britain" - did not match any documents. The second book spends a small amount of time discussing how hard it is to get any reliable information about the group, but says not much else; it verifies that it exists but that's about it. A third appears to mention it only as having been formed, with no other details at all. Oxford New Words is also just a namecheck, as far as I can tell, but I don't have access to more than the summary that appears in Google. As I said, the sources which can be found appear to me to be trivial, directory-style or simple namechecks. None of these sources appears to amount to non-trivial, provably independent coverage. That's why I nominated the article, because I could not find reliable sources from which to fix the massive problems with the current content, and those sources do not actually help me to do that, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be patronising, but I do expect you to make some effort. The first book, for example, mentions the "New Communist Party" on the page I have linked to. I don't accept your characterisation of the second book; it devotes a page to the group and I cannot see any reference to a difficulty in getting reliable information about the group, only that it is difficult to get reliable membership figures (a feature common to many political parties). I assume that it is the fourth which you cannot find any details in; please look at page 156, which I gave before, where it has further information. Warofdreams talk 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there seems to be sufficient coverage pointed to above to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the party is a notable feature in the British left. Deletion is not the way to deal with the endemic content problems in the article itself. --Soman (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warofdreams. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be deleted as most of the content is a cut-and-paste job from material on the NCP website and New Worker articles. 125.35.18.20 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage in the book sources cited above to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify the article as it is needs to be pruned down significantly with any and all original research removed. The sources provided are marginal but given the nature of the topic I think it would be sensible to give editors a chance to find additional reliable sourcing on which a neutral, verifiable article could be written if an acceptable stub could be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this piece should be reduced to a stub and replaced with more convincing material, as the current page has obviously been written by Andy Brooks (the NCP general secretary).Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can see, there only seems to be a dispute about membership figures, and any number given is unverifiable, so any numbers can only be POV. Clearly the party exists, as I read the New Worker every week, and have phoned their office occasionally. I have looked at the entry for the CPB, and the criticisms of the NCPB entry would apply there too, as with a number of other entries for left groups. It would be a mistake to start doing a hatchet job on any of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.249.184 (talk) 16:16, 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. TravellingCari 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahornfelder[edit]

Non-notable music label in Germany. No references other than a link to the label's own website. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find sufficiently reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:25, 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 and salt. TravellingCari 03:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loonatix Productions[edit]

Non-notable local music label in the Twin Cities area. Article is also unreferenced. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why this keeps getting deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmerkman (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local record label. Improbcat (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Whoo Kid & Olivia: So Seductive[edit]

Non-notable mix tape. Not enough context to determine who "Olivia" is since she isn't a former G-Unit member, according to the article. Unreferenced. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtape by apparently non-notable mystery artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely "Olivia" is Olivia (singer).......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:22, 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 AfD discussion under the new title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Viewed On YouTube. – iride scent 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Viewed Categories[edit]

Simply non-encyclopedic information. See WP:NOT. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:20, 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 redirect to The Great Khali. see also previous afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjin Singh. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjin Singh (Dave Kapoor)[edit]

Non notable/wrong title JakeDHS07 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)JakeDHS07[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —JakeDHS07 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) JakeDHS07 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adster95 (talk • contribs)
Delete Recreation of deleted material located at Ranjin Singh. D.M.N. (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletepointless duplication of material. Not even a worthwhile redirect. Improbcat (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information was already merged in The Great Khali article, fails WP:BLP.--S_RX 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Yes, it isn't the best written article, but he appeared on WWE TV for well over a year, that makes him more than notable. Kris (talk) 03:13, 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 Education in Taoyuan County#Ba-De Junior High School (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba de Junior High School[edit]

Non-notable school, there is nothing special about this school. It is poorly formatted and is just clutter for the 'pedia. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bizarre combination of advertising and nonsense. Note the Characteristics section in particular. It makes no sense whatsoever. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. JuJube (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Education in Taoyuan County#Ba-De Junior High School. Ah, I see what has happened. In a massive merge effort an identical article, under a slightly different title, was merged but this one was missed.TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per TerriersFan. Content is there, we may as well direct readers there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its content: Education in Taoyuan County#Ba-De Junior High School --Jh12 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per TF. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. We66er (talk) 21:17, 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 Keep (nomination withdrawn) in light of improvements and new information. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Williams, sociologist[edit]

Insufficient content to provide context for notability. Although probably not a vanity/ self-promotional piece, a brief search reveals no qualifying claims for notability under WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for producing this piece is that after I had created the article on Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, in which I said that this man had formerly being editor of this journal, some one had put the square brackets around the name "Rhys Williams". This had the unfortunate consequence of inappropriate wiki-linking, as the link took one to other people with that name. If we are to delete the article, can I please insist that the brackets in the article on Journal for Scientific Study on Religion around the name "Rhys Williams" get removed? Please note - I do not think we should delete the article on Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, as this is one of the world's leading journals for psychology, sociology and anthropology of religion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not only entitled, but actually encouraged to correct errors such as inappropriate wikilinking by bold editing. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially a case of a person notable for one thing only. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep , ~~Possibly keep~~ pending a check on whether he is in fact notable otherwise, which is likely. Many such editors are, & editorship of a major journal is a major consideration in WP:PROF. It would be very unusual for a person to attain that position without a very considerable reputation in the profession The academic world doesn't normally work that way.

I've actually checked; finding the middle initial helped--there are a great many people named R Williams, and academic sources in the humanities often avoid full first names. it turns out that the incompetent article entered in Wikipedia was presumably prepared from a old table of contents of the journal of which he was editor. he;'s not an Instructor--He's a full professor at the University of chicago. He has written two very widely held books, considering the subject--found in several hundred libraries., and cited by a good number of other publications; he has also written at least a few dozen journal articles--all this from just the Google sand worldCat. -- I've added these to the article here The Wikipedia editor is of course primarily responsible for this--but the nominator should have at least done a preliminary check. DGG (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Even has 23 gnews hits including reviews of books, well cited academic, journal editor.John Z (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep per DGG. Article needs cleanup, updating, and expanding. --Crusio (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editorship of JSSR is sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment at the end of the Afd, move to Rhys H. Williams. with the middle init ial there is no need for the profession to disambiguate. DGG (talk) 21:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Roelofse Naude[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. All relationships and staff should be in an infobox... but then the article, apart from the infobox, contains 1 line long information. No notability, no nothing. We really have to start cleaning up fictional characters of soap operas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real content, no notabillity. abf /talk to me/ 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. The solution is to create one {{familytree}} and add it to the characters page, not create an article for each character listing their relationships. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All evidence to the contrary, wikipedia is not a directory of characters for fictional subjects. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to Egoli: Place of Gold. No notability outside that series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and recommend TTN and Magioladitus actually find and sources for a change.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least google search doesn't give NOTHING (only copies of the Wikipedia article). Moreover, there is no article in Wikipedia about the actress! -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:PLOT applies here, as the article does not indicate any notable discussion of the reception, impact, and significance of this particular fictional character. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as usual for characters of this sort. Not enough information yet to support an article. (I think the character page has yet to be made). I note that none of the objections above apply to including information about the characters in a combination page, as they do not have to be separately notable. DGG (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. RS do exist. [7], [8]. Not overwhelming, but I only spent a few minutes looking.Hobit (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN's nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacking substantial content. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was interesting. While the general consensus appears to be to delete, there appears to be no valid reason for the deletion as the only arguments are "listcruft" and "original research". There is no evidence of original research, though there should be some references for where the material was obtained. For basic factual information about a fictional topic, primary sources are acceptable (though, as I wrote above, the sources need to be included at some point). "Listcruft" is a wildly overused "reason" which isn't really a reason for deletion. Therefore, the consensus based on the valid reasons given here is determined to be merge and redirect to Beet the Vandel Buster. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster[edit]

This is a trivial list built out of unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is listcraft and original research -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there appears to be no information in this list worthy of merging. Though I don't technically think that the list qualifies as "plot summary", and certainly not as original research. It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —erachima talk 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree to all above. I can see no necessarity for this article. abf /talk to me/ 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Am appropriating the phrase It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the monster list to Beet the Vandel Buster where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and where there's a nice subheading laid out for it already. --Lockley (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirecting each of the monsters, as it appears that this is not a major series, and there's room for them in the main article-- although one couldn't tell any of that from the nom. Plot it isn't, original research it isn't, characters like these in a fiction though individually too trivial for an article are not trivial collectively, and listcruft is IDONTLIKEIT. There's presumably a reason why someone doesn't like it, and it s a little more helpful if one explains just why.DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is not sourced from anything but the source material itself and it deals with a minor aspect of the series featuring "characters" which are unlikely to be dealt with individually by third-party reliable sources. A brief section in the main Beet the Vandel Buster article about the monsters in the series (if verifiable information about them can be found) should suffice. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 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 merge to List of Kiba characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zed (Kiba)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noa (Kiba). Mango juice^talk 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common consensus, WP:BEFORE, and the advice of WP:FICT to List of Kiba characters. A quick search finds no sign of independent notability, so the S.O.P. is merge it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list per the usual reasoning. --erachima talk 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, not to the list, but to Kiba (anime). This is apparently the main character of the series, and should be discussed in greater detail on the main page. I can do this merge if it is accepted. Mango juice^talk 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the content should be both places: a fuller version in the list, a summary thereof in the main article. By my understanding, given GDFL issues and common sense, that'd make the list the appropriate target. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs) [reply]

There is already a brief entry in the list on Zed. Mango juice^talk 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge using some of the content to expand the entry on the list, and whether in the main article or a separate list is detail. Not plot summary, for I cant actually figure out the main plot from the present article,which is , indeed, about as low in usefullness as it gets around here. I'd support keeping separate articles on main characters, but only if they;re done with some degree of competence, and for clearly major fictions. DGG (talk) 01:25, 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 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopoSys GmbH[edit]

Advertisement from WP:SPA. Sources don't look so good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidlines. --Pmedema (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable company. It is also an advertisement. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 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 Merge to List of Kiba characters. Non admin closure. Equendil Talk 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noa (Kiba)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noa (Kiba). Mango juice^talk 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per common consensus, WP:BEFORE, and the advice of WP:FICT to List of Kiba characters. No sign of independent notability on a quick search, so by process, merge it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list per the usual reasoning. --erachima talk 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list per above. I can help do the merging. Mango juice^talk 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same as before. I still can't figure out t he point of bringing obvious merges like this here. If support is needed to endorse a consensus for a merge, just ask me, or any of the rest of us.DGG (talk) 01:27, 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. all. TravellingCari 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions[edit]

These lists are hopelessly incomplete and indiscriminate, not to mention unsourced. I can think of tons of notable cover songs without even leaving country music. Is it notable that, say, Neal McCoy covered Billy Vera's "At This Moment", even if Neal's version didn't chart? Is it notable that Reba McEntire had a cover of Lee Greenwood's "Ring on Her Finger, Time on Her Hands" but only managed a #9 with it? There're no criteria here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All are indescriminate, unsourceable (many), and I fail to see why an album of pure cover songs is notable. If you think about it, its almost anti-notable. As to being a "cover song", why is THAT itself even notable? PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is hopeless incomplete and arbitrary in its contents (see "Yesterday" for example). List is skewed towards rock at the expense of other genres. Wikipedia editors obsess too much over "covers" to begin with. There are other websites that try to build databases of songs recorded by multiple artists; we shouldn't be trying to compete with them. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to maintain a criteria for the cover versions. Indiscriminate and too broad of a list. Tavix (talk) 13:54, 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. Waggers (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cord[edit]

Does not seem to meet the notability guideline for musicians and is unreferenced. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed a bunch of WP:COPYVIO from the article, leaving it with very little. If the article had reliable sources for the information presented (mainly the discography), there is a possibility that the subject would meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I'm reserving judgment to see if the article progresses over the next day. As it stands now, I'd vote to delete the article. — X S G 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Did not find any decent ghits to assert it. -- Alexf⁴² 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be really underground. Delete as unsourced. I can't find any proof of the contents. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sourcing, no real notability asserted. SkierRMH (talk) 23:17, 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 merge to List of SGI products. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGI Virtu[edit]

article serves only to promote a non-notable product and serve as a product guide for same. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources for verifiability with the "sources" in the article being press releases and/or primary source. I previously tagged for speedy as spam but, as it has been pointed out I'm not an expert and have not contributed significantly to similar articles in the past. I'm nominating in order to althose with said knowledge to debate the merits of the article and it's subject in full accordance with the policies and guidelines of notability, verifiability, and WP:NOT all of which I feel this fails. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability - no little mention of this product line in the parent article. This could be incorporated into it but definately doesn't deserve it's own article. Booglamay (talk) - 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for the article[edit]

On the Procedure[edit]

The article was first proposed for a speedy deletion. It as been move to article for deletion.

No tentative has been made to improve the article
No proposal has been made to move copy or merge the article
The notability template has not been used on the page, thought notability of described subject has been contexted in the discussion page
Upon request for speedy deletion, no description has been added to the description page to explain the request
Article has been deemed a blatant advertising even thought:
- it does not solicit for a business, product or service
- it does not nor does it use sales-oriented language

On the merits[edit]

SGI as a compagny has been the major actor on Computer Graphics hardware in the past 30 years, having nearly invented the concept of graphic workstation.

Having encountered difficulties in the later 90s and in the first half of this decade SGI lost its position as a leader in the field of graphic workstations. Despite that fact, products by SGI during that period have their wikipedia articles, which are not contested ( SGI Fuel, SGI Tezro ).

At the end of 2007, SGI redeployed its visualization stategy. Implementing that new strategy, they release a new product line SGI Virtu during first half of 2005. Such a release represent the most important strategy change in SGI in the past 15 years, as it represent a change in architecture and a change in operating system strategy. This happens when all workstation manufacturers exits the RISC-UNIX workstation market ( HP-UX, IBM, Sun ).

For these reasons, I think the SGI Virtu line of product does not deserves any less an article that SGI Fuel, SGI Tezro, but also Dell Precision, IBM IntelliStation.

Of course the article is only a stub, and few of the points mentionned above are yet present in the article, nor sourced. When creating the article I only planned to invest at first a small time to it, even thought I ended up devoting far mor time to keep the article alive than both what I intended and what would have been needed to improve the article.

The article in its present form is only factual, does not try to promote any product, service or compagny. It mention the existence of a product line, and a few very basic technical aspects. When creating the article I tried to source the information, and keep meaningfulllinks with other wikipedia articles.

--Dwarfpower (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Notability[edit]

criteria from Wikipedia:Notability

'Significant coverage'
- [9] coverage by HPCwire and independant news coverage for [[High-performance computing|HPC]
- [10] coverage by InsideHPC
- [11] (fr) coverage by toolinux
- [12] (fr) covergabe by cao.fr a french speeking portal of cad/cam

These are significant coverages by wikipedia standards as defined in Wikipedia:Notability

'Reliable'

These sources are all independant secondary sources. They are long lasting publication in various languages.

'sources'

As advised these are secondary sources.

'Independent of the subject'

All these sources are independant of Silicon Graphics, either as corporation or in regards to their business source fo revenue

Additional information. No notability tag was added to the article to give the community the opportunity to establish notability of the subject. This article was written 13 minutes priori to the request for deletion !

merge with [Silicon Graphics][edit]

Silicon graphic article organisation already is based on the existance of individuals article for its different product lines. That has been the case for two years and a half without any problem to my knowledge. merging information regarding this particular product line with the Silicon Graphics article would unbalance the article and compromise current quality of existing articles. --Dwarfpower (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarfpower… tl;dr. I would suggest reading the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure if using more words makes your opinion stronger, I just know the product isn't notable, which is the policy here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmboy has it about right... There's little information in the article, and nothing to indicate its notability at all. I suggest that if it's mentioned anywhere it be in the parent article for now, until multiple non-trivial references are available. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete also ?[edit]

Just browse Category:Products by company and take a pick.

None of the people i'v seen requesting the deletion of the article sofar are familiar with Computer graphics and computer hardware, at least none made any contribution in the field in their last 500 contribution. I don't try to diminish anyone's merit, but of course most of you haven't heard about it, it's not your field. I think most of you haven't heard of Étienne de La Boétie either, and that dioes not dimishes his merits or yours. This whole thing started on accusation of beeing blatantly advertising a product, now I don't even here about it anymore... --Dwarfpower (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not want to "diminish anyone's merit", but you certainly will insult peoples' knowledge and contributions to Wikipedia - regardless of the subject content. Booglamay (talk) - 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- intgr [talk] 12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing to this guideline. I did not know it. I will then try to explain how the above articles give a precedent to keep SGI Virtu articles in accordance with the guideline.

It is common and accepted practice in wikipedia to create articles describing products or product lines of notable manufacturers, as the above exemples show. Notability of a product cannot bejudged independantly of the notability of itsmanufacturer. At the same time, in a manufacturer coverage, consistency between articles must be kept to maintain the overall architecture of articles homogeneity. Giving Virtu a different treatment compared to the other manufacturer's products would lead either to the absence of coverage of this product line, or to the general sgi articles <ith little details on legacy product ( but pointing to dedicated articles ) and to a comparably important amount of information on the new product line, with no external articles. I hope ou all will find this explanation make the previous list of precedent fall in line with accepted policy, as described in the guideline [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

survey continued[edit]

Merge & redirect to an article List of SGI products 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — per nom. (If I'm putting this in the right place due to the user's excessive ranting. MuZemike (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dwarfpower, there is much to be said for brevity. Oy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second! This article was created on the same day as it was nominated for deletion. Is it not generally accepted practice to give an article some time before to develop before deciding on its suitability for inclusion unless it obviously violates policy? I am more knowledgeable with Silicon Graphics hardware and I will conduct a search for reliable sources that can determine notability. From memory, there were notable sources from reputable publications at the time of this product line's announcement. Rilak (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- REPLY It doesn't matter whether an article is 1 second or 1 year old: This isn't about a SPEEDY DELETE, where the criteria is to make a claim of notability, it is about notability, period, claim or no claim. The AFD assumes that editors commenting here have done at least a little research into seeing if the product is notable or not. You are more than welcome to put up some sources here that would demonstrate notability. AFDs generally last a week anyway. That an article is "new" is not a valid reason to keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know, but how can you possibly access an article for notability when it isn't finished? Rilak (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The standard for notability applies to the SUBJECT MATTER, not the CONTENT. Actually, all you have to do is READ the actual guideline here to understand. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are obviously misinterpreting my comment. In many cases, the subject matter has been proved notable after sources were added to an article. An article which lacks sources to demonstrate notability is considered to be incomplete, as an article requires such sources to be considered to be something higher than something such as a stub-class or a start-class article. By the way, don't use all caps. Rilak (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I get your comment completely. After trying to establish notability, I !voted to delete as it became obvious that there aren't really any 3rd party sources that would establish notability at this time. And please, for god sakes, don't tell me how to use caps or not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or add to List of SGI products). I see nothing notable about this. It is a product doing a job, just like all the different brands of hammers. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- While that might be accurate for Virtu VS, which are rebranded BOXX workstations, I think that the Virtu VN uses specialized software proprietary to Silicon Graphics to perform its job. Its more than just another "brand of hammer", but that doesn't mean it deserves it own article though, as I have said before. Rilak (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't consider four socket and height socket configurations another hammer either. granted dual socket xeon configurations are rather common now in the workstation marketplace (i'd go as far as to say that anythings less than that cannot qualify as a workstation ), but the amd based configurations are top of the line articles, all constructors taken into account. SGI sub contracting the construction does not diminish the product line merits . --Dwarfpower (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major product lines of a company like DGI are notable. This isn't an individual product, but an article for the group of products. Seems to me there is slightly more significant creativity and individual differences in these products than in simple tools. DGG (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - Web searches with Google and Yahoo return only one reliable secondary source, which has already been mentioned (the HPCwire article). Searches at more than twelve reputable computing related news sources that are expected to cover this sort of product have resulted in no results or only trivial mentions (a republished Silicon Graphics press release about their financial achievements for the fourth quarter, which mentions the Virtu in passing). Some of the sources include Digital Content Producer.com, Cnet, Hoise, CGW, The Computer Business Review, Computer Woche and all of IDG's sites. Searches at Bnet and a couple of other article search engines also return nothing. Searches at analyst sites mostly returned nothing or trivial mentions (the republished Silicon Graphics press release mentioned previously) and only one article: Jie Wu, "Looking for Lost Love, SGI Rolls Out a New Visualization Product", Apr 2008, Doc # lcUS21183008, but I unfortunately cannot remember which of the analyst sites I found it. The article requires registration to view, and due to the fact that these sites often cover nearly everything, it cannot offer enough weight anyway to support notability. The sources which I mentioned I had remembered seeing could not be located, and should be disregarded. A reasonably detailed search was conducted, using multiple methods, keywords and good-old fashioned manual browsing. All sites searched were ensured that they archived their articles and that they covered similar content. As a result of insufficient sources being located, I recommend that the content in the article in question be merged, and the article in question be depreciated into a redirect as what few sources that are available suggests that the subject is important and notable in the context of Silicon Graphics. It is worthy of note that Silicon Graphics themselves can only locate on article about the Virtu that is independent of themselves (see: [13]), the previously mentioned HPCwire article, which is further reinforces the position that this subject is not notable enough for its own article. Rilak (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HPCWire is the only lengthy article on teh product line. However, every single CAD, CG HPC magazine and web site reported it, even if they di dnot cover it in length. Had the solution not been notable, they wouldn't have covered it. Lenovo thinkstation for instance didn't have that much coverage. and for a product that does not target niches. --Dwarfpower (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is another short source: [14]. Interestingly, a five-second Google search uncovers around 75 mentions of Lenovo workstations in the past month. I hardly got anything for the Virtu. Rilak (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops my mistake there. I think I hadn't cleared my search option when i did the search, I almost had hits at the time I wrote this. --Dwarfpower (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not a great article at present, but on the face of it, a significant product line from a significant computer vendor. Certainly no less notable than several other computer product lines I can think of that have their own article. Letdorf (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Dwarfpower, but WP:TLDR. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Narre Warren, Victoria#Education (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oatlands Primary School[edit]

No assertion of notability, but CSD doesn't cover schools. My present understanding of the inherent notability of schools is that high schools are inherently notable and primary schools are not. gnfnrf (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narre Warren, Victoria#Education per usual practice. Nothing mergeable. TerriersFan (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan as article contains no meaningful information. No prejudice against future recreation with reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as that is the usual way to deal with non-notable primary schools. If something notable happens, then change redirect to article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No independent notability, and nothing substantial to actually merge. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 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. -- Nihonjoe (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums (A)[edit]

This list is grossly unhelpful as there are millions of albums and only a handful have been excluded in this list. This list does little more than a category does and is more incomplete. WP:SALAT says: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." The "List of albums" list is extremely too broad and too incomplete. However, I did not nominate List of albums for deletion because I feel that this can be used as a disambiguation to redirect people to the specific lists such as List of rock and roll albums, ect. Tavix (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I nominated the whole A-Z list, but I didn't feel like listing it all on here as it would take me ~15 minutes. If you want to see the full list, click on the (A) article and use the template. Tavix (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the A-Z list There are millions of albums that aren't on this list, it would never be complete and if it were, it would be browser-crashingly long. Category:Albums is a much better navigational hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infinite and pointless list. JuJube (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the needle over the vinyl when deleting. There is NO criteria, except "album". What if only released on iTunes? in 1912? What if I pressed 100 copies of my own from my band, thats an album too, right? Even if it was limited to albums with articles on Wikipedia (which is what catagories are for...), redlink garbage would show up in no time. Too indiscrimanate. Delete every letter of the alphabet and numbers too for this one. This is just a bad idea on so many levels. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too general and not able to be completed to any reasonable degree, and thus not useful. A-Z have gotta go. - Liontamer (talk) 15:48, 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) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberathlete Amateur League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted via an expired WP:PROD several months ago with the reason stated "Could not find any third-party sources to prove notability or verifiability." Article has been recreated and is showing the same exact problems as before regarding lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - Article on the start up of CAL. Regular competitive gaming news related to CAL exclusively. Third party review of CAL. News of CAL's move into Xbox games. Shall I continue? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about sources that are not press releases that are from reliable sources that can establish the significant coverage covered in WP:GNG? MuZemike (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about sources that relate specifically to gaming, competitive gaming and youth, which are the target markets for the news articles, since that is where the major interest groups are? Don't expect many articles on gaming related subjects in places like Forbes or New York Times. The interest is not there in those venues. Sourcing comes where the interest is. In this case it would be gaming sites and magazines. In the case of the YPress article, YPress is a youth serviced and targeted publication housed in the offices of the Indianapolis Star site as an NPO. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't confuse press releases with newspaper articles; they are two different things. Let me rephrase. I understand about YPress (I also think that is OK), but are there other sources besides press releases that provide the needed significant coverage? MuZemike (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or strip to a stub - Trawled through the ghits, lots of press releases and token directory entries. I will change my opinion if an additional suitable source can be unearthed to supplement the YPress article, which seems fine. Article should then be built up from these independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources to support this article, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Only sources are either self-published unreliable sources, or official material that has been reprinted such as press releases. Randomran (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nontrivial and unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info. “I don’t like it” is NOT a reason for deletion. Passes WP:V and WP:N.--209.247.22.85 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, that response is eerily similar to a few other IPs, lately. I'm starting to sense a connection. MuZemike (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the previous comment as it contained personal information posted without my consent. MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have deleted that revision. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and leave a mention of CAL in Cyberathlete Professional League, as the CPL owns CAL. I found a couple of sources for CAL: [15][16][17]. I'd say the Dallas News qualifies for notability terms, while the others are passing mentions. Either way, I think it would be most appropriate to include this information in CPL, as that will make for stronger content there. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Don't need to waste our time with this, socks blocked and article is speedy deleted as vandalism. Secret ^account 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encephemede[edit]

Although there are references in the article claiming this word has been used in 1992, there are no Google results for the word, and it seems to be a non-notable neologism. It has been added to a few articles (by replacing the word "foundress" with "encephemede") since 22 September by three new users. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a neologism, but in any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Programmes on The Discovery Channel regularly use the term encephemede. Janet Jackson and Steve (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a made-up word that the sock farm is trying to insert in various places in the encyclopedia. The first source listed in the article, at least, is on-line at Google Books, and a search in it shows no instance of the word encephemede. Deor (talk) 15:34, 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. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Mexico[edit]

1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. ~~No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format.~~ Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment see Category:19th century years by country for many, many, many other examples (not just Mexico). Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [18] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete them, then you should delete everything in Category:Years_by_country. Don't just pick on Mexico; pick on the US and the UK, too. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 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 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nijmeegs Neutje[edit]

This has been around for more than a month and while there's a nice photo, there's no claim of or indication of notability. The person who removed the prod tag is the original creator of the article, someone who should have been able to identify something notable about the topic over the past month. Bongomatic (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who put the PROD on the article said I could delete it while I'm looking for references and documentation — see User_talk:RMHED#Nijmeegs_Neutje_PROD. I need more than a few days to do it; please be patient. AdamFunk (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If any editor subsequently finds information giving rise to the inference of notability for the subject of this article, it can be recreated later. In the meantime, anyone hoping to locate such information can copy the article to the user space to make sure that the information currently in the article is not lost. Bongomatic (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information I was looking for hasn't turned up. AdamFunk (talk) 20:19, 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. There is absolutely no consensus to delete this article below. Most likely it could use some massive copyediting, as many of the keep and delete !voters have opined, but needing work is not a valid reason to delete an article; rather, it is a good reason to work on it. The other large delete argument is that "IPC articles are inherently unencyclopedic", which doesn't address much about this article in specific, and isn't a very persuasive argument either. lifebaka++ 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a loose and indiscriminate collection of trivia and original research.There is absolutely no need to list every single time the topic is used in a piece of media. By doing that, this is just combining a large number of unrelated topics and claiming that they are part of a larger topic (WP:OR). The actual use for this article would be to discuss the overall use of the topic in different pieces of media, while giving different examples to provide context. I don't really think this can be reformatted to do so, but a few paragraphs in the main article may be suitable. TTN (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the year since it survived the last nomination, this article has grown from 25.5 bytes to 35.5, and the additions have mostly been the trivial references that give i.p.c. articles a bad name. It survived in August '07 because the phoenix is the mythological symbol of our ability to recover from disaster, but pop culture articles frequently degenerate into "Guess where I saw a _____". I think that if it can't be pared down, it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article does require a good clean up, but not a deletion. My kid (9 years old, living in Japan, where the Phoenix is not massively known) just used this article to find information of the Phoenix for a homework at his class. I was actually surprised by the so many ways the Phoenix shows in our daily life and we do not know about it. That is why this article is in my watch list. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for 30+ years old adults, then fine, delete it; otherwise this article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel.mateo (talk • contribs) 00:34, September 21, 2008

Keep as for most similar articles, if they have content, unless they are really small and better merged until they grow. The uses of notable things in notable media are not trivial. They aren't individually notable, of course, but the content together is worth an article. Overall, the extent of good content seems overwhelming--I was quite surprised when I looked. There are a few ones which can not be included without a specific reference, for the relevance isn't obvious, and a few where it doesn't seem the other work is notable (in the usual sense here of having a Wikipedia article). To what extent metaphor-like uses are appropriate can be discussed on the talk page also. It's not indiscriminate--an indiscriminate articles would include all references from all works, whether or not notable. "Indiscriminate" is still sometimes used as an accusation against list type articles, and always fails if the article is limited to notables. As for referencing, unless ambiguous, the nature of all of these characters can be explicitly sourced from particular pages/scenes in the best source, the work itself. If ambiguous, a ref. discussing the work is necessary--just like our general practices for the use of such sources, both in plot and in other contexts. The suggestion in the nomination of what the article shoud be limited to is not Wikipedia policy. (I notified the closer of the first AfD, which should be automatic--I suggest other participants be notified also, which should additionally be automatic.--FWIW, last time around, some of the delete arguments were urging that all such articles be deleted.) DGG (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment effectively the article as it is isn't about the "phoenix in popular culture" it's a somewhat indiscriminate list of when representations of the phoenix (or sometimes just mentions of the word "phoenix") have appeared pretty much anywhere (I'm really not sure that being the symbol of the third reich or the unofficial mascot of a small college is in the scope "popular culture"). The article/list as it is clearly needs to be significantly cleaned up and I would think that trying to find some reliable sources that discuss the concept of the phoenix and it's use in popular culture (currently absent) might be a good starting point for either a stand alone piece or a section in the main Phoenix article. Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral For now. I'm almost 100% certain that if I go digging I will find multiple sources covering the importance of the Phoenix in literature and myth. I am just as certain that I will find no source that covers anything close to resembling this piece of original research through synthesis. In my opinion, this article needs to be renamed (to something like "images of Phoenix in art" or something), drastically cut and rewritten. Al'ar is a phoenix. So is dumbledore's bird. What connects the two, aside from editor selection on this list? Why is Al'ar a significant part of WoW? Who says? Does that make it part of popular culture? Why? These questions will come up in every AfD for these IPC lists. I'm going to dig through some sources tomorrow/tomorrow night. If I find something, I'll try to fix this article. If not, I'll probably change my view to weak delete. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I browsed for sources and soon found mention of The Phoenix in the Western world from Herodotus to Shakespeare. The nomination indicates that this material should be developed further and so deletion is obviously inappropriate. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and~~ IF Renamed. While "...in popular culture" articles and article sections tend to reek of triviasynthcruft, this article is about a significant icon of western civilization. Strongly recommend taking "popular" out of the title to avoid inviting the accumulation of trivial mentions and to encourage editors to draw on sources having significant coverage. This could rise from the ashes as a featured article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like all ...in popular culture articles, this is inherently unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all IPC topics. This is especially crammed with junk trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. The existence of the "Phoenix in the Western World" book shows that the article subject can be made into an encyclopedic article. Listphobia is not a reason to delete the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- So Shakespeare used the symbol? So what? Everyone had told me, all my life, that Shakespeare was a great and original writer. Well I tried browsing through a book of his plays once. Do you know what I found? There wasn't a page of his work I looked at where he hadn't used some old, shopworn, over-used cliche! The guy is a hack because his work is full of cliches! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seriously, the article needs some work, but this is a highly notable topic. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "In Popular Culture" articles are evil, but the cultural figure of the phoenix ought to be notable enough to make an article on it, it's used lots and lots of times to signify resurrection/rebirth. I mean, dude, it's not as famous as the swastika or the dove of peace, but it's not just any random cultural symbol, surely it can get reworked into an acceptable article called Phoenixs as symbols, similar to Doves as symbols. Notice that one of the entries on the article is a tapestry on the UN chamber where it represent the rebirth of friggin' World Peace from the ashes of WWII. Symbols don't make their way into that sort of places unless they are understood and accepted by a huge segment of world population. This needs cleanup+rename and not deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure, there should be an article on a subject as important as this, but this is not an article, it's a list that looks awful. Sure, Enric Naval, there are some valuable notes here, but how can one possibly separate the wheat from the chaff? 'Cleanup+rename' is just not possible here. Delete and write, that's a solution--and by 'write' I mean someone should compose an article with a beginning, a middle, and an end. PS Geo Swan, you should try actually reading and not just browsing Shakespeare, whatever 'browsing' means in this context. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but isn't this opinion in direct contradiction with the deletion policies? Last time I looked they were crystal clear on this point -- the deletion of an article should be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on the quality of the current instance of the article. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None taken--but where you emphasize the topic (literally, haha), I would stress that the merits of covering said topic is what it's about. Again, I think there is considerable rationale for including this topic, but it needs actual covering. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Shakespeare -- The reason there is a widely used phrase on practically every page of Shakespeare's plays is not, of course, because he cribbed existing cliches from popular culture. Rather he coined phrases so powerful and evocative that writers copied them, continue to copy them, to this day, so that they entered the unconsciously recognized shorthand of popular culture. It was not my attempt to catch someone whose humor-engine was on the fritz today.
  But I think this comment illustrates the importance of addressing popular culture topics -- and not dismissing them as "trivial". Like Shakespeare's "cliches" references from popular culture merely seem trivial, seem obvious -- because we are continually immersed in them, and are largely unconscious of them, just like the person who thinks Shakespeare was a writer who made massive use of over-used cliches, because they were unaware that he coined all those phrases in the first place.
  
  Pop culture references seem unworthy of explanation or discussion, on the surface, when one doesn't recognize that they are opaque to those readers who, for one reason or another, have never encountered them before. The idioms of popular culture can seem opaque to those for whom English is a second language. They can seem opaque to those who were strictly home-schooled. Older pop culture references can seem opaque to the young, when they fall into dis-use. Newer pop culture references can seem opaque to older people who don't watch music videos or play video games. It took me years before someone explained the source of the annoying phrase, "all your base are belong to us". Over on slashdot contributor used to over-use, perhaps still over-use, the phrase, "imagine a beowulf cluster of cliches". Similarly, "I, for one, welcome our cliche overlords", or "in Soviet Russia cliches over-use you". The real meaning of these cliches is opaque to those to whom they are unfamiliar, and seems trivially obvious to those who have absorbed them. It is important to try to examine the seemingly trivially obvious, as if we have never encountered them before, because some of our readers will not have encountered them before.
  
  It is important to try to examine the seemingly trivially obvious, as if we have never encountered them before, because, in my experience, it is very, very common for people who use cliches, instead of real discussion, to use the same cliches, and think they agree with one another -- when they actually don't. I wrote a little story about how nothing is "obvious".
  
  Quick, how old were you when you figured out what the "World's oldest profession" was? I encountered this phrase as a youngster, and was reading past my grade-level, and it took me at least a decade to figure out what it was. I had initially tried to figure it out from first principles, and got it wrong. Consequently, there was at least a decade when I didn't fully understand what writers who used this cliche were talking about.
  
  What about the "World's second oldest profession". It is another cliche I tried to figure out from first principles. I think part of my confusion is that some writers who use these two phrases also tried to figure them out from first principles, and also got them wrong, as I did.
  
  Pop culture is not trivial. Pop culture cliches are not trivial. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Pop culture doesn't need to be "trivial". the issue here shouldn't be with our opinion of how important or unimportant each reference is. The issue should be that if the entire article rests on how editors of wikipedia feel about a subject, that is a BIG warning sign that we shouldn't have an article on the subject. Like I said above, there is room for an article that proceeds from secondary sources and notes the intersection of certain imagery with culture. This isn't that article. It isn't on the path to be that article. This is an opportunity for people to pop in with "eye-spy" references and make the connection themselves. I grant that articles like this are part of wikipedia's charm. but we shouldn't conflate importance of culture (which is significant) with the importance of what editor X feels about Al'ar (which is close to zero). This article will, at best, see a no-consensus close, so I don't expect it to be deleted. And it will sit, with cleanup tags at the top, from now on. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I share this perspective. It is the article, not the topic, that is trivial. My own feeling is that when a subject is notable but an article fails to draw on the resources that provide notability, then the article ought to be stubified until a contributor undertakes to draft something that actually reflects the notability of the subject. However, consensus is to treat these as "editorial" issues even when nothing noteworthy about the subject has been submitted for edit. As a consequence, many articles that are NOT Wikipedic persist on the spurious grounds that one could write a Wikipedic article on the subject, even if it would have to be a completely different article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I pointed out the deletion policies state that the decision to delete should be based on the merits of the topic -- not on the quality of the current state of the article. The policy states that if the topic merits coverage, but the current state of the article is poor, concerned wikipedians should step in, and improve the article, or mention their concerns on the talk page, or leave one of those tags, that is a short-hand for their concern. Deletion should be a last resort. No one tried initiating that discussion on the talk page. No one tried using those editorial tags. So, I suggest, it is not appropriate for anyone who has acknowledged that the topic merits inclusion to argue for deletion. If one doesn't have time to do any of that, leaving it on your watchlist, and waiting a week or a month, or six months, to see if someone who does have more time fixes it, is also an option. Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the rationale provided by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) said it best. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 25 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, treelo _radda 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. iconic and obviously notable. There is inependent discussion out there. I too would favour a rename to "cultural depictions of..." Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 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. TravellingCari 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf Priest[edit]

I strongly suspect this is a hoax, or at least a synthesis of unrelated material (and misleading). There is an Irish legend of a priest and a werewolf (not a werewolf priest), and a bunch of other loosely connected material which is not referenced. A google search on "werewolf priest" yields mirrors of this page, or gaming material. The article creator is long gone and contributed nothing apart from this article. I mused on PRODding it but felt this forum geve more chance of structured debate Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If someone does provide some unambiguous source material, I'll happily withdraw the nom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original synthesis of mostly unrelated material. What is it with all these poorly sourced werewolf articles this week? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree that this is synthesis and WP:MADEUP. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has no reliable sources, probably a hoax and the story is basically generic to all werwolves and offers nothing different to the werewolf article except OR and poor writing... Delete. Spawn Man (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Seaplane Service[edit]

Contested PROD. PROD reasoning was that this is a local air taxi type service, like literally hundreds of others in Alaska, and no notability has been demonstrated. The only sources are a directory listing, a trivial mention in an article about aviation insurance, and something in German that also seems to only make trivial mention of this outfit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a scheduled carrier. See this Google translation for the article from the newspaper in Germany which is all about a flight operated by Alaska Seaplane Service. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scheduled airline in a remote part of the world with few carriers. Article needs more information, such as types flown and capacity. Would need a review if the company ceased trading in the future. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scheduled carrier important enough for IATA to allocate a code, does need improving but not deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not want to pile-on here, but I do feel this is a keeper (although needs work). Juneau is not connected to the rest of North America via road/rail, thus relies on sea/air transportation. The notability guidelines for roads assert that major linkages between towns are notable. In the absence of roads to the capital I would argue that alternative transportation, which would normally not be notable, becomes inherently notable because they serve as de facto major connecting roads between isolated regions. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. These small airlines with codes are the only way to get to many places in Alaska. Travel by road is impossible and by large aircraft is also impossible due to the length and condition of many runways, or the lack thereof. The IATA code here with those conditions is clearly notable. And yes Alaska has a lot of small airlines. I guess they might be the bus companies or trains of Alaska.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have bus companies,shuttle services, water taxis, land taxis, and trains in Alaska. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What none of you seem to realize is that every small town and village in Alaska has at least 2 or 3 small airlines operating out of it. A town like Homer has about 10 or 15, there's probably 20 or 30 in Juneau, and I wouldn't want to guess how many in Anchorage or Fairbanks. It's like giving an article to the guy who runs the local taxi or delivers your pizza, as is clearly indicated by the translation of the German article. The article indicates that their fleet consists of only 2 small seaplanes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a scheduled carrier, and one that has been awarded Essential Air Service contracts no less. --Allstar86 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question It seems clear where this is going, but I'm curious as to why being scheduled makes it automatically notable. I'm not familiar with any such guideline or policy so, in the interest of not wasting everyone's time, I'd appreciate a link to whatever it is that says any scheduled transportation is inherently notable, as that seems to be the crux of the keep arguments. The argument that this is the main way to get to Juneau does not hold up in because both The Alaska Marine Highway has it's hub there, and Alaska Airlines, along with many, many other airlines service Juneau. It has a modern airport, although the approach in a large jet can be quite terrifying due to it being wedged in between the mountains. The only way anyone would call these guys to get to Juneau would be if they were already at some much more isolated place and needed to get backBeeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suspect it's because the distinction between a scheduled service and a charter company is an unambiguous and convenient threshold. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked out the Bureau of Transportation Statistics T100 segment data for Alaska for the first quarter of 2008. Alaska Seaplane Service carried 667 passengers in the first quarter of this year. That might make them appear small, but we have articles on other Alaska regionals such as Inland Aviation Services (214 passengers) and Taquan Air (257 passengers). On the other hand, other Alaska airlines for which we have articles are bigger, such as Wings of Alaska (3793 passengers), Bering Air (25232 passengers), Frontier Flying Service (41940 passengers), L.A.B. Flying Service (1952 pax), and Servant Air (2069 pax). Also, PenAir carried 58104 passengers and Alaska Airlines carried 827014 passengers. These figures are for flight segments either originating or terminating in Alaska. (Actually, it's been nearly five years since I've had to look at T100 data for my job, but I still know what it's used for.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note on that note, I had PRODed Inland as well, but that has been removed and I was waiting to see how this plays out. My concern here is that if this stays, the other 300 or so micro-airlines in Alaska will all feel deserving of their own articles. I'm positive there are other air taxis that carry as many people in a month as Inland does in a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 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

Nominator Withdrawl - The article contains enough information to meet Wikipedia standards. Therefore, it should be kept. --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell album)[edit]

Delete - I would like to open with the fact that Richard Marx and Matt Scannell (from the band Vertical Horizon) created this disc with little fanfare and sales promotion behind it. It was not released on a major label and the sales were not RIAA certified gold or platinum. This article does not meet WP:Music notability guidelines and has no possibility for expansion. It doesn't meet the album criteria; the album only contains a track listing and a brief informational blurb at the top of the article. There is little or no record of charted singles or publication coverage of any kind other than the artist's websites. I've made an effort to try and find a way to expand this article, which proved futile. After seeking information from the Wikipedia:Help desk, I was advised that this article would be a viable candidate for this type of nomination. Candy156sweet (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Featured on CBS News The Early Show as cited in the article. — Athaenara ✉ 04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it were to be kept, there should be more to it than just a small piece on the CBS channel. I'm a fan of the disc and I do own it, but I really wish there were more of a way to expand the article to encompass more than what is presently listed.--Candy156sweet (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There really is no reason for this page to be deleted. The CD mentioned is a rare occassion of two artists of completely different backgrounds joining to record an album. Plus, this CD will eventually become a rare collector's item (it already hasn't yet) and this article can help the casual reader learn a little bit about this album instead of just seeing a simple mention of the album with no explaination of any songs on the album or whatever. Definately a keeper. Itsmyright (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I mentioned in the previous reply to the editor above: I wish that the article had more information to expand on instead of a track listing and a simple blurb with a citation to a small online article. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Athaenara:

The point of a Wikipedia AfD is to draw input, particularly from editors who haven't previously edited the article, on whether or not its inclusion is supported by this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. An AfD nominator is simply one who lists it, not the gatekeeper of the process (n.b.: "viable candidate for this type of nomination" means suitable for open discussion, not foredoomed to deletion).

Specific claims in the nomination, e.g. "little fanfare and sales promotion" (marketing strategy and tactics are irrelevant) "not released on a major label" (many notable albums aren't) "not RIAA certified gold or platinum" (ditto), beg the question, and "little or no ... publication coverage of any kind other than the artist's websites" is false: an article confirming that the album had been featured on national television in the US was published a month ago and easy to find.

I had never heard of the album or the artists before a dispute about whether or not to include the artists' album chronologies in {{Infobox Album}} was listed on Third opinion. I looked for independent reliable sources which verified notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, found the CBS piece, which did, and added the reference with cite web format (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 07:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator did not notify article creator Jeremy706 (talk · contribs) of this discussion as recommended in {{AfDM}}, I notified him myself with {{Adw}} (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 07:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was a learning curve for me, and this experience will aid me with my future editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for bringing those issues to light. My reasoning for beginning this AfD was an err on my part, although the catalyst came from a fourth party query pertaining to a question I had about the chronology. The editor that advised me is a seasoned editor, but is not an administrator. I would also like to add that Itsmyright talk and Jeremy706 talk are two usernames for the same creator and editor of the article in question. As a "friendly ruse," the editor decided to change his username. I happen to know this particular editor outside of the Wikipedia forum and we've come to mutual agreements about the subject matter in question. This is not a dispute; this is merely an arbitrary debate about a subject that the two of us were at odds. I would like to thank you for your third-party input and patience in this matter. It is definitely appreciated. I'm glad that there is resolution with this article. I still think that article should be expanded, but I'm in agreement that the article should remain on the site. --Candy156sweet (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Apparently the next step for you is to withdraw the nomination:

"Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." (Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions)

(And you're welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 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 Speedily deleted as copyright violation, without prejudice to recreation with original text. Verbatim copy of http://www.cslmoney.com.au/mere_Mortgage. Suggest that text ought first to be added to mortgage prior to creating a new article about mere mortgages in Australia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Mortgages In Australia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 13:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette (rapper)[edit]

Dosn't have any sources to indicate the Importance of this rapper in having a article on wikipedia.

Alexnia (T) @ 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was able to locate some sources fairly quickly on her. Note that as she predates the Internet, there may be a lot more material only available in print sources. Would appear to meet WP:MUSIC based on that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep According to Billboard, she had a single that peaked at #17 on the rap charts. Her feud with MC Lyte is covered by reliable sources.[19][20] [21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since, as noted by Morbidthoughts, this artist has had a charted hit on a national music chart. Cliff smith ^talk 00:48, 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 no consensus. and relisting again isn't likely to bring us closer to one. There is and will always be debate over whether all populated places are inherently notable. Until such time as that's settled (and we're all long dead), there's no deleting this one. TravellingCari 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciocănari[edit]

This is a superfluous disambiguation as there are no villages of that name on Wikipedia. The disambiguation can be recreated if the articles are created, but after two years this seems unlikely in the near future. Tavix (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally prodded, and User:Ceyockey supported deletion with the following remarks before the prod was removed without a reason:

Both red-linked titles are orphans (i.e. what links here is empty for each). If they were not orphans, I could support keeping the dab page.

Delete as an invalid disambiguation page. They're intended to link to two or more articles of the same or similar name. This one doesn't. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I'm not mistaken, it disambigs into a wall...or two. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tavix (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both items are named inhabited places, which are generally held to be notable. The disambiguation is helpful to the reader, letting them know that two such places exist. If you aren't happy that the village articles don't exist yet, WP:SOFIXIT suggests writing said articles.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRITE THEM THEN! Don't go yelling at me to write an article that I don't feel is notable. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fabrictramp. The places exist and there are links to their communes, which provide some info for the reader. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niculeşti, since Măciuca doesn't mention it. (Or add a mention in Măciuca and leave as a base-name dab.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 22 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - let me explain what's going on here. No, the individual villages probably are not notable (all information on them can probably fit into the parent article on the commune). However, we have literally hundreds of these: Soci, Tarniţa, Varniţa, Branişte, Plopi, Ursoaia, Rădeni, Stâna, Rogoz, Rusca, etc, etc. They disambiguate among villages of the same name, are useful in identifying a village where the county is not known, etc. I appreciate Stifle's argument, but this is a clear WP:IAR case - it's the easiest way to tell apart the villages, and thus serves to improve the encyclopedia, even if the letter of the disambiguation policy is being violated by those villages not having articles. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then add a mention of in Măciuca and leave as a base-name dab, otherwise "disambiguating" it does not serve to improve the encyclopedia, since there are no articles to disambiguate. Geographic set index articles (not disambiguation pages) may be what you are looking for -- they list geographic entities by set (such as by similar name); they do not follow the dab guidelines, but instead follow the list guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about disambiguating redirects, like I just did? And what about the 600+ other such pages, which have sat undisturbed for two years while performing a rather useful function? Are they also to be marked for deletion? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a page redirecting to itself. Otherwise, yes, creating the redirects is another good way to address the problem. I'm not sure where you're going with the 600+ other pages, unless it's Wikipedia:Other stuff exists -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically, exactly this stuff exists, 600 other times. If we delete this one, we should delete all of them, but the proper forum to begin that discussion is elsewhere. (Not that this AfD has been entirely without merit; at least the relevant issues have been raised.) Biruitorul ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the redirect to itself. If this is not the proper forum, please raise the issue at the proper forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURO. Moreover (as I recall), Ciocănari, Vâlcea redirected to Măciuca, not to itself. Is there anything wrong with that? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No question, geographical, encyclopedic, I need the page. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see grounds for keeping, and I see grounds for deleting. On principle (and I have argued for this view for a while now), no articles about the villages themselves should exist: not only are they tiny, but the info folds back into the articles on communes (and communes are by definition notable). What does that say about disambig for villages? It depends. Does the reader need the page with redirects for the communes - probably (but, if this is the case, we could consider only linking the commune names in each page - per WP:OVERLINK). Can the page exist with references only to the communes? Maybe, maybe not. As I see it, this disambig matter is uncharted territory, and I for one could lean either way if we set a principle here and now, that we then apply to other such pages. Dahn (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken - but the idea is we shouldn't use a piecemeal approach, deleting just Ciocănari; we should decide whether to keep all or delete all. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I suppose it's Keep, at least until such a time. Dahn (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This dab page is useful in showing where individual villages are located. They may and may never have articles, but they still seve a purpose. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 21:55, 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 no consensus. leaning keep. Consensus seems to have shifted through the course of the discussion. Whether or not to merge or keep the content separate does not require AfD. TravellingCari 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thun'da[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thun'da

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy with a merge if a suitable target is found. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#PLOT - undue weight given to primary source description of fiction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thun'da is an important charcter in the history of comics, influencing many later characters like Kazar. Couple refs: [22] [23]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those really count as separate sources, as far as I can tell Joplin Independent seems to be a site that collects articles from elsewhere (as well as contributing original content) and I'm not sure if them reprinting an article from the comic book bin counts as further coverage - if the Joplin Independent would even be a reliable source to begin with. Guest9999 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notability established by Peregrine Fisher. Matthew (talk) 19:43, 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) 12:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quality not a reason to delete -character of comics and a film, and also as per Peregrine Fisher. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by Peregrin Fisher's references. Which need to be added to the article, even if only as external links for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a comic character with their own series would usually be notable for that alone, and having a very notable creator as well as being the subject of a movie serial makes this notable by any reasonable standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fictional character that appears both in his own comic book and is the subject of a full length movie is almost certainly notable, the more so here where the character was created by an artist exceptionally notable in his field, and portrayed by a major actor. That said, this article needs plenty of attention. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Peregrine Fisher's sources establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially since there are specific sources, making other arguments moot. DGG (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to King of the Congo or somewhere else. This character has no sources; it's the comic book and movie that have (weak) sources. Thun'Da does not stand on its own as a notable topic. Closing admin, please look at the sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since none of the related articles are particularly long or well developed I think it would be beneficial to merge them together. There's no need to send readers trying to research the topic around multiple pages unnecessarily and if individual sections (such as the one about the character) became too long to fit nicely into onto one page they could easily be split off. Guest9999 (talk) 19:33, 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 keep. Waggers (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Circus[edit]

no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources for the subject of this article under either name means it fails our verifiability policy. It may also not be notable enough for inclusion under our notability guidlines. After this article is deleted we should straighten out the redirects so they go to the musical acts as the more appropriately notable and verifiable entities Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I got a talk page message about this article that I was the editor with the most-non vandal edits. Actually most of those edits were for removing attack edits against the popular indie rock musician Santogold who the subject (Santo V. Rigatuso) is suing for stealing his name. I made my point in a similar AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SANTO GOLD), where you can view my reasons for deleting that article. This one, i'm not to sure of. There's several COI edits and attempts to own the page by Rigatuso or someone connected to him. But I really don't think that's reason enough to delete the page on the film. I'd like a few more third party sources before I can make that call. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency it was I who left the message on the above user's talkpage figuring it was as close as I'd be able to get to notifying the author or significant contributor. If it is better I notify a different user than let me know and I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I understand why you'd do that. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current indications are that this article cannot be adequately sourced. H.G. 13:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of credible citations does not mean that there are no third party sources for this; it simply hasn't been properly cited. I know of at least one newspaper article in the Washington Post about the movie: (Harrington, Richard "The Fans Cry for 'Blood'!" Washington Post 11 Feb.1985, final ed.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feddx (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know this isn't just about what is or isn't in the article but, what is or isn't actually out there. In all honesty I found some stuff through google but, none of it could remotely be considered significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency again. I've found two mentions at Proarchiver (the Washington Post one mentioned above, and an LA times mention in an article about Pro Wrestling) both are pay-per-view so I have no access but, if someone on here already has paid or wants to take on the cost please do. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So only citations you can verify online for free should be included? Does that mean that citations from medical books, professional texts, and countless periodicals from hundreds of years prior to your birth are not acceptable as acceptable 3rd party sources simply because you can't call them up instantly for free on your computer at home? I don't recall reading that in WP:Source#Sources. You know, if you're unsure that the sources I cite are legitimate, you can get a library card, and look through some microfilm or other storage media. Most libraries carry pretty good archives of well known magazines and newspapers. Maybe even an unknown, low circulation fishwrap like the Washington Post.--Feddx (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== KEEP ==

I have known The Rigatuso Family for over 60 years. Please read the real Biography of Santo Rigatuso (SANTO GOLD.) Much of this information can be found in Archives that Preceded the Internet. Actually there are dozens credit worthy articles on the Internet about Santo Gold and Blood Circus. Ask his Attorney's in N.Y., Sheldon Lustigman, Esq., of the Lustigman Law Firm who has known SANTO GOLD since 1985 and keeps a photo of Santo Gold on his office wall.

BIOGRAPHY:

Santo Gold is a Living Legend since 1983. He is known and respected Worldwide by millions. His songs and performances have aired on National TV hundreds of thousands of times. He spent close to Fifty million dollars promoting his name Santo Gold. If you are over 36, You got to know Santo Gold. He was spending as much as a million dollars on National TV each month. All of his commercials had him singing and performing in them. The Santo Gold (30 minute) Show out rated "I Love Lucy." If the public did not see him during the day or on weekends, they would wait up all night to see him. His infomercial's and TV ads., ran 7 days a week 24 hours a day. He was USA Networks best customer. Every Saturday for nearly ten years in a row, his TV Commercials would air, on over 400 TV stations and most all of the National Cable Stations. SANTO GOLD sung and danced in each one of his commercials, especially in Vince McMahons Wrestling shows. Santo Gold also hosted and produced "The Auction on the Air TV Shopping Network" which he founded in the mid 80s. He was dressed in character, sung and danced. It was like a continuous 24/7 New Years Party. His Network was live 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Then he aired and performed on the entire ABC Network at around 8PM Pacific time. He hired 3 inbound telemarketing Centers and thousands of operators to take the phone calls. He had 3 800 numbers on the TV screen. He received so many calls that it blew out all of the phone circuits and they were down for hours. He got into some sort of trouble with his catalogue project and over 3500 of his customers wrote in with their letters of support for him stating that they received everything that they expected and were happy with their orders. On Feb., 9, 1985 he hired an entire film crew and rented millions of dollars worth of film equipment from NY. Then he leased the Baltimore Civic Centre. Tractors and trailers full of movie equipment rolled in. He had 9 35 mm motion picture cameras, a train track surrounding the wrestling ring. They shot over 400,000 ft. of film. That is enough film to make 8 full length motion pictures. All of the cameras were remote control and were connected to moniters, even the one above the ring. The Golden Wrestling mat had his Name on it, SANTO GOLD. He hired a 40 piece orchestra, dancers, acrobats, cycle acts, and clowns and built a large stage at the opposite side of the wrestling ring. People were dancing and singing non stop for nearly 9 hours straight. Each attendent was handed a scream bag, had to pay to get in and sign a waiver that they were going to be in his movie. It was a long day, many wrestling fans were irritated that the show stopped and started to load up the cameras and prepare for the next scenes. They expected continuous non stop wrestling. There were thousands of people there. Right before Santo Gold performed, thousands of people were chanting "We want Santo Gold," We want SANTO GOLD." The place was roaring. Santo Gold pulls up in a chauffeur driven stretched white Lemo with several Guards and everyone was trying to touch his shiny attire. He throws hugs and kisses to everyone and was followed by the crowd to the very crowded stage. He was announced with an opening that Elvis Himself would have been proud of. When he presented the finished movie, Blood Circus at The Cannes Film Festival in France. He had nearly a dozen offers from several Countries and he turned them all down. He was fully dressed in the Santo Gold character and travelled with an actual armed guard (an off duty Police officer.) He then took the film to Hollywood and screened it at all of the major studios. 20 Century Fox exclaimed that it had the best sound track that they have ever heard. Then He screened it in NYC. During the 80s., over 20 of his TV commercials were running all at the same time with him singing and performing in each one. Each TV station ran his spots at least 10 times a day. He aired on over 440 TV stations at the same time for nearly 10 years. That's 4400 times a week, 30,800 times a month and 369,600 times a year for nearly 10 years. Millions of people had seen him sing and perform millions of times in the 80s. He was a household word and still is. People would call their friends, SANTO GOLD, or make statements like "Now don't be a Santo Gold." He has stayed active in the industry for over 23 years. At the age of 14, he worked in a small store that his Father opened for him. His Father and Grand Father had a Barbershop within viewing distance of the now Baltimore Stadiums. His Grand Father started the Barbershop fifty years earlier. They both passed away within 8 months apart. Santo became the second youngest State Licensed Barber In Baltimore at the age of 16. It wasn't long before he turned the back room of the barber shop into a music store. He advertised the store with full column ads., in the Baltimore News American Newspapers. During Christmas time he sold more drum sets then Montgomery Wards was selling. He advertised himself as "The Drum King of Baltimore." He would cut hair for 0.75 a head, earning $40.00 to $60.00 a day. He would close up the barber shop 6:30 pm., with dozens of people waiting in lineed up all the way around the corner waiting to get into the music store. He was the soul support for his Mom and younger brother. His broyher joined the Marines. Santo was born within blocks of the B&O Railroad, Babe Ruth's home, Edgar Allen Poe's burial place, The Headquarters for Montgomery Wards and the Baltimore Harbour. He is a devout Catholic and is very caring. He was an alter boy, a lector, and collected for many worthwhile charities. He would do anything for you. In the early eighty's, Santo created the name "Santo Gold." He had a special tuxedo made with golden chains sewn to it. He wore pounds of chains around his neck, a Gold Bullion and mirrored glasses. He created a character and became Santo Gold. He hired several manufactures to develop jewelry with a thin layer of actual 24k Gold. The items were not suppose to tarnish but many did. He would always make good and send his customers more from other factories or gave them refunds. He started his own National delivery service called "Happy Delivery Service" and hired people Nationwide to deliver the jewelry and collect the COD (cash on delivery)funds. It worked for awhile but many of his delivery people kept the cash for themselves. He created a catalogue with thousands of items in it. He gave everyone credit to purchase items from the catalogue. He sold millions of items including millions of pieces of jewelry. Many of his customers tried to pawn the bracelets, only to learn that they were not solid Gold. He never claimed that they were. He always stated that it was gold over metal. He lived 2 blocks from The B&O (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) The Railroad offices had a Major 5 to 8 alarm fire. A Fireman was trapped in the basement, begging for help. The building was burning out of control. The Fireman was pleading for his life. There were many boilers in the basement ready to explode. Santo risked his own life and rescued the Fireman, saving his own and the Fireman's life. Tragically within minutes, the boilers exploded and the entire building including the basement was engulfed in flames. In the early eighty's Santo founded a pen pal club and had thousands of his customers correspond with thousands of seniors in Nursing homes all over America. During Easter he would place an Easter Bunny at the downtown McCoreys. During Christmas, he would send children Records from Santa Claus. One day Santo decided to attend business classes. He signed up for an evening schedule. One of the teachers was a CPA. He handed Santo his business card. Santo hired the CPA to do his taxes which were always current. The CPA had a nervous breakdown and lost all of Santo,s paperwork. Santo did not understand how to prepare taxes. Several years went by and he received a call from someone and said that his tax papers were found in a bottom of a barrel. He sent $18,000 to IRS but did not give them his social security number. IRS returned the funds and requested a social. More years went by and IRS sent him a letter. His attorney said, "Don't respond, "I will take care of it for you.", and never did" Santo had around 60 employees, many of them were stealing from him and throwing the orders in the trash and keeping the cash for themself. This led to a Postal Inspector visit. He called his Attorney and he was advised not to let the Inspector perform a search without a warrant. Santo wanted the Inspector to do the search and believed that there was nothing he was hiding. The next day two Postal trucks came with 8 more Inspectors and all of his files were taken. His notoriety caught the attention of the Press, we was now being attacked on TV and made front page headlines. A Prosecutor told him that they could not get him on mail fraud charges, since only 2 people showed up to complain, but insisted that they would get him on tax evasion and they did. On his last promotion that he did. He took a check to the Post Office for 1.5 million dollars. It was reported to have brought in over 4 million dollars. It was all ceased by The Post Office and it was also reported that postal employees stole thousands of dollars in cash from the envelopes. Please keep his History alive, this is what Wikipedia is all about. This is why you get Contributions, to keep the truth in History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.106.244 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that loooooooooooooooong essay there pretty much proves what I expected. The page has WP:COI and WP:OWN problems and is an advertisment as well. The poster above also should read WP:NOT to view what Wikipedia is not. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this ridiculous post is not at all helpful, it has nothing to do with the validity/notability of the article. If I were to use your logic on this, say I were to go to a stub article (Motorized scooter for example) and write a 10,000 word diatribe without citations that meandered all around the point, full of self-promotion and wild claims (say that I created the term Motor Scooter, and without me, there would never even be a motorized vehicle of any kind). Does it make the article less notable? No. All it would mean is that there is someone out there with a lot of time on their hands, a misguided sense of how to fix this, and a computer. No different than a lot of the editors here.

There's nothing in the giant writing above that refutes that the movie exists, that there have been articles in major press covering it, and is part of the cultural awareness of many people. Therefor it is notable.--Feddx (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I meant was that inside of that essay were points that confirmed that there was COI violatons ("I have known The Rigatuso Family for over 60 years") and an attempt to own the page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this editor (and perhaps others that may be Sock Puppets) are doing a disservice to the article. But the article as it is now should NOT be deleted. It is not in violation of COI and is an article about a notable, albeit, obscure niche film.--Feddx (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my first post on this AfD, my vote is neutral until some reliable, third party sources to the film's notability can be found. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be a reliable 3rd part source? Besides, of course, the Washington Post and the San Diego Tribune?--Feddx (talk) 00:17, 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 redirect to Voluntary sector. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third sector[edit]

This material has no sources to back it up, and the term "third sector" is adequately covered in the voluntary sector article. I redirected it there, but it was reverted back again today. I don't want to get into a revert war - do we need a separate Third sector page, or should it be redirected to voluntary sector? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. This article is poorly written and has no content. Per nominator, it is adequately dealt with in the voluntary sector article and doesn't meet criteria for it's own article. Verbal chat 11:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Sector-schmector! The generally understood term for all kinds of 'not-for-profit' enterprise is 'voluntary'...anything else is nitpicking. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:08, 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. TravellingCari 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDict[edit]

Does not meet notability or verifiability requirements. --VS ^talk 06:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this stage as per my nomination.--VS ^talk 08:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,this dictionary software is very popular in PDA translating environments--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, but can you provide information regarding notability and verifiability please?--VS ^talk 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching google news turns up no results and google search turns up little. Because of this, there is little to substantiate the articles claims or to suggest notability. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is one claim to notability made for this product, and it is unsourced and I have not been able to find anything to verify or confirm it. Fails WP:N Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable, no real article (mega-stub) abf /talk to me/ 17:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laos youth and young adult's church[edit]

Contested speedy. The nomination is simply that this is a non notable Christian youth set up that fails WP:ORG by a long way Nuttah (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete ditto above 68.193.214.237 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement for the article to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary to Nunhead. This is usually the best solution for churches of limited notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Peterkingiron. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to disagree with the merge, I cannot find any reliable sources (by way of google news) to help to verify the church, without those sources, the article's content could be seen as original research from a person who lives near the subject of the article. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources and the article itself is completely unsourced already. Possible OR. --Banime (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources and possible OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Any reliable sources issues can be dealt with a citation request in the merged article. JASpencer (talk) 08:11, 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 redirect to Chopper City Boyz. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snipe (rapper)[edit]

Fails WP:NM and WP:BIO; non-notable person with no coverage. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks citations from reliable sources and that leads me to believe that it doesn't comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remain. The article does hold citations from reliable sources. I vote that you let the page remain. Choppercity (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reliable sources there. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snipe has received some media coverage, such as this article, but mainly related to his work with Chopper City Boyz. I'd suggest a redirect to Chopper City Boyz, as there is unlikely enough verifiable content for his own separate article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:45, 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have the non-trivial sources required to substantiate a biographical article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chopper City Boyz. Paul Erik and JBsupreme have in in a nutshell, although there is some trivial mentions of him independently of the Chopper City Boyz, I would not say there is enough to meet human notability guidelines. I suggest redirecting it as a plausible search term. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is insufficient material to warrant an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC although a redirect would likely be helpful. RFerreira (talk) 19:12, 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. While less spammy, consensus seems to be that it's also not notable. TravellingCari 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land F/X[edit]

This has already been speedied twice as spam, and looks to me to be hopelessly and un-clean-uppably biased. That said, I know nothing (to say the least) about landscape architecture software; maybe this is the Microsoft Word of the landscaping world. Bringing it over to get a consensus either way. – iride scent 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done a bit of clean up[24] on the article (removed most of the spammy bits and added a few sources) but WP:N issues remain. - Icewedge (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Much less spammy now, and one marginal reference. Anecdotally it looks like a product with a certain level of a following, but I'd like to see at least one solid review or writeup. Arakunem^Talk 17:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 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 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Those references seem very marginal. The blog surely is. I've never heard of LandscapeOnline.com, but I'm not familiar with this type of software. If anyone can provide input on the notability of the site hosting the review, please comment. VG ☎ 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LandscapeOnline.com seems reliable enough for this purpose but it still doesn't seem enough for notability concerns. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a specialized software for landscape architects. i have no reason to disbelieve the homepage of the company which indicates that its presented to students specializing in this rather focussed field. I suggest merge to landscape architect if no trade papers or business media sources are sourced. -- Banjeboi 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete

This is obviously spam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidbooks (talk • contribs)

Delete Although, as many users have said, the article is less "spammy" I cannot find (though google, google books or google news) any reliable references to verify the claims made in the article (I don't think the sources in the article are reliable either). Because of these factors, I believe that the article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 12:04, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E8 investigation tool[edit]

This page was speedy-deleted {{db-bio}}, but it is not about a human. A mathematician better look at it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from CSD Nominator: I tagged it as CSD A7, Anthony, which also includes NON NOTABLE WEB CONTENT!. I use Twinkle, which categorises all non notable web content under the {{db-bio}} tag. I still say sine it was pointing at web content it falls as the same. Speedy Delete per my original nom. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as the article being written like an essay (not a reason of deletion for many, but a suggestion of poor quality) and no results for the title of the page in google, google news, google books or google scholar. Without any information on the topic it is hard to verify the topics discussed in the article and without then, I think the article fails general notability criteria. Although, if a maths person could say otherwise, I am quite open to the changing of my vote. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly merge any substantial content (should there be any, which I can't see right now), to E₈. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no useful content here. Only OR and other unsourceable material. Geometry guy 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think the content here initally appear in An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. It possible merits an external links there and at E8 but nothing more. --Salix (talk): 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above three. VG ☎ 13:01, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clbuttic mistake[edit]

This is simply a neologism coined to describe a recent minor news event. It is sourced mostly to blogs. It is not (currently) a notable term. Deli nk (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a ~~dic~~wangtionary. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Scunthorpe Problem -- not that there's much here to merge, but a reference and name drop there might be warranted. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of hits, including some in news. Could probably be merged somewhere too--there are similar pages out there. JJL (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. Merging as Serpent suggests might not be a bad idea though. Peacock (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep related to the Scunthorpe Problem and to the Cupertino effect but not the same. Clbuttic gets cited on Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=556) which, yes, is a blog but a relaible source on linguistic effects on the net.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Language Log article has been updated to say that the term turned out not to be notable, because all the Google matches for it turned out to be other blog entries and the like, all referring to just one original error. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The update was on the prevalence of actual instances of 'clbuttic' that aren't references to the original Apple reference. That is neither here nor there in the use of 'Clbuttic mistake' as a generic term for this kind syllabic automated censorship (cf poor Tyson Gay). The point is the phenomenon exists and is documented(in the generic sense not constrained to the classic/clbuttic instance) and has been referred to as the 'clbuttic mistake'.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable outside the blogosphere. VG ☎ 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article deserves buttbuttination due to lack of notability. Edison (talk) 19:22, 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 redirect to List of Primeval episodes. Anyone desiring to merge the content will find it under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 13 (Primeval)[edit]

Unsourced original research; mostly in-universe plot summary; no indication that individual episode is notable. List of Primeval episodes should suffice, all the rest of them should probably be nominated for deletion as well.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to List of Primeval episodes. I think that the rest should be merged also. Schuym1 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Primeval episodes - individual episodes do not appear to be notable. Peacock (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete or) Redirect to LoE (there is nothing to merge). Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, no evidence that it can ever not violate it but I am always the optimist when it comes to individual episodes. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:05, 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 redirect to The Inspector. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cock-A-Doodle Deux Deux[edit]

Unsourced, no assertion of notability; mostly plot summary.

Delete as nominator. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable episode. JuJube (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: What is so non-notable about this episode? Loads of crappy TV Shows have a crappy episode, that has JUST ONE LINE in the article, and they aren't deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid argument. JuJube (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dependant on how this AfD goes, In the Pink of the Night, London Derriere, Pinknic, Pink-A-Rella and Cirrhosis of the Louvre may also be worth consideration given they're affected by the same issues, even some with the problems Rsrikanth mentions. treelo _radda 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid, I wonder why? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Also, I am busy for the next one week, following which I'll add a full plot synopsis and details, of all the Pink Panther/Inspector articles which lack the info. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mulling over this and figure that deletion seems best for this article and the others Rsrikanth has created in relation to the Pink Panther/The Inspector shorts. They'll be stubs forever with nothing to establish notability for the shorts themselves with most likely only having one major contributor so it's clear to me they'll have very limited growth outside of one person's interest in the subject. treelo _radda 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Inspector where an episode list and synopsis already exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:59, 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 redirect to Reliance Health. content has already been merged, redirect to preserve GFDL TravellingCari 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KDA Hospital[edit]

Apparently a hospital to come, failing WP:N. Searching around for phrases like Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital provide few results in reliable sources that aren't either cursory mentions or simply a direct quotation of the same press release. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for this as it shows that it is under operation, but other then this, nothing else that I could find. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The hospital needs to earn its notability. Although I daresay this will be recreated once it starts operations. Anything that the Ambanis venture into usually gains notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:48, 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 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll make the dreaded "All hospitals are inherently notable" argument. Hospitals have made them way into paper encyclopedias simply by virtue of being hospitals. (All Norwegian hospitals as large as KDA in India have entries in Store norske leksikon, and I can see no objective reason for why an Indian hospital should be less notable than its Norwegian counterpart.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero references currently in article. No, they are not all inherently notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It's simply not possible to comply with WP:V if there are no independent, third-party reliable sources. Hospitals need to follow exactly the same notability rules as any other organization; they're specifically named in the third paragraph of WP:CORP. If appropriate sources can be found at a later time, then I have no objections to the article be re-created at that future time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 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) 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reliance Health in which I've merged this article. It's a notable group of companies. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:27, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yuppie Pricks[edit]

An article about a punk-rock band from Austin, Texas. This was prodded but I have declined the prod and brought it here as there seems to be some news coverage[25]. The rationale for the prod was, "article makes no claim of notability (see WP:MUSIC)". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe the linked articles support notability. The focus of the Wired article is on SXSW torrents and mentions the band as an example. The Austin Chronicle is Austin's free rag that often does stories on "up and coming" small local bands, the vast majority of which are not notable. The other articles were university papers that don't contribute to notability per WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Sashaman. The references don't appear to satisfy WP:NM. JNW (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been recently updated to include footnotes. Several notable references from mainstream fashion and music publications have been cited, including GQ, i-D, Variety and Blender Magazine. Additional citations of well-established alternative media and online magazine coverage have been included, as well as references to airplay this artist has received on XM satellite radio, as well as BBC radio. Furthermore, the Austin Chronicle is a highly-regarded, well-established alternative weekly that has been published since 1981, with a readership of nearly 250,000, similar in content and style to the Village Voice. This contradicts the above assertion that it is merely a 'free rag' focusing on 'up and coming' small, local bands. 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to denigrate the Chronicle by calling it a 'free rag', but the fact of the matter is that it reviews and publishes pieces on tons of local bands, the vast, vast majority of which are not notable. The vast majority of off-Broadway plays that receive coverage in The Village Voice are also not notable. I'm not able to verify the print GQ, i-D and Blender articles, but if they're anything like the linked Variety article, in which John Waters mentions a song by the Yuppie Pricks once in a list of songs that mean a lot to him, they don't contribute to notability. "Significant coverage" means that the article must address the subject in detail, not just in passing. I'm also wary that so many of the substantive edits are from SPA accounts. Sashaman (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of WP:SPA edits is unusual, but I agree with Sashaman that coverage in reliable sources needs to be significant in order for the subject to qualify as notable. The article titles and quotes from the reliable sources are really needed to determine notability, because they are not available online. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:22, 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) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New references added which confirm notability of the band.

Strummer25 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the intent of a 'notability' standard is to only allow bands that have, for example, feature stories in Rolling Stone, certified gold records, airplay on MTV, etc., while excluding independent/underground bands that have released albums on imprints as well known as Alternative Tentacles, and that have received extensive national radio airplay, AND that have been mentioned - even if in passing - in major publications such as Blender, GQ, i-D Magazine and Variety, then Wikipedia should just declare 'If you don't sell X million records, you don't exist'. However, economic 'correctness', i.e. record sales, is not the sole criteria that a band's notability or relevance should be judged by, unless we want Wikipedia to become the sole domain of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers and other pre-fabricated, corporate-sponsored, market-driven acts with no critical or social value, outside the scope of disposable pre-teen culture. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased, descriptive informational resource, and should not be hindered by any one individual's subjective definition of 'signficance'. Not only is the bias in the 'Delete' comments above based upon a lack of research and basic human laziness - all the annotated references are verifiable for anyone who wishes to look them up at your local library - but the overwhelming amount of easily searchable reviews for those who refuse to bother doing such research should put an end to any argument as to whether or not this band exists within the context as described within the article. If you wish to delete this article - go right ahead - but in doing so, you must likewise eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles on bands, artists, books and publications that have not met your arbitrary definition of 'notability', thus greatly reducing the depth of information the public is allowed to access via Wikipedia as a basic reseach tool. Ask yourself this - by deleting this article, would Wikipedia become more informative, or less? I see no reason this article doesn't contribute positively to the overall mission statement of what Wikipedia claims to represent. 10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response Oh, please. Enough with the "Wikipedia will only be for the corporate fat cat bands" melodrama, especially from a user who by all accounts of his edit history has a vested interest in this band. The WP:MUSIC guidelines are broad enough to easily encompass small, independent bands, as long as they have received enough substantive coverage by independent sources to be verifiable. My objections to this article were that it was poorly sourced, the references that were given were all either to non-independent sources or to articles with the most minor of mentions, and that the article suffered many WP:COI problems due to its lack of notability. As far as your "basic human laziness" comment, a reader of a Wikipedia article shouldn't have to search high and low for verifiable reference for assertions made in the article, especially for a current culture piece. I DID verify the references that I could at the time I commented, and none of them met the guidelines for notability. I'd also invite you to look at a history of the article at the time it was proposed for deletion. Given that, I would say this deletion discussion has done a great job towards drastically improving the quality of this article - specific props to Strummer25 for the references improvements. Thus, though I still think the article could use cleanup with regards to the points noted in its headers, I think that the added references now support its notability and verifiablity. Because of this I'm changing my recommendation to Keep. Sashaman (talk) 19:50, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Modest Mouse EP[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL - no release date, no track list, not even confirmed by Epic as far as I'm aware, only hinted at by Brock. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing section in the Modest Mouse article is sufficient--bigissue (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Banime (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HAMMER WP:CRYSTAL abf /talk to me/ 17:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 00:55, 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. Withdrawn by nominator Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubmood[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:V. I couldn't find any significant independent news coverage. Labels published are very minor: one was created by Dubmood himself, and the other, Fyllecell Records, was "destroyed in a car accident" according to http://www.discogs.com/label/Fyllecell+Records. Sashaman (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding nomination After reviewing HaeB's comments, I agree this meets the notability threshold and the references he added support WP:V.Sashaman (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
- The coverage in the 2007 arte TV programme was definitely non-trivial - he was interviewed at length as an important representative of this music genre; while the part about him lasted shorter than the 30 minutes named in WP:MUSIC, this is a nationwide TV network in two countries, and I'm adding another independent source to the article - The Wire - a well-known magazine which carries a lot of weight regarding musical notability. His "Atari-Ska" release has also been featured in de:Bug, one of the largest German electronic music magazines.
- While it is true that there are no references yet for the statement that Data Airlines has a "distribution and licencing deal from a major record company", the nominator's remark about the labels is not quite accurate: Dubmood also has releases on Jahtari and on Bad Taste Records (as remixer [26], also available on Amazon.com), both of which are notable labels. It has also to be remarked that chiptune music differs markedly from most other musical genres in that it usually reaches its audience not via releases on record labels, but via demoscene and release groups such as Razor 1911, which is definitely one of the most well-known names in that area and where Dubmood had numerous releases over many years.
- Article names notable collaborators (Svenska Akademien, Massilia Sound System, IAM) and an appearance at a notable festival (Printemps de Bourges).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As marked on the official webpage of Oai Star (www.oaistar.fr) dubmood is producing their next album and will tour with them in 2009. Oai Star is a big established group on a major label.
- Dubmood has been reviewd, interviewd and mentioned in big french music-mags like Trax and Tsugi, interviewd by major french daily newspapers like La Provance and La Marseillais, and also featuerd with wholepage-arcticles in big journals like L'Hebdo, Ventilo, Comming up etc. He has also been interviewd on french TV (France 3, France4 & M6).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments left by HaeB, I think this passes muster. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 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. The discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motor capacitor[edit]

Already covered at AC motor#Capacitor start motor and AC motor#Permanent split-capacitor motor. Some material here might better be added to AC motor. John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article on the motors themselves is already pretty long, so such level of detail about the capacitors may be best treated as a separate article, while mentioning it in the main article in summary style. --Itub (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No-one advocates deletion here as the content is obviously useful, but it's also sufficiently distinct as to deserve independent coverage outside the motor article itself. This is just the sort of thing that {{More}} exists for. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is an expansion of a two-line section of a long article on electric motors. It's a subarticle, and is adequately sourced to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by author). As explained in the article talk-page, it defines/explains 7 types of capacitors, directly, by handling redirection titles, rather than bury those 7 terms within a larger article about capacitors or motors. The related real-world webpages are HUGE: with Google reporting 314,000 hits for the set of titles: "run capacitor" OR "start capacitor" OR "dual capacitor" OR "starting capacitor" OR "motor capacitor" (as major redirection titles). Only after weeks of research, did I discover the term "motor capacitor" should be the main title (Google hits=95,200). I felt terrible that Wikipedia had no mention of those terms, which apply to any person with an outdoor A/C, forced-air furnace, hot tub, ceiling fan, etc. It's just another of those massive voids which Wikipedia has filled now. Matching "314,000" related webpages, I believe the content of the article could be expanded for even more significant details (currently lacks "ceiling-fan"+capacitor, with hits=78,800). All those details extend far beyond other articles, further justifying the separate article. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is, I've handled hundreds of the things over the years (factory manufacturing equipment) and never yet one related to HVAC. Europe's soggy Summers, I guess. "Motor capacitor"s is just about the right scope to pitch this at, but we should be careful not to be too narrow in looking at their applications. Thanks for a valuable article BTW Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Part of the problem here is that the original article had something of a promotional flavor to it. That's why I sent this to AfD. AC motor is much clearer on the role of starting and running capacitors in how motors work. Agreed that there's too much emphasis on HVAC. It's an issue in HVAC gear because motors in HVAC systems tend to be just barely big enough to handle their running load, and they're either powering fans (big inertial load at start) or compressors (big pumping load at start) so they struggle to get started. Manufacturing plant motors tend to be oversized a bit. I guess we're stuck with the article, but it will need work. --John Nagle (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't power factor correction be the main thrust of the article? I was under the impression that pretty much all permanently-installed electric motors of a reasonable size had a capacitor, regardless of whether they had a high start-up load or not. However it is probably still useful to concentrate on the kinds of capactitors an electrician would select for HVAC or industrial use, with less emphasis on say the little capacitors that go on the motors of R/C cars. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make requests at "Talk:Motor_capacitor#AfD debate requests wider scope". I have noted this discussion at "Motor capacitor" talk-page; post requests there, because details here become "hidden" once this AfD is resolved. Thx. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into AC Motor as proposed. There isn't so much more here that it should be a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 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 per my reasons below. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tugaged[edit]

Neologism that is unreferenced and has no apparent sources I can find. It seems to have been made up in school one day. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is trying to use Unmarried relationship, another article he created, to push his new word. I redirected it to Cohabitation and he responded by taking the text of "Cohabitation" and combining it with his new made up word. Another editor commented that this looks like the plot of Frindle. Oh, and Delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tugaged was just a copy and paste of part of the cohabitation article. It is an hopeless neologism so no point in redirecting. Unmarried relationship had likewise turned into a copy and paste. This I am willing to make a redirect and protect to discourage the author from forking. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Games[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this book. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the author's obit [27] in The Independent. 9th para. MadScot (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions do not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though you were questioning verifiability not notability by that comment.MadScot (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was questioning both. I'm sorry for not making that clear. Schuym1 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any WP:RS via Google, but because the book was published in 1992 there may be articles about the book in newspaper archives that aren't readily available on the internet. If the book isn't proved to be notable, the last paragraph in Blood Games could be merged in Richard Laymon. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reference to a Publishers Weekly review of this book to the article. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sales figures are found which prove notability. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Publishers Weekly review shows the book's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:24, 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) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worldcat shows that it has had 3 editions and is held in 157 US libraries, 48 UK, 16 Australian... With the review I'd say it passes WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have access to the full text of the Publisher's Weekly reference, and agree that it supports notability. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 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 after two relistings. Non admin closure. Equendil Talk 11:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deibert[edit]

no evidence that this journalist meets WP:CREATIVE. deprodded without explanation. ccwaters (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard Deibert on the radio many times here in New York and read his book. I think he meets Wikipedia criteria. C. Fellerston (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 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, Protonk (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep His book is in Worldcat with 167 library holdings, and has 2 citations to it in Google scholar. In addition, he has published at least 3 academic articles on politics, listed in Worldcat under his name and published in MIT's World Policy Journal,. That by itself is not enough for notability as an academic, but coupled with the journalism, I think it just passes. DGG (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) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO. Bad sign that half the page is external links. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the combination of the book, journalism and scholarly journals rises to the level required for inclusion. Shorditch7 12:31, 25 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoreditch7 (talk • contribs)

— Shoreditch7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ccwaters (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Just being a journalist or writer isn't notable, that's just a job. To be notable there has to be some evidence of having risen above the norm, i.e. winning an award or reaching exceptional standards in some way. There doesn't seem any evidence of real notability here.Austin46 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Combination of adademe and journalism passes our bar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 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. After 2 relistings it's time to put this nom to bed (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery M. Leving[edit]

Non-notable individual whose article fails the verifiability criteria as well as WP:NOT. Was speedy tagged as an advert which was removed because the article "claimed" notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added references to a couple of book sources to the article. Google News and Books searches show that there are plenty more sources out there. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 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, Protonk (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is WP:N. The article we are considering about this person is only marginally so. Based on the article I would vote to Delete. However, the google news and google book results make it clear that this article should be kept and wikified.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 22 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) 03:46, 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 after two relistings. Non admin closure. Equendil Talk 11:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans the Werewolf[edit]

Estonian lycanthropy? Aaahoo, werewolves of Tallinn! Seriously, this old story doesn't appear to click in regard to WP:RS and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS are produced. Th emost relevant non-WP hit seems to be from D&D [28]. JJL (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following the link to the Swedish version (the original?) gets a (not very RS looking) external link, which cites Maia Madar "Estonia I: Werewolves and Poisioners" in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries OUP 2002, (ISBN 0198203888) talking about a "werewolf" Hans at Idavere in 1651 (pp. 270-271). I've looked at the pages on Amazon, enough to see that there's something there and to some extent in line with the article. I won't add the source myself (since I haven't read the chapter), but there do seem to be sources. N p holmes (talk) 09:42, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 24 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 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS seem to exist. Testmasterflex (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of accessible, reliable sources. Just saying they exist isn't good enough. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense is an Oxford University Press book not reliable? It's accessible enough (via Amazon) to see what it says on the subject. It's still in print and it's in libraries. You can't mean "we get to delete anything for which reliable sources are in print, rather than on the internet". N p holmes (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Madar cites an early article by F. Toll, "Zur Geschichte der Hexenprocesse", Das Inland 17, 1839, 257-63. That's not on the internet (as far as I know) but it is briefly summarised in another 19th century work, J. Paucker Die Literatur der Geschichte Liv- Ehst- und Curlands aus den Jahren 1836-1847, 55-6 (where Idavere is called Ittfer). That's available on Google Books here. N p holmes (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the foreign language thing is tricky. I am working on werewolf material at the moment so will likely come across something. The two-pages in a book is a good start and something I am happy to Assume good faith on. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assume good faith. Will end in no consensus...Operating (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have a reference. Foreign language references are allowed in Wikipedia. --Aciram (talk) 09:41, 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 redirect. Gonna be bold here, but something that has been merged can't be deleted under the terms of the GFDL, so I've redirected it to the main article. The original table wasn't the same as this one ([29]) so it's not just reinstating old material. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dukes of Hazzard DVD releases[edit]

What? It's a table with all the DVD releases of The Dukes of Hazzard. Don't ask me. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant table, can be moved back to parent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went ahead and moved the table back to the The Dukes of Hazzard article and put a note on the talk page of the main article. I think we can go ahead and delete this page. Boccobrock•T 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:36, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Grofcsik[edit]

Article is completely unsourced aside from the subject's personal website. The user is User:Madcolor, which is also the name of the subject's website, leaving me to believe that this is an autobiography. His name hits 68 sites on Google, very few of which appear to be reliable. The only real claim of notability is that he was a "member of the original team that created what is today known as Adobe Flash, but was orginally called FutureSplash Animator", but it's hard to assess how important he was, considering the minimal infromation available about him. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, unless he does something else that attracts attention. Redddogg (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found to verify notability. There's no validation to the claims made on the page. — X S G 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an autobiography. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Note that, for a biography, to be self-made is not, by itself, a criteria for deletion. See WP:BIO. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notabillity per WP:BIO abf /talk to me/ 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTABLE « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:08, 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 (A7) by User:Gwen Gale. -- pb30<talk> 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticalli[edit]

A youth hostel, with no apparent sign of notability. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent for speedy delete. Not notable enough even for an AFd discussion. Operating (talk) 00:18, 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 Speedy delete by ZimZalaBim as G1, patent nonsense (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India info[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia sections, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G1 Entries such as "Yoda is voiced by an indian guru" have me convinced that this is nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:18, 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. There is no consensus here and re-listing it isn't going to magically achieve a consensus. Action on this article is divided. No objection to re-nom, if needed, in the future. TravellingCari 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by country[edit]

Article is far from complete, which gives it a skewed POV. It's purpose is better served by the 30+ individual country articles that Wikipedia already has. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur it's hardly a fair assessment of the world - Brazil the US and Venezuela are the world's foremost examples of censorship, it would appear? I doubt they are anyone's 'top three'. Looks like it was split from censorship with just Brazil and Venezuela (!) and then an IP added the US. I can't see anything on the Censorship talk page explaining it, but THAT page seems to be a hornets nest anyway. MadScot (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had split the article from the Censorship article. Note that the article has an expand tag. Incompleteness is no reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it split. It might be easier to understand why the article needs to exist if we know the background? MadScot (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I split it out since if all the other "Censorship in Foo" article were incorporated into the section it would make the orig article long and unbalanced in terms of material. Hence the reason for adding the expand tag after the split. There is a need for a summary article of all the "Censorship in Foo" articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I have added links to the other censorship article (have not finished this). Each country section needs info per WP:SS. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move The material to Censorship in Venezuela. That's the only part that's been written,and there seems to be no article on the subject presently. DGG (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was dubious and incorrect has been removed since the AFD nomination. ~~The move you propose is now looking like a good idea. I may have to change my vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. The topic seems notable, if coverage is not comprehensive - what's new on Wikipedia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be no 'Censorship by Country' category, despite the existence of an info box filling that role that is linked from various censorship articles. It seems reasonable to replace this article with a category, and move the new Venezuelan information to a Censorship in Venezuela article. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:Censorship by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is already Category:Censorship by country with appropriate articles. Move any good information to the Venezuela article then delete. --Banime (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a need for a summary article such as this and to this end I have started adding info under each country heading. Such an article goes nicely with the Template:Censorship by country that I split from Template:Censorship by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Alan Liefting. It is a notable topic. However, it has to be modified, expanded and cleaned up significantly to ensure that it is worthy of being an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. Acs4b ^{T C U} 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate of an existing category, maintenance burden. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotr or Merge into Freedom of speech by country. Volpeculus sagacis (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there would be room for both censorship and freedom of speech articles . The latter needs a bit of a cleanup. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:24, 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. Groove on through to the other side. TravellingCari 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Psychedelic artists[edit]

A somewhat indiscriminate list with no clear boundaries, and enough redlinks to ring alarm bells; if there's a merit to having it beyond a category, it's not clear. Rodhull andemu 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's OR, unsourced, and would surely be better as a category. JJL (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Groovy Sorry, man, but this is just another randomly slapped together, unreferenced list. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was started at WP:AFC by User:81.205.225.163 Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a link so we can see the terms of reference? --Rodhull andemu 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I've seen it. It's just a list with no objective criteria, and several debatable entries. Many are prog-rock but not very "psychedelic", e.g. Camel, Crosby Stills & Nash, Country Joe & The Fish. "Artists" in itself is moot. Do we include Warhol, Jackson Pollock, The Fool? --Rodhull andemu 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research out the yin-yang. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. From the title, I thought that this was going to be about colorful pictures done by people like Peter Max. Instead, it's original research at its worst: "This is a list of artists whose work can be classed in the psychedelic music genre". I can't figure out what H.P. Lovecraft is doing on here, unless someone dropped acid and could "hear" the pages. For the most part, this looks like a bunch of people having a conversation. "Grateful Dead, man! Blue Cheer... yeah. Don't forget Strawberry Alarm Clock!" Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychedelic rock artists[edit]

A somewhat indiscriminate list with no clear boundaries, and enough redlinks to ring alarm bells; if there's a merit to having it beyond a category, it's not clear. Rodhull andemu 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, OR, and better as a category. JJL (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overlaps with another OR list. Doubly bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seemingly can't decide if it's psychedelic, experimental or progressive. Inheritently unmaintainable, and indiscriminate. Should be a category, though given the huge number of mistakes and lack of sources, there's no reason to go through and check each one is already in the category. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hey man, I can see a snowball and, like, it's getting bigger and bigger as it rolls... and what's freaky is I'm just sitting at my desk... cool. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 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. per consensus Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Munoz[edit]

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE: plays for an amateur team, and not at the highest amateur level. Several other team-mates are currently at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Poloni, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lopez (2nd nomination)) and the team is currently heading towards a WP:SNOW deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Bernardino Krew) No other reliable sources to verify or otherwise establish notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources found to verify notability. — X S G 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in the slightest -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not yet notable. Recreate if and when --ClubOranje^Talk 06:28, 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.