Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27 September 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KC Pace[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable soccer team. While this has been fleshed out by the single purpose account that created it, it looks a lot better than it really is. There appear to be over 40 references, but try to find one that actually uses the words "KC Pace", or is even a reliable source in the first place. Some players who have been on this team have apparently gone on to bigger things, but notability is not inherited. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The KC Pace team and KC players' success was a historic milestone in the progress of soccer in the United States. The KC Pace's 2005 Missouri State Cup championship, defeating perenial national powers from St. Louis, was the first non St. Louis youth club state champion in 70 years of competition in the state with the most youth national championships in the United States longest running youth competition. The year before, 2004, the U17 and U18 Missouri state cup champions went on to win their age group's respective national championships. Soccer players and teams from St. Louis have had a major influence on the United States soccer culture. The 1904 Olympics in St. Louis hosted the first Olympic Soccer matches. The 1950 World Cup team that beat England 1-0 was dominated by St. Louis players. St. Louis University has won the most NCAA Division I men's soccer championships. The top college soccer player in the United States earns the Hermann Trophy. The Hermann Trophy is named after St. Louis native Robert Hermann. The KC Pace team and it's players showed that high level soccer was not only being developed from outside St. Louis but that the highest level of soccer in the state of Missouri was coming from outside of St. Louis. Like all teams and players that are the first to attain certain achievement, their past and present is documented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcpace (talk • contribs) — Kcpace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • You have not addressed the concern that the sources you have provided are not reliable for the most part and do not really mention the organization that is the subject of the article. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pace is a legit and historical team. The progress of former Pace players and the subject KC Pace define each other. Editors will not have problems finding reliable sources on the www. College soccer player profiles and PDL player profiles would mention KC Pace affiliation. Articles may not have direct reference but have understood reference. Understanding the KC Pace 2005 accomplishment lives with the continued soccer involvement and story of former KC Pace players post 2005.Ksoccerc (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — Ksoccerc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable. The intro also calls it a youth organization which, in my eyes, seems to make it even less notable. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep - While I agree with the Notability comments, the KC Pace Club has Notability in the Local area. Local or Regional Notability seems a reason for inclusion. --SunTzuGuy (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think the guidelines actualy say the opposite: Local notability only is insufficient.Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it looks so Impressive if you add Lots Of Unnecessary Capital Letters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable non-local sources that have non-trivial covourage are found. Every tiny sports team has coverage from local news, for an encylopedia more is needed. If they represent an historic milestone, there is no excuse for not having better sources. It also looks like a coatrack used to mention as many players as possible, who would otherwise certainly never merit an articleYobmod (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BanRay 09:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eastern School District of Newfoundland and Labrador. non-notable junior high, standard practice is to redirect to the school district (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pauls Junior High (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador)[edit]

St. Pauls Junior High (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable Junior High school comprised completely of original research. There is absolutely no encyclopedic facts from the article (examples: its by a McDonalds and they play games in P.E.). Tavix (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I disagree with a merge because first of all there is nothing to merge. A redirect doesn't seem likely in my mind either as I don't think "St. Pauls Junior High (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador) is a likely search term. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories[edit]

Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed by an anon, so bringing this to AfD. This unreferenced article seems to be a mishmash of unsourced conspiracy theories and allegations and book reviews/comparisons, resulting in what appears to be original research and and synthesis. There's the possibility that an article on this topic would be useful, but this isn't it. I wouldn't be opposed to someone doing a properly referenced major rewrite during the AfD, but if it is not done, then this article really should go. Risker (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator admits in his nom that this is notable and source-able. AfD is not the place for articles in need of cleanup or copy-editing. Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not being nominated for lack of notability, or lack of verifiability. It is being nominated under our core policy No original research, which is as much a pillar of the encyclopedia as the others - in fact more so, because notability is still a guideline. The other solution is to stub the article, removing anything unsourced or contentious, which would take it down to the lead sentence. Risker (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT article, the book review (of a book that deals with these conspiracy theories), at the very least would tend to support the existence of these conspiracy theories and their source-ability. The book itself, which would seem most helpful, is alas out of print now. There was a paperback from Penguin in 2001, but it looks like that's been gone for a while. Conspiracy theories don't have to be true to be reported (see also 9/11 conspiracy theories); the existence of the theories is what is being documented here. And the article has sources. It sounds like what you are really looking for are the {{Nofootnotes}} and {{Cleanup}} templates, rather than an AFD. Ford MF (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Ford MF, I am not saying there are no conspiracy theories; there certainly are. What I am saying is that an article that has had not a single reference since its inception in February 2007 as a split from Pope John Paul I (where the subject is still mentioned, and where this section was tagged as requiring references as far back as October 2006), and that is clearly conflating fictional treatments of these conspiracy theories with published ones, does not meet our core policy of No original research. Some of the theories in the article don't even appear to be verifiable. The Yallop and Cornwell theories probably are, if one can get hold of the original texts, but given the synthesis of fiction into the article, one cannot depend on anything that is written in it even reflecting the positions taken by the original authors. Adding more tags onto the article doesn't make it any less of original research, and we shouldn't be having articles that we know violate our core policies. Tags don't make up for that. Risker (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I don't see where the synthesis comes in. The article appears to be only a summary of theories presented in notable published works. As it stands, the article separates the theories by the theorists. You seem to be arguing for more synthesis, i.e. an article that presents "theories" as a singular body, and then footnotes where those theories are from. I mean, the article could use some footnoting, I suppose, for format's sake, but realistically those footnotes would only replicate, without variance, the information given in the section headings.
  • Additionally, I don't think it is unreasonable to object to the presence of fictional treatments of the conspiracy theories, although in similar articles a discussion of inspired fiction segregated into its own subject heading to clearly delineate its fictionality (e.g. discussion of the [{Da Vinci Code]] in the article on The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) is seen as acceptable by the community. Ford MF (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Why is our time being wasted here? AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep assuming some sources get added and the language made NPOV. Otherwise it isn't really a coherent article. DGG (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I checked it now and I'm seeing sources like the New York Times. The topic is certainly notable as there are books on it (Holy Blood, Holy Grail being just one). 23skidoo (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was in the FICTION section last time I looked! This OR pure and simple - we don't need working notes for the next Dan Brown novel posing as a serious article. That something like an article could in theory maybe possibly be written, sometime by someone with some sources, isn't a serious reason to keep shit on wikipedia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where OR comes into it. Are you suggesting the books about JP I whose theories the article describes do not actually put forth these theories as stated? Ford MF (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't wait until "somebody" cleans it up. Delete it until it's fixed. — Werdna • talk 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delete it until it's fixed" is not an approach to cleanup actually supported by the community. Ford MF (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, "Leave in a terrible state for years" seems to be the norm. Perhaps I disagree with that approach. — Werdna • talk 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep- interesting and notable subject which meets WP:RS as in there's proof some people believe these theories and have considered them worth writing about.[1][2]. We don't judge whether to keep an article based on whether we personally believe in the theories, but whether they have been mentioned in WP:RS, even if its just to debunk it means WP:RS have considered them worthy of discussion due to the number or type of people who believe them, or whatever their reasons. Sticky Parkin 01:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. John Paul I conspiracy theories are clearly something which have piqued the interest of several people, and they have been given serious attention, and not just from the fringe. Discovery Civilization for instance had a whole documentary, "Conspiracies on Trial" which was devoted to the conspiracy theories. The theories are probably untrue, but they are clearly notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the nom is correct that NOR is one of our core principles, it is an article content rule rather than an article inclusion rule. The fact that some of the article content (even a substantial portion of it) fails to satisfy WP:NOR simply isn't a justification for deletion of the entire article. Cynical (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates OR. If someone wants to write a fully referenced article, then they can. Right now, this is not following one of our core policies, and needs to go ASAP. -- how do you turn this on 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which part of the article is OR? Ford MF (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of it. -- how do you turn this on 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. How exactly are summaries of published works original research? Also, as noted above, NOR is a content guideline, not an inclusion one. Ford MF (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are unverified and controversial, and as such are considered original research until shown otherwise. Let's put it this way. Nobody would get away with sticking an unreferenced conspiracy theory into 9/11 conspiracy theories; it would immediately be removed until proper reference sources, including page numbers for printed material, was included and it would be deemed "original research" until shown otherwise. Are we to accept the CIA murdered The Pope without a reference? The only conspiracy theory in this article that has an accessible reference on the page itself is the play. To remove all the unsourced and unverified information would give the play undue weight (as far as I can tell it was performed for a grand total of 2 weeks in a 400-seat theatre well out of the West End). Therefore, stubbing down to information that is verified is unreasonable. The alternative is to redirect it back to the main article, from which the majority of this content was removed in February 2007...because it was unreferenced and was felt to be given undue weight. It's much more difficult to start a new article from a redirect, especially for a less experienced editor. There is evidence that nobody is interested in improving this article, since the content has remained unreferenced for two years. Yes, there are books written about it; I read one of the ones mentioned in the article, and the information in the article is not as I recall, although it has been some time. I'd rather give a clean start to someone who has the genuine interest and willingness to build an article on this topic, if such an editor ever appears. Risker (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the CIA thing, since it was the only conspiracy theory in the article not referenced to a published work. That shouldn't have been there. And as for "accessible reference", I presume you're complaining that these are things that must be found in a library, rather than on the internet? The books whose theories are outlined here clearly exist, and are clearly about PJPI conspiracy theories. Are you arguing that our article misrepresents the conspiracy theories as put forth in the books described?
The Yallop book is, alas, only available on Google reader in snippet view, but the reference in this book seems to confirm its content as the way we have described it. Ditto for the Cornwell book. Paring down the information on the novel would not, I think, be ideal (see also Da Vinci Code in various conspiracy theories), but also not beyond the pale. Ford MF (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bonaddio[edit]

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

Non-notable Australian rules footballer who does notmeet WP:ATHLETE; i.e. does not play and has not played in a fully professional league and does not play at the highest possible level (i.e. the Australian Football League). No independent reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Mattinbgn\talk 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port Melbourne is not a fully professional club and the VFL is not a fully professional league. There would be few, if any VFL players who make their living out of playing football in the VFL, which is basically a hybrid second tier league/AFL reserve grade competition. The sportsperson hurdle is low, but not this low. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability issues prevent inclusion at this stage.--VS talk 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of appearances at AFL level means he fails WP:ATHLETE. While there are exceptions to this they usually relate to players who may have won significant awards or claim greater notability than Bonaddio (eg. Magarey Medal winners at SANFL level). Murtoa (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is mentioned in many news stories due to participation in some games, but no significant coverage with enough info to build an article on. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Falangist Party of America[edit]

Christian Falangist Party of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks non-trival third party sources. "Christian Falangist Party of America" gets a mere 3,500 ghits, which is not much for a national U.S. political party. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Falange Party, which was deleted (American Falange Party is now a redirect to this). We66er (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the article notes, "it has yet to field any candidates for office", and the article doesn't even indicate that this political party has a telephone number or a post office box, let alone an appreciable number of members. Even the party's leader is identified only as a guy "from Virginia". Doesn't seem to meet any guidelines for notability, not even the liberal proposal [3] here. Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any independent coverage that would make the party notable. A quick look on Google News and I've only found a few single line mentions but nothing significant. The indications above of how small the party is suggests there's not likely to be much coverage of it. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:33, 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 per CSD G4 - article has been created, and deleted, several times previously under other names (for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent from punchy). Page salted to prevent recreation.. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trent From Punchy[edit]

Trent From Punchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable You-Tube personality with no evidence of wider notability provided. Entirely unsourced claims about a living person are rife throughout Mattinbgn\talk 22:48, 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. MBisanz talk 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Heart Broken[edit]

Every Heart Broken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song from upcoming Sugababes album, "confirmed as the second single by universal workers who have the promo cd with the release schedule attached". Utterly fails WP:MUSIC lacking the verifiability. AmaltheaTalk 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) after five days no one but the nominator argues for deletion. Icewedge 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Goff[edit]

Irving Goff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Not every soldier is notable. This individual does not seem sufficiently notable per WP:BIO - has not received any major award or been the primary subject of any reliable sources. Ave Caesar (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His "activities in the Communist Party" in the USA make him notable. I would like to see this article stay around and be expanded to provide additional refs and more concrete information about his involvement in the Communist party and its effects. Truthanado (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's discussed in many books, and his obituary appeared in newspapers across the country. A bit more notable than your average soldier. The article does include a reference, even though it doesn't use inline cites.Zagalejo^^^ 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not all of those mentions are more than incidental. But it appears that he had a leadership role, and the article should be rewritten to emphasise that. I think most soldier in that brigade is mentioned at least in the sources; every soldier in the American Revolution and many other wars can also be found mentioned. There has to be more than just that. I think there is, here.DGG (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep As Goff's guerrilla activities in Spain were the inspiration for Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, and as he was a key player in setting up the OSS guerrilla operations in North Africa and northern Italy. Furthermore with regards the comando operation he took part in in Motril, S. Spain, historian Heather Graham in The Spanish Civil War: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 53. states:... an important commando raid that constitutes the only operation of its kind ever undertaken by the Spanish army. A few year's later Aalto's comrade-in-arms and fellow participant in that commando action, Irv Goff, would have an opportunity to re-use the skills learned in Spain when during the World War he was parachuted back into occupied Europe by US special services. This is clearly a notable soldier.--Redsur (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable, not least because of the OSS connection (given that the OSS became the CIA, the fact that an open Communist like Goff was used by them (and that Goff did not become a turncoat after the war) is notable, whatever one may think of the CP. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things establish notability per WP:BIO. Being a member of OSS doesn't make one notable. While his party affiliation might make for an interesting story he is not the primary subject of reliable sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, we can still gather together enough information to write a decent-sized article. I don't see the need to delete it. Zagalejo^^^ 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per everyone but the nominator. Notablity is asserted, Zagalejo and Redsur show clear examples of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i think the passage "was instrumental in setting up guerrilla units working behind enemy lines in North Africa and Italy[1]. His exploits as a guerrilla in Spain are considered to be the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway's novel For Whom the Bell Tolls[2]" establishes notability quite well. --Soman (talk) 10:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Aalto[edit]

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

Delete Not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Not every soldier is notable enough for their own article. This soldier seems to have received no major awards and is not the primary subject of any reliable sources. Ave Caesar (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A bit more notable than the average soldier. There's plenty of information available about him: [4], [5]. He's even mentioned in a poem by James Schuyler: [6]. (It is the same guy, in case anyone is wondering. Zagalejo^^^ 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Same as above. I'm not sure the poem is much as a RS, though as the poetis notable it can be mentioned in the article.. DGG (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a notable soldier: to quote Heather Graham's book The Spanish Civil War: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 53. "Bill Aalto... participated in an important commando raid that constitutes the only operation of its kind ever undertaken by the Spanish army". Republican Spanish military sources quote him as the leader of this operation[7], "Se nombra al Jefe de la expedición: El Teniente Bill.": "The Leader of the expedition is named: Lieutenant Bill". In addition, his guerrilla activities in Teruel together with Irving Goff and Alex Kunslich are considered to be the inspiration for Hemingway's novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls. ref: Carroll, Peter N. The Odyssey of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Stanford University Press, 1994, p. 167. Finally it appears that someone is writing a screenplay about him, entitled The Bill Aalto Story[8]. As I am also writing about Aalto's guerrilla operation at Motril, that makes two of us.--Redsur (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things establish notability per WP:BIO. He was not the primary subject of any reliable sources nor is Wiki a crystal ball. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, we can still gather together enough information to write a decent-sized article. I don't see the need to delete this. Zagalejo^^^ 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know if Aalto was responsible for training the Ritchie Boys?--Redsur (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per everyone but the nominator. Notablity is asserted, Zagalejo and Redsur show clear examples of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 23:07, 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 keep/administrative withdrawal due to ongoing RfDmerger discussion started 9/26.

Management assistant[edit]

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

This article makes no claim of notability of its subject. To the extent that any of the contents of this article are notable, they would appear to be better suited to inclusion in Secretary. However, the only non-administrative edits that have been made to this page were made by a single editor who has edited nothing other than this article and Secretary, indicating a lack of widespread interest and a possible COI. If anyone thinks the contents are sufficiently reliable or notable for inclusion in another article, just do it, and let this article go. Bongomatic (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend Withdrawing the AfD without prejudice to re-nominate on October 1 - I deprodded the article and started a merger discussion 2 days ago and it should be allowed to run at least 5 days before starting an AfD. If the merger fails due to lack of participation, then an AfD is in order and I will very likely vote to delete. If it fails with participation, then the discussion from the merger can be considered during the AfD. For the purposes of a !Vote, this is an administrative keep without prejudice to relist for any AfD starting before 120 hours after the merger discussion starts, and a no-opinion !vote for any AfD starting after that point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 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. MBisanz talk 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow talk[edit]

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

Original research, unreferenced, unverifiable, etc. I ran a couple scholarly database searches and find no evidence the term is in use by psychologists or sociologists except perhaps tongue-in-cheek. If the consensus here moves toward deletion, I'd also like to ask contributors to this debate to think about what we want to do with the pagename, which could be used for the Pillow talk (disambiguation) or one of the two items on it (which I'd favor, since there are only two). Chick Bowen 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No problem with this being the topic of an article. As it is it has no sources however. Redddogg (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google searches indicate that the term is a widespread - hence notable - term. A better person than I will have to scratch together the sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it is the article gives useful information to a person who wants to know what "pillow talk" is. Redddogg (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google returns articles from no less than the Washington Post. I don't have time to edit this one, but I'll back up the person that does. philosofool (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe someone can make this more than the dictionary-definition article that it is currently, but unless there's a sign of improvement, that's what Wiktionary is for. Mandsford (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's sufficiently notable that it's the title of a Academy-Award winning film--see the disam page. DGG (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search indicates the term is widespread. Here are two references [9][10]. More references can be easily found. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:23, 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; web content that does not establish notability. FreplySpang 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors Magazine[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable sources that would verify that the subject meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added a link to the magazine's own web site but not to any reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted - it is a web-based magazine, so it is subject to WP:CSD#A7. FreplySpang 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain data[edit]

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

As the editor who removed the {{prod}} tag from this article noted, "uncertain data", generates more than 50,000 Google hits. But "suspect data" generates more than 60,000 hits, as does "questionable data". "Bad data" generates more than 850,000 hits. And "yellow paint". An adjective commonly paired with a noun does not make a notable topic. While this article claims that there is more to the term than the adjective modifying the noun, it was created a month ago and nobody (including the creator) has filled it out, despite the request for expansion on the day of its creation. If this is genuinely a term beyond the obvious, then someone rescue it--not with comments on AfD, but with an improvement of the article. Bongomatic (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. About 8000 academic papers contain "uncertain data", many of them in the title. Some randomly chosen titles from the 1st Google Scholar page:
    • "Working models for uncertain data"
    • "Efficient indexing methods for probabilistic threshold queries over uncertain data"
    • "Rough-Set Reasoning about Uncertain Data"
    • "Indexing multi-dimensional uncertain data with arbitrary probability density functions"
    • "A design methodology for databases with uncertain data"
It's quite possible that this article's topic is too general, in which case it should become a dab, but deleting this stub seems quite unreasonable. VG ☎ 22:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The title of the article seems hopelessly vague, and at first I thought it should be deleted for the same reason I would vote to delete good data and crappy data. However, after looking at the article, I see that it has a much more specific scope than I imagined, and is about handling of uncertain data in computer science. As such, it could still be a reasonable topic after all, but I'm not sure because I'm not a computer scientist. I'd rather give it some time to see if it can be expanded into something useful. Perhaps a rename could help as well, but again I have no idea.--Itub (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the creator appears to have abandoned it (i think a month is long enough to wait) and it's unclear what the scope of this article was intended to be, so it seems unlikely anyone else is going to take over. Googling the title of the single reference finds both a workshop presentation and a workshop paper (both clearly linked to the article creator) but neither mentions the subheadings in the article "tuple uncertainty" or "correlated uncertainty", so aren't much help in expanding the article. That reference title involves "imprecise measurement values", which would be a considerably less vague term than uncertain data, but sounds like a synonym for measurement uncertainty or measurement error (which redirects to observational error). Maybe in future someone might want to recreate this uncertain data as a disambiguation page, but the content of the present article isn't going to be any use for that. Qwfp (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've tried to expand this to make it clear what the scope should be. From the references I've found (I've added a citation to one), it seems to be particularly about the representation of uncertain data in database systems, in terms of probability, and that's what I've concentrated on in my expansion. I think we need an expert on this area to help with this. I've studied probability, and have some knowledge of database theory, but hadn't come across this particular subject before this AfD. Silverfish (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete. Until / unless someone edits this who knows what it is (if it is indeed a real field), there is no reason to keep it. An expert who comes along (before or after this AfD closes) can add to / re-create the article with equal ease. As it is, the article is useless, and as Qfwp points out (and in contradiction to Itub), it's been long enough to wait for someone to come complete the basic information originally outlined). Bongomatic (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just to clarify - your nomination of the article on top of the page seems to make this a second vote - not sure if that was intended. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain/comment I tagged this article for expert attention since I suspect none of us have any clue about the subject matter :) Themfromspace (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. It is not a useful encyclopedia entry where after reading it a bunch of intelligent people have no clue as to the subject matter. Hence the delete vote unless the entry is meaningfully improved. Bongomatic (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Found 8000+ hits on Google scholar[11], including nearly 400 with "Uncertain data" in the title. Google books has nearly 900 hits[12]. Per WP:AfD if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. Clarity, sourcing and expanding are all considered regular editing. AfD and rescuing does not require other editors to fix an article but to show that it is fixable and sources exist. -- Banjeboi 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too general a term to write a properly-cited article about. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saquib Ahmed - VoIP and GEO sattellites[edit]

Saquib Ahmed - VoIP and GEO sattellites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not noteable and needs a lot more work to be on wikki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ochib (talk • contribs)

  • Normally I might say something about AfD not being for article cleanup issues, but, not being technically minded, I can't even really tell what this is about, and "satellite" is spelled wrong right in the title, and from the note at the bottom it's possible it may be a copyvio, and it seems to be trying to be a biography and a tech article at the same time, and it reads like an advertisement. That's just too many problems, Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 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. Xclamation point 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulon Crayton[edit]

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

Notability not present; yes, I've looked. Probably a vanity article. Merenta (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable Nor3aga (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most are to the subject's biography on his company's website, so there's no WP:V there. "Whodatedwho.com" is also not verifiably independent, and I don't think Actorspace.com is either. Merenta (talk) 00:26, 27 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 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing but a vanity page. Every substantive edit on this page was from a WP:SPA account, and if you look at the edit history of those accounts you'll see the user basically just spammed other pages, such as the Notable Madisonians list. All references from self-published sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. This is a vanity article, and, as noted above by Sashaman, the IP address has only been used to add "Hulon Crayton" related content to other pages. (Like Notable Madisonians.) Zhou Xi (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant vanity article, worked on by mainly 3 users, Doc818, 75.7.232.175 and 76.94.184.124, all SPAs. -- how do you turn this on 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gilchrist[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Not Notable: notability is not associative. CSD A7 was contested, with the statement "has played with a number of significant musicians including legendary UK guitarist, Graham Coxon since his departure from Blur - therefore this entry has relevance." I'm just not convinced... —  X  S  G  05:51, 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 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that be your second vote? Tavix (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this issue go around and around. My feeling is that a nomination is an implied vote to delete unless it is specified as being a procedural nom, but I've also been told by some user's that if you don't vote your nom doesn't count as a vote. Not sure what the logic is on that one, but anyway the closing admin will be able to see the signature as well as you did so it's probably no big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand that it's a nebulous point because it ultimately depends on the closing admins interpretations, there are not supposed to be "votes" in an AfD. My understanding is that the closing admin will not perform a tally of Keeps and Deletes and find in favor of the majority; the closing admin will review the arguments made and decide for the strongest viewpoint. In this case, I felt that my perspective needed to be clarified: I've made some comments along the way which might be confusing, indicatiing in comments that this subject might achieve notability in a particular way (because I never want to mistakenly have a notable subject's page deleted). Ironholds presented a reference which he believed might fulfill my perspective, however it didn't. —  X  S  G  03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect From notability guideline for musicians: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Ultimately, a redirect to an article on Stuffy & the Fuses (his 'main' band, who have released 1 or 2 albums) may be in order when it exists, with the content from this article moved to a section within the band article, but he has verifiably played in several notable bands. Stuffy & the Fuses have had significant coverage in ArtRocker and Drowned in Sound([13]) as well as coverage elsewhere ([14],[15],[16]), and recorded 2 sessions for the BBC, including one for John Peel, so I don't feel deletion is the answer here. Most sources refer to him by his nickname 'stuffy' rather than Stephen Gilchrist, hence the lack of apparent Google hits when searching on his name.--Michig (talk) 11:39, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kee[edit]

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

not notable yet Skitzo (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as he passes WP:ATHLETE. The club he plays for is professional. Tavix (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm understanding the article correctly, he's only actually played a game as part of the youth team. Although now on the senior squad, he has not yet gotten any actual time on the field during a match. Therefore he has not yet played in a fully professional league as required by WP:ATHLETE, so Delete without prejudice toward re-creation as soon as he actually plays. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contrary to the first !vote, he does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played for Leicester's senior team (the article even states this) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE; even though he plays for a team in a fully-pro league, he has yet to actually make an appearance - something which even the article itself admits. GiantSnowman 11:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. He might play professionally but he hasn't played at a professional level yet. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is NOT a member of Leicester 1st team squad and doesn't even have a profile on their official site. Skitzo (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable. recreate if and when...--ClubOranjeTalk 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a recreation of an article that was previously deleted at AfD and which does not address the reasons for which the material was deleted (CSD G4). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Harris[edit]

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

Still too marginal. Until she actually releases an album (or even a single) there's just too little info available to build a decent article. Pichpich (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Had not realized that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amina Harris had taken place. I'll tag the article for speedy deletion. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 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 Speedily deleted as G7 (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News 3 (WSIL-TV) and Edan Schultz[edit]

Two articles i created related to WSIL-TV have many notability issues in my opinion. What do you think?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythdon (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuff into WSIL-TV and delete the rest. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, if the article's creator wants their work deleted, can't we just call it G7 Speedy Delete? I've checked the history and the nominator is the only one to add real content to both articles, so if you just tag each page with {{db-author}} and add a link to this afd, we can put this one in the can. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I went ahead and tagged them as such myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadencequest[edit]

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

Company written up by an SPA. No refs. Are they notable? - Sgroupace (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. All Google News shows about is press releases from the company. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a reference to article published on BNET BUSINESS NETWORK Gparra (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The reference added seems to be a press release - Business Wire seems to specialise in distributing them. The only sources that I can find, apart from the usual company directories, adverts, job listings, etc, were the following: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. They are respectively: 1 - A brief mention of the company in a newsletter. 2 - A brief mention in a newspaper article, focused on Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy. 3 - A brief mention in a article. 4 - What seems to be a trivial mention in a (french) article about an anti-spam product. 5 - An academic article that from the google search (the paper requires subscription to access), seems to quote a member of the company. I don't consider that to constitute significant coverage, in reliable sources, independent of the company, required to indicate notability. In particular 1 and 3 in particular may not be reliable. Silverfish (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 27 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 21:02, 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) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: Midnight Mist[edit]

Lost: Midnight Mist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book with no assertion of notability. No sources (besides Amazon) and Google didn't turn up much either. Prod was contested by it's author. Possible conflict of interest. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:31, 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 21:01, 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Nelson Swenson Park Golf Course[edit]

Kyle Nelson Swenson Park Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable golf course. Do we give this a mulligan? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 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 21:01, 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 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Drake[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler. Main contributor is User:Tommydrake, so conflict of interest is probable. (Although in his defense, he's now claiming that he's not Drake, just using his name.)CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revoking my deletion request for the time being. This appears to be a big misunderstanding on my part.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Tommy Drake. My name is Mike Delane. I have followed Indy and Japan wrestling for years. I used to live in California where I first saw Tommy Drake wrestle. At that time he was calling himself Tommy Blaze. I have put a lot of time into this page. It should not be deleted because it is not a conflict of interest. I AM NOT DRAKE. I watch Drake wrestle ever other Tuesday in Tempe AZ now and he is very notable. He has had an extensive career. Just because he wasn't overly popular in the states or because he never became as popular as Steve Austin or the Rock dosent mean his life in the wrestling business isn't warrented. Most real fans of wrestling know who he is or have heard of him. It is a good page with accurate information. Edited by me, Mike Delane of Tempe Arizona.....Not Tommy Drake. Just because my user name is tommydrake doesn't mean Im him. What percent of user names are the actual user? Im just a fan and to delete my work on this page because my choice of user name was, I guess bad, would be hasty. Correlating my user name to the actual person is extremely circumstantial. However the information on the page is highly factual. A conflict of interest is not present here, and never was.Tommydrake (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say, on this edit, "I want to verify the Tommy Drake page. I am Tommy Drake and I have read the article and found it to be accurate"?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought the information on the page was being questioned. So I thought if I said I was Tommy Drake and verified it wouldn't get deleted. It made sense to me, and being that the info can be varified without drake if fugured it wasn't a big deal. And as far as the many edits to the page. I made the mistake of not using what you call the sandbox, and I saved every time I added to the page. I didn't know I was creating tons of edits untill you put the note at the top of the page. Im still learning how all this works and I made mistakes. Why did you delete the photos off the page?Tommydrake (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of real people have to be released into the public domain. If you just grabbed them from his myspace, as you said on the talk page, then chances are they aren't free images.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I find pictures on the web, do I have to ask permission or just list where I got the photo?Tommydrake (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC) If someones myspace page and photos are not marked private, can I use them?Tommydrake (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have their permission if the image is not already in the public domain. Look here and here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long can it take for a decision on articles for deletion? I would like to try again to edit this page. I think I have a better understanding of how to edit. However, I dont want to put in anymore work if its going to be deleted anyway.Tommydrake (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to trust that you are who you say you are and revoke my deletion request since I assumed a bit of bad faith when making this deletion in the first place after coming across countless pages written by the subjects. But in the future, you should always create your own original username and not base it off a real person that you aren't. Good luck on improving the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LYME (software bundle)[edit]

LYME (software bundle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn neologism per WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Solution stack if notability can be established as a Linux, Yaws, Mnesia and Erlang combination is not that common and because the number of software combinations is near infinite. Rilak (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not being "common" doesn't mean it's not notable. The potential combinations are indeed huge, but this particular combination is significant (there's a synergy between the layers that wouldn't be there with LYM-Java) and it's also discussed in WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obscure, but its notability comes from the fact that the layers of Yaws & Mnesia are both themselves implemented in Erlang (the other layer). This confers notability on two separate counts:
    • This is (AFAIK) the only stack that gains the efficiency advantage of all running within a single VM.
    • If you're interested in the admittedly small (but not unimportant) niche of Erlang, then it's also notable as being the Erlang way of playing catch-up with the far better-known LAMP / WAMP.
I hate the disambig names though: they're a vertical stack of distinct function-specific layers, not just a packaging bundle like a distro. For consistency though, we should keep LYME (software bundle) matching the others, certainly for the moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 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 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this particular solution stack has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you reject (as an example) the U. Uppsala report on Kreditor? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've started some expansion work on the Mnesia article (previously a redir to Erlang). You may find this interesting, particularly if you're unfamiliar with the Erlang world. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The third-party references that have surfaced are little more than blogs and mailing lists posts; the only exception is a piece of courseware. Overall the references are too weak to justify a separate article. You can obviously mention it in one or more articles that detail the stack components. VG ☎ 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Courseware" is a rather derogatory term and suggests it's no more than a footnote on a course worksheet. It's actually a case study of a notable Swedish business that has adopted LYME throughout, published through a Swedish university that's prominent in the IT field. That one reference alone is a strong indication of notability, let alone the others (the erlang.org post is particularly interesting, as it's probably the birth of the term). As a topic related to web development, it's hardly surprising that their favoured forums of discussion are web logs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the solution stack in itself does not seem notable enough (in the sense of third party coverage) amongst the vast number of other solution stack combinations to justify an article of its own. The technical reasons given above, though valid, do not confer notability in the Wikipedia sense. The information in the article would be better merged into solution stack. CiaranG (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you the same "CiaranG" of this ref (Mnesia intro) on the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Yes. CiaranG (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The technical aspects above may not confer notability in the strictest wiki sense of multiple WP:RS, however this does't mean that the article is thus non-notable! As the article does already contain multiple references from reliable sources (including U. Uppsala, the BCS and erlang.org), then I'm puzzled to see why you think it isn't notable on that count. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains multiple references which back up the content - no problems with that. My reasoning is that, of those, only three mention the acronym LYME - one is a throwaway reply on a mailing list, another a personal blog post, and the third (U. Uppsala) merely uses the acronym in passing. That doesn't seem to satisfy the relevant guidelines to me. Although I already discounted the two Joe Armstrong references from this because they don't mention LYME, I also discounted them for (per WP:RS) not being independent of the subject. CiaranG (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The core (and source of the notability) of this article isn't some acronym, it's the concept of stacking Y-M-E together for a benefit. Most of my "LYME" work has been WYME anyway (Erlang doesn't care which way), just because I had more Windows boxen to hand. As to your ref comments:
* "Throwaway" - yes, but it's also the earliest I've yet found, which establishes the chronology.
* Nortier (2 refs) was a speaker at the BCS conf, although his personal blog entries are more detailed than the conf overview. Wikipedia has a historically understandable aversion to "blogs", but that doesn't mean everything published via MovableType automatically becomes trivial and unreliable!
* U. Uppsala - It mentions the acronym too, but the real weight of this article is in the stack of those 3 products, not what they're called. Kreditor, and reputable descriptions of Kreditor, is an solid ref to a payment processor running $millions through a LYME-based product.
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, mainly because it's little more than a collection of external links. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18XX conventions[edit]

18XX conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of external links to conventions which may or may not be notable (gaming is something I'm not too familiar with) but "with at least some emphasis on 18XX Games" is not an indication of a cohesive theme for these conventions. 2/3 refs (one is offline so can't tell) talk about the conferences, not the theme of 18xx games. TravellingCari 21:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into 18XX which still has room for this material. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question what is there to merge? It's a list of external links. Am I missing something? TravellingCari 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is pretty close to a link farm -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 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 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Sources look real, but I've no way to confirm. Further, without being able to see the articles in question, I have a hard time knowing how on-point there are. But their titles (again, if real) indicate they are on topic. That said, I think this belongs on the 18xx page. I don't see a reason for a separate article on this. As to what to merge (raised above) the list itself. It may be a list of links, but the information is encyclopedic. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 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) 04:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tour companies[edit]

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

The article's concept is overly broad; individual articles could be made (and do exist) that cover individual tour companies but nothing notable ties them together, which is what this article is trying to do. The article basically consists of the term's definition, a guide for doing business with them, and the entire article is ridden with spam and POV assertions. I can't see how this can be improved upon without merging into the scope of the Travel agency article. Themfromspace (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep a decent article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. JJL (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significant changes are made to the article and with absolutely no prejudice to recreating a neutral, verifiable article based on information from reliable sources. I am pretty sure that an article on the concept of tour companies could be written but the current article is written in such a spammy and promotional way that I do not think that anything would remain if the article was rewritten based on Wikipedia's quality and content guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 06:22, 27 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 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of merit. Someone might in the future create an article of value with this title, but I suspect not. Notable material on this topic probably belongs elsewhere. Bongomatic (talk) 07:17, 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 delete. Keeper ǀ 76 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Grant[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, sad case but can't we say that about a lot like this. In the news and did win a national competition though. Lolwot (talk) 01:58, 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 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the nom may have been questionable, the !votes are from established users make sense. I was going to close it but then decided relisting and !voting wouldn't hurt to get a stronger consensus. Didn't appear notable as a model, death doesn't make a non-notable person notable. TravellingCari 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't say that notability was established. If anything it seems more like news --Banime (talk) 21:01, 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. MBisanz talk 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EphPod[edit]

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

There is no claim to notability here, nor any sources. The article seems abandoned with no non-bot, or non-minor edits in 18 months. Miami33139 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Well-known among tech communities as one of the few ways to overcome Apple's attempts to keep users from using their iPod as a portable hard drive from music. EphPod is notable as a controversial software that raises the questions of music copyrights all over again. -199.67.131.151 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please show where it is well-known enough to get a critical mention outside of download, review, and forums? Miami33139 (talk) 22:38, 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 20:49, 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) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World's First VoIP call using GEO satellites[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World's First VoIP call using GEO satellites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not convinced that this event meets the notability criteria. A search using google turned up a few promotional pieces, but not enough, in my opinion, to demonstrate that this is an event which requires a separate article. I cannot verify the existence of the second source cited. I prodded the article, suggesting that the verifiable parts would be more appropriate as a paragraph in VoIP, but my prod was removed by the creator. Could there be a tiny element of self-promotion here? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 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) 04:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cable and DJ Switch[edit]

DJ Cable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
DJ Switch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two DJ's from the same team. Both have been deleted in the past. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Delete for lack of independent third-party verification and strong potential WP:VSCA violation. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:13, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:37, 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. Wizardman 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Charles Jansen[edit]

Brian Charles Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to !vote. As the nominator, everyone can tell you are in favor of deleting the article, and your reasons are spelled out in the nom. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No basis for notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't speedy, as surely "being the first college football player to score in his first game" is sufficient to avoid an A7. However, there's no demonstration of notability. 63.172.28.121 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure that he's not the first true freshman to score in his first game though either. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zilberman Method. No independent notability as yet (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud Torah Yishrei Lev[edit]

Talmud Torah Yishrei Lev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quite a young school that does not seem to have made a name for itself. --Eliyak T·C 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 614th Commandment[edit]

The 614th Commandment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to be a notable turn of phrase. --Eliyak T·C 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opps Forgot to link to the books [25]. The first and third are clearly on point. I suspect the 2nd and 4th are too, but the 2nd, in particular, is hard for me to parse: the author seems to assume we know that the 614th commandment is. When I did a web search, most cites (mainly non-RS) were to this commandment, but others were to something else. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very important matter. People need to know about it. It is not just of interest to Jewish people, but also to all people. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "People need to know about it" is not a keep criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Corvus cornixtalk 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the link given by Hobit above gives well over a hundred published books that discuss the 614th commandment as coined by Fackenheim. --MPerel 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect as the information in the article has already (three days ago) been merged with and redirected to Characters in Outrageous Fortune. Continuing this discussion here is pointless. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta West[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Contested prod. Unreferenced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. No evidence of notability. McWomble (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following duplicate article for the same reason:

McWomble (talk) 15:18, 15 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) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge although a major character, the present article doesn't say enough to be worth keeping separate. Otherwise, same as usual.DGG (talk) 00:37, 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, TravellingCari 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

agreed, its not for a sepearate article, but what's the argument against merging? DGG (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, not really seeing a reason to delete though. Notable and covered in reliable third-party sources. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Characters in Outrageous Fortune works for me, as outside that universe there is no notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons by Schmidt. There is no notability outside that universe. Just because the series is notable does not automatically make the characters, even major ones, notable too. Notability is not inherited. Outrageous Fortune is a notable series and is worthy of inclusion. The Simpsons is also a notable series and worthy of inclusion. No systematic bias here. But Loretta West is not notable in the same way that Troy McClure is notable. To 63.3.1.1, the sort of references in Troy McLure is what "covered in reliable third-party sources" means. Asserting it doesn't make it true. If there are reliable third party sources, add them. Notability is not about truth, it's about verifiability. We cannot verify your claim of notability and reliable sources without citations. This is the reason why this article should be deleted - notability not established, no reliable third party sources cited. QED. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although I doubt anyone has written about it yet in a citeable manner, OF characters have taken on some out-of-universe presence, e.g. I've heard a radio DJ describe a person as a "bit of a Pascalle West", and although "munter" was already a jocular term of abuse before the series I'm certain its frequency of use has increased. dramatic (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I don't understand why this AFD has been extended twice when its sibling articles have already been resolved and the merge has already taken place. Just close the thing please so we can legitimately change the article to a redirect! dramatic (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Educated guess as to why it was relisted twice (now 3 times). There was no concensus on whether to delete or merge. In the case of "no concensus" the outcome defaults to keep, which is quite clearly the one outcome nobody supports! 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no real-world information, and lacking sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable outside the universe. Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that multiple independent reliable sources are required to prove notability. Mere assertion of notability and third party coverage in an AfD debate is not sufficient without actual citations backing this up. This article as it stands has no sources whatsoever therefore quite obviously fails the notability test. Deleting this article does not stop any reliably sourced information about the character being added to Characters in Outrageous Fortune in the future. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course no one wants a keep. I have changed the page to a redirect, since the target page has already been created (with much less unsourced content) . This means I removed the afd notice, so shoot me. If people want to carry on and delete the redirect, I guess they can, but I can forsee it being recreated as a redirect in the future once Characters in Outrageous Fortune is improved (which we can now spend some effort on instead of debating here. Obviously wikipedia editors don't buy the sort of magazines the coverage is in. What is required, of course, is the deletion of the duplicate page Outrageous_Fortune/Loretta_West, as such subpages have no place in article space. dramatic (talk) 22:15, 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 delete, without prejudice to recreation of this artist becomes notable independent of Girls' Generation. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Yoona[edit]

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

An unnecessary page, it contains a majority of the information from the already created page Girls' Generation. In addition, the artist have not done enough solo activities to have his/her own page. SandylovesMicky (talk) 17:58, 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) 04:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leuricy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Only ten results on Google. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just a word from an essay, in one class, at a college, no need at all for this page. Ctjf83Talk 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This word is the product of a High School class' attempt to create an objective ground from which people can more fully and comprehensively understand the gray area of moral conduct and the world around them. To delete the article is to take a direct stance against this understanding. Leuricy (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — Leuricy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We're not stopping them from '[creating] an objective ground from which people can more fully and comprehensively understand the gray area of moral conduct and the world around them', we're just saying it's not notable enough for inclusion on an encyclopedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. Their attempts are in vain, though; even if no one saw the comments they removed, this article's definitely going to get deleted either way.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Items were deleted for a reason. Not "vain attempts". No reason to be hostile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.233.10 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My apologies for not assuming good faith. By all means, please explain the good reason I'm sure you had for deleting someone's valid comment on this discussion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS Article it has quotes to support it and will be useful in the english language.--Skier1924 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — Skier1924 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Do you have any reliable sources that mention the word? Any publications?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy There is no indication of notability at all here. Interesting, but not notable. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and this is literally just that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT- all things have been made up in a day at one point or time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.4.115 (talk)

Reply - and those made up things don't belong on Wikipedia - 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment- so then your saying that newtons law shouldn't be on wikipedia or other words in the english language?--Skier1924 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - on the day he formaulated them, no it would not be notable. After it was covered in reliable sources, sure. If anybody could actually demonstrat that this is covered in reliable sources, then I would support a keep. But there are none. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G1) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith talk 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Vilstrup[edit]

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

Prod removed with no explanation. Fails WP:V. Google web, books and news searches turn up nothing. May be a hoax. (note the article creator is the same editor as the creator of the Florence Hone article which I have also nominated below for similar reasons). ascidian | talk-to-me 17:14, 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 Withdrawn. Filming has started according to IMDB. Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Meridian (film)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that say what the status of this film is.Schuym1 (talk) 17:14, 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 deleted (CSD G1) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith talk 14:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Hone[edit]

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

Prod removed with no explanation. Article fails WP:V and may be a hoax. The Vanity Fair source given in the article does not mention Florence Hone and a search of the Vanity Fair archive gives no results. Likewise, there is no mention of her in the external links provided and searches of the relevant sites also give no results: New York Magazine, Esquire and Hello. The gucci link results in an error message. On top of that, a google search for Florence Hone gives no non-wikipedia hits about a fashion designer. Non-notable or a hoax. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:03, 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 Withdrawn. Michael Q. found sources and I posted them. NAC Schuym1 (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie and the Rockers: Out of this World[edit]

Barbie and the Rockers: Out of this World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the television special's notability. Being part of a notable series does not make this notable, according to Wikipedia guidelines.Schuym1 (talk) 15:44, 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) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Killoran[edit]

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

Creating editor has himself acknowledged that the article was premature, and has requested its deletion as it fails WP:ATHLETE through lack of professional competitive matches. Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saqism[edit]

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

cant find any sources supporting this "philosophical school of thought" brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: even if it existed, this article is utterly empty and meaningless (which principles? how unique? where do we find the central body of sacred writings?) Drmies (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any sources for this, and the article itself is unsourced as is. --Banime (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all indications are that this was not a notable philosophy. It is quite likely either a typo of another philosophy, or a philosophy simply made up by the creator of the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly made up. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unknown to Google (other than a few people's usernames), JSTOR, and all libraries I can search. Also, I agree with Drmies: there's no distinguishable meaning to it at all. AnturiaethwrTalk 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Article was created by User:Saqibahmed, who has made no other contributions other than this one of his philosophy, which allows (at least one) individual "to be freed from the antiquated religious beliefs without guilt". Apparently, one of those antiquated religious beliefs is the concept of spreading the news to others. Mandsford (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not established nor does this topic appear to have any reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable fringe belief - at best. More likely it's something just made up or an actual hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Eden[edit]

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

I know leeway is given for some TV shows that air nationally but I question whether this radio program which consisted of six half-hour eps from February 1995-March 1995 really meets guidelines for notability. Thoughts? I find no evidence it's otherwise notable (i.e. world's shortest). TravellingCari 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note previous AfD appears to be about a different subject with the same name. TravellingCari 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled for the same reason:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote "keep", in order to ensure debate -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk)

Don't worry WP will have plenty of things to debate about even without this one. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every national show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? Length of run? Length of program? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a rational cut off point. The benefit is that if someone hears the name, they can find out here what it is at least. As for searching, most of what I would expect is the sort of local newspapers and popular magazines which are not indexed. I agree there is no great harm if we wait till someone actually wants to find the material. I certainly am not about to do that. and I assume you would recognize notable performers if they're in the links listed for the article--even notable ones get involved in flops. DGG (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, these appear to be mainly local productions nothing of substance. Where there was some I've re-directed, merged, etc. because info is good. Simple sentences, which is what these are. "X was a short-lived show that ran for 4-6 eps from month, year to next month, year". I don't think we're providing them any information. That's where I think we fall into not being a directory. TravellingCari 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otometeki Koi Kakumei Love Revo!![edit]

Otometeki Koi Kakumei Love Revo!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No context, reads like a copyvio. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep? A dating sim where you're a fat girl trying to lose weight so boys will notice you? That has to be the most depressing premise for a game I've ever heard of. It does appear to actually exist, doesn't appear to be copyvio, and the level of spin-off merchandising, the manga, and the DS port suggest that it's at least notable in Japan, though finding English sources is probably going to be difficult. I'm somewhat inclined towards keeping it. --erachima talk 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to have been ported to multiple platforms (PS2, DC, PC at least, as well as the DS port mentioned above). I don't think it's a copyvio, though it does appear that information about the game was likely translated from someplace. Since most of the info in the article is only statistical, and statistical information can not be copyrighted, then it can't be a copyvio. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as exactly the kind of thing we should not have in wikipedia. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't care if the president of the United States plays this game with Oprah Winfrey every Wednesday afternoon in the nude, it should not be in Wikipedia. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep, for no apparent reason. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- besides being trivial, the article is also poorly written and much too long. And whether it's a copyvio or not is not so important to me; what matters is the tone and style, which is unsuitable. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What

    Unpleasant word choices trump factuality? We have the right to call for deletion over matters that are not just fixable but well within our personal capacity to fix? We should use destruction as a cleanup tool instead of finding someone suitable out of several million collaborative volunteers and tens of thousands of regulars and asking him to take a look? The suitability of the subject in the encyclopedia should be determined by the merits of what is said about it at one particular moment? Contributors who would improve the article should have their work hindered by forcing them to start from scratch? Our purpose is to provide the readers with high-quality writing rather than information, to the extent of supporting the deletion of information that is presented in an unappealing manner? It is better that people do not find what they're looking for than that they find it but suffer bad prose? We should ignore the possibility of fixing other people's work, a possibility that the entire website was built on? Nothing personal, but due to fundamental differences in outlook I'm throwing in a keep just to cancel out the delete above in head-counts. To keep things fair, I'll not address the rest of this discussion on this page. --Kizor 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. Any relevant links are not in English, so there is no way (besides learning the Japanese language) to tell if they verify anything; besides they look like primary sources/official sites, which nonetheless does not meet the threshold of verifiability. However, I would support a transwiki to the Japanese Wikipedia provided someone can provide the appropriate translations - something I cannot do. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; DS and PS2 games have enough sources to make them notable. It's just a matter of finding them. MuZemike is wrong as to Wikipedia policy here; for one, Japanese Wikipedia has the same WP:V rules we do, so we can't transwiki something there that we're deleting for failure of WP:V, and two, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, as WP:V says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can they at least be translated into English so that we can see if they are indeed reliable sources? I ask because sources in other languages do no good for those who only speak English. I'll gladly change my !vote if I can see that they are. In addition, it is the responsibility of those who claim that there are reliable sources to provide them, not for those asking for the sources to have to dig for them. WP:SOFIXIT also applies to those who make such claims. MuZemike (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't about the quality of the existing article; it's about whether we should delete said article. In any case, [27] is a link that needs no translation that shows the existence of the DS game. Don't delete articles about clearly notable things because they aren't sufficiently dominated by English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The mere existence of something does not necessarily imply notability. Notability implies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that cannot be shown if users here cannot read the sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Users here can read the sources. You can't read the sources. There's a difference. I suspect we have more users who can read and understand the sources for this than can read and understand the sources for Tychonoff's theorem. The mere existence of a licensed game for a major gaming system does in fact generally imply notability; it is a virtual certainty that there are independent sources out there on it, just like every other game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Flawed logic. You don't turn in a paper to your English professor with half the sources written in Klingon, simply because some professors can read it. This is the English Wikipedia, we need sources in English. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not what policy says. WP:NONENG is quite clear on this; non-English sources are acceptable. Furthermore, Klingon is a strawman; proper scholarship in many fields requires the knowledge of multiple languages. If your professor assigns an essay on Don Quixote and rejects your paper because it cites sources in Spanish, they're incompetent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • From NONENG: Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. There is no translation, no direct quote, no nothing (not even an in-line citation). MuZemike (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • As MuZemike has pointed out, the policy is very clear on the point of a non-English source having an easily accessible translation, which the current sources don't provide. Secondly, I don't know what college you went to, but if I turned a in an essay with sources in a different language, I'd also have to provide a translation OR get an F. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, you're incorrect there. WP:V quite clearly states that non-English sources need translations where they support contentious points or direct quotes, but they aren't needed otherwise. --erachima talk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And according to WP:NONENG, I'm very much right. It's not my fault these policies contradict each other. -- Jelly Soup (talk)
                      • WP:NONENG is a section of WP:V, and says exactly what I stated above: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article" (emphasis mine). In all other cases, a translation is optional. As relates to V, non-English sources are treated in the same fashion as offline sources such as books: quotations only necessary for contentious material (and when directly quoting them, though that's a tautology). --erachima talk 05:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← If an article is brought to AfD on the grounds of notability, and the only current sources in the article are not in English, then asking for a translation of the sources into English I believe is moot. I would think bringing an article to AfD based on WP:N implies that the reliability in the sources are being challenged (not always the case and now doesn't matter because of the English sources now found). MuZemike (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • If I see an article brought to AfD on the grounds of notability when non-English sources are on the page, I would take that as a sign of ignorance on the part of the nominator. And honestly, it isn't hard to use Google Translate to check if a source says what the person citing it claims. A rough translation is generally good enough to make sure that they aren't just making stuff up. --erachima talk 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that said, I also want to point to WP:NONENG (part of the WP:V policy), which recommends that editors translate non-English sources into English so that readers can see if the sources have been properly used or not. Just to clarify about the transwiki, the above is right about the universality of WP:V in both Wikipedias, but it is possible that a subject, although it passes verifiability, to be notable in one region and nonnotable in another. I'm not trying to bend the description of the English Wikipedia into "the Wikipedia of English-only topics," as that is not true for many game articles on here. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't want "the Wikipedia of English-only topics", then what do you want? And given that English is a national or dominant language of one third the world, what region are we talking about? Are details about Liberia (an English speaking country) notable but not those about the Ivory Coast? Wikipedias are not regional, and especially not the English Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [28] is a review by the associate editor of what seems to be a reasonable site. [29] indicates this was a best seller in Japan. [30] is a rather short (and negative) review. As foreign language sources exist, I think this clears GNG nicely. That said, what a horrible idea for a game. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep per Hobit's finding or sources from Gamertell, Gamasutra, and Joystiq. Those are reliable sources you need to meet the WP:GNG; they show significant coverage, are verifiable, and are independent of the subject (i.e. not primary sources). MuZemike (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, needs major cleanup to meet the appropriate guidelines in basic copyediting, structure, and referencing. MuZemike (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The DS Fanboy and Gamer Tell sources are enough in English, let alone any further sources out there in Japanese, notability is satisfied IMO. It's unfortunate that the DS Fanboy isn't more in-depth, but whatever. Someoneanother 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rare groove[edit]

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

Strong delete: Rare groove is a phrase used by DJ's. It is not a genre, not appropriate for an encycloepdia and the article is completely without sources. Cosprings (talk) 15:54, 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, — Xy7 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect doesn't really matter. It should still be deleted. The list encompasses most of the article, and includes random artists from all sorts of old pop and black musics. This proves that besides not being a genre, it does not accurately represent the style or influence of a music.Cosprings (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the disambig at the bottom is needed in any case. Move that to the top, then give a brief definition. Kill the list of examples.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What disambi? The see also? Or the section which lists a bunch of non-notable website also called "rare groove"? Just because a few things are named that does not mean it is notable. Disambig pages are for things which have many articles. This one has zero.Cosprings (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain. I thought that the links went to other articles, not external links, my mistake. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It is a notable term which merits an encyclopedia article. But the current version is completely without references and the lists are just a dumping ground for "my favorite artist" and ad links. In any case, a redirect to one hit wonder is not appropriate, as the meanings are quite different. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:33, 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, ffm 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem like a legitimate topic/expression. The article gives worthwhile information to people who are interested, even if "low brow" for an encyclopedia. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"Seeming" like a legitimate topic or expression (?!) does not qualify the article for inclusion. It is not a question of being "low brow" either. The subject needs notability and verifiability, both of which it does not have. Cosprings (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a genus of fungi discussed by biologists it would have more chance on WP than a category of records discussed by DJ's. :-) Redddogg (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you say something so useless to this discussion. We are looking for consensus here. Cosprings (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Santoy[edit]

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

Non notability. Poor grammar, prose, structure and writing. Lack of images, references. RUL3R (talk) 16:44, 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, ffm 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like WP:NOTNEWS should apply, it just seems like a poorly written news essay. --Banime (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every crime is reported by the news media, but that doesn't make them notable encyclopedia topics. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:11, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Fertel[edit]

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

Declined G11 speedy. The article seems a bit like an advertisement, but it seems that the article about the individual fails WP:BIO, even if the company that he founded might clear notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Logs show that the article was speedily deleted three times.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – but just barely. I did find, by my criteria, just enough coverage by reliable sources to make a case for Notability, as shown here [31]. Regarding the company Marriage Fitness, if an article is ever created it should be a redirect to Mort Fertel. The two are inseparable at this point as shown here [32]. ShoesssS Talk 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added following two reliable source references to the article:
    • Lord, Douglas C. "No Time for Sex: Finding the Time You Need for Getting the Love You Want/ Marriage Fitness: 4 Steps to Building & Maintaining Phenomenal Love (Book)." Library Journal 129.15 (15 Sep. 2004): 72-72. Abstract: Reviews two self-help books: "No Time for Sex: Finding the Time You Need for Getting the Love You Want," by David and Claudia Arp and "Marriage Fitness: 4 Steps to Building & Maintaining Phenomenal Love," by Mort Fertel.
    • "They survived tragedy—twice." Glamour 102.11 (Nov. 2004): 149-149. Abstract: Interviews couple Ari and Mort Fertel about marriage in Baltimore, Maryland. Loss of the couple; Relationship between the couple; Connection between the couple.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of those sources linked to above seem reliable, but don't seem to have significant discussion of the subject matter to establish notability, IMO. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe subject seems to fail WP:BIO and the article just reads like promotion/advertisement.Austin46 (talk) 16:42, 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). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New bridge in Kosovska Mitrovica[edit]

New bridge in Kosovska Mitrovica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability or sources, not even a clear name. ninety:one 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there is an article to be written here, it will have to be at a real title, and the current page contains nothing salvageable. --erachima talk 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / merge into Kosovska Mitrovica — it's unclear whether "new bridge" is really the (English language translation of) the real name of the bridge, or simply a description of it. (It's not even totally clear which bridge in Mitrovice might be meant, if this isn't the proper name.) More constructively, I think the main reason the bridge is notable is so wrapped up in the history of the town of Mitrovice that the articles may as well be merged. – Kieran T (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 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, ffm 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been improved, including the addition of high quality sources and clarifying the name issue. I see no reason why it should not be kept as it is now. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jerry. VG ☎ 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if there's an accepted way, but I'd like to withdraw the nomination as the article has improved dramatically. ninety:one 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas sena[edit]

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

Notability is somewhat asserted, but I am unable to find non-trivial third-party sources. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GEOGRE. JuJube (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see a problem with being sources. The article itself gives two 3rd party independent sources of presumed reliability, one of which has the subject as a cover story [33], thus showing substantial coverage by any reasonable standard. The question is whether the notability is local--but this seems a major trade magazine of national coverage--so, to my considerable surprise, unlike almost all similar articles, this one actually does meet WP:N. And Georgre's law asserts only a correlation with miscapitalization of the subject's name, not a proof of it an in fact, here's a counterexample to it. DGG (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a vanity article that has no possibility of being supported by reliable sources. • Freechild'sup? 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This not only has the possibility of being supported by reliable sources - that support has already been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established and badly written --Dreamspy (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-advertisement for one-branch local salon.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) by Black Kite. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gilford[edit]

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

I can find no information about the drink from reliable sources which could be used to create a verifiable encyclopaedia article. A Google search gives nothing apart from this Wikipedia mirror and the sole source given in the article is from drinkswap.com but a search of the site doesn't come up with any information on the drink making it unclear whether it even exists. Guest9999 (talk) 14:37, 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. MBisanz talk 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Independent (album)[edit]

Miss Independent (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
American Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No reliable sources quoted in article. Looking for reliable sources outside the article shows none: no announcements from Tisdale, no announcements from Warner. Private press conference is usually a good sign of a fabricated article. Kww (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amend nomination and delete both. I've added the related American Side to the nomination: it's the alleged first single from the album, and the only source cited at the article is a blog. Both articles fail verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Articles about future albums that has no reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: These are articles about a hoax album and a hoax single. There's no references and a tracklist...well, Tisdale didn't finish recording her second album at the moment.Voices4ever talk • 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: I couldn't find any reliable sources either. In fact, I couldn't find any mentions of these supposed titles *anywhere* outside WP, once I'd filtered out all the unrelated Kelly Clarkson/Ne-Yo hits. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: It's obviously fan-made. Just like what Kurt Shaped Box said, there isn't a reliable source. Probably, a fansite, but, again, it does not have sources. Kikkokalabud (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. The original editor of this article has been blocked for creating fake album covers. He's also created fake album articles in the past. This may be blatant enough misinformation that it may fall under speedy criterion G3. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. If they cannot be reliably verified then they can't stay. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Given that no one else found sources (I did find one Portuguese blog, but it seems to be based on the article, not the other way around), I'll happily designate the article a hoax.Kww (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd happily endorse speedy deletion on the basis of the article being a complete and utter hoax and a waste of electrons - but I would prefer it if an uninvolved admin were to do the necessary. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The involvement issue is why I made the observation and didn't delete the pages outright. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: speculation at best, if not hoaxes. Cliff smith talk 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both A private press conference, you say? Isn't an oxymoron? Anyway these both fail WP:V, WP:HOAX, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and oh so many others. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I would have to agree with all of the above reasons. Ariel♥Gold 00:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I am the creator of American Side, Pedrovip, and i say Delete both. We have time for a article when Ashley Tisdale say the title of album, if its real... pVip-My talk page —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:36, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency services in Westchester County[edit]

Emergency services in Westchester County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is essentially just a list with a collection of external links. I don't see the full encyclopedic value since it seems to violate the external link policies and seems to go against WP:NOT as a form of a directory. Metros (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver J Bridge[edit]

Oliver J Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, not meeting WP:BIO. Has attracted no "published secondary source material", save for a letter to the Financial Times that he wrote himself. I certainly can't find any references that are "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Lincolnite (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am in near-perfect agreement with Lincolnite. There's a note on a BBC website, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5177252.stm, where he's mentioned as one of three young entrepeneurs, but that's it. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not withstanding the horrible unverifiable thing that I actually watched an article on the BBC about this guy he really has had a lot of media attention [34] [35] [36]. Nominator really needed to dig further before citing no secondary material and the BBC [37] would seem to be at the very least an approximation of a "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" secondary source. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three references aren't exactly from critical sources in the media. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Let's get those sources into the article; it'll make the difference. —  X  S  G  23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - per article's author's comments. WP:COI. —  X  S  G  02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I had nominated this for Speedy Delete, but it was declined (the article lacked references at the time I tagged it). But even with the new sources, the subject appears to offer little more than flash-in-the-pan news that is of less-than-marginal value to this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to Speedy Delete since it has become obvious that this is a vanity article (see below). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Hi I'm the author of the article, and as you've also realised, the subject. I'm new to Wikipedia, and thought I would try to raise my profile by talking about my current business and charity projects on this site. As a result, I might be a bit at odds with the rules, and I apologise for that.

There seem to be a number of underlying concerns with this article, which I shall try to address.

1) Most urgently, the lack of independent sources.

A Google search of "oliver bridge bigger feet" reveals (on page 1) that I am featured on the Make Your Mark website (a project sponsored by the Treasury), Startups.co.uk (an important entrepreneur portal), Simon Woodruffe's RadioYo podcast series, and the Independent's Top 40 Children print edition - which is why it is called the Independent on Sunday in the link. You will also note that I am featured in a Philiip Allan book (number 8 on the google search) but since it is a PDF file, I was not sure how to link to it.

If you would like me to personally send you copies of the TV footage from BBC Breakfast (both occasions), CNN, BBC Look East, The Richard Hammond Show, BBC Switch and The Money Programme, I can arrange that, but please appreciae that as a newbie to wikipedia I have no idea how to authenticate and link these to my wiki page.

There are also a large number of sources which I could not cite in the article since they are newspaper articles or books. If you take a look at 'How to be a Teenage Millionaire' (Puffin Books 2007 - ISBN 978-0-141-32316-9), you'll see that there is a hefty profile on page 70.

I have also featured in the Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail (an article where I am pictured receiving the Make Your Mark award from Gordon Brown), Daily Express, and the November 2005 edition of Director Magazine, published by the Institute of Directors. If someone could help me in explaining how to cite these sources I would be grateful.

As a 20 year old entrepreneur, I'm not sure how I could have accumulated any more sources to support what I've acheived - both Phillip Allan and Puffin have written about me in published books. I'm not sure what else I can add.

With regards to Entrepreneur Exchange, Forge Properties and Pebbleo, as infant projects, there will be little credible evidence to support their activities. Unfortunately I can't offer anything here. The best I can say is that I have a personal reputation to uphold (which is why I created this page in the first place) and I have no intention of lying or embellishing on the truth, because eventually some clever journalist will catch me out and that'll be the end of all my free press attention.

If you have access to Lexis Nexis and want to try and call my bluff, do a search. Im sure its all there.

2) Non notable person

Admittedly, I am not a famous entrepreneur in the sense that Branson or Sugar are. I've realised that the connecting links I made to this page from others were not suitable. My apologies - when I saw an orphan message appear on my page requiring that links be made, fearing deletion, I created the most relevant links I could think of. If others think they're not suitable that's fine - I was just worried as a wikipedia newbie and didn't want my page to get deleted for the sake of not making a couple of links.

3) Self Authorship

I understand why wikipedia asks people not to make their own pages - to stop silly content being published. But this is a serious page with a good purpose.

I get two or three enquiries a month from young kids who have read about me and would like advice on business. I regularly have television productioin companies asking for participation in programmes - the most recent being May 24 of this year with BBC Switch on BBC 2. I've just been appointed as Alumni Officer of the Oxford Entrepreneurs - the biggest society for entrepreneurship in Europe.

People are interested in what I get upto and they have a right to know. Sure, I may have broken a convention by writing about myself, but if Richard Branson or Winston Churchill wrote about themselves you wouldn't ask for their article to be removed on those grounds.

I don't want you to confuse me for a being an arrogant self publicist. Yes, I am hoping that a higher profile in the long run will help my business activiites and my charity work (I have an idea for introducing homeless vouchers nationwide so you can give vouchers instead of money to homeless people), but I'm also aware that for some young people I've become a mini role model because they've heard about me in school.

PLEASE don't delete this page. It's genuine, has a decent purpose and is informative. I'm new to wikipedia - this is my first attempt at a page and I'm not so familiar with all the protocols, I apologise for that, but please don't over react.

If you have any more concerns, feel free to email me - [email protected].

(Dinosaur888) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur888 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — for now. Being mentioned by a celebrity does not establish notability. —Sunday · Speak 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable vanity page. While he's been mentioned on teh interwebs, it's no indication of notability; yes, he's been mentioned on several start-your-own-business websites as a good example; so what? It doesn't establish "this person is important!" it says "this person successfully managed to start a company, you could too! By the way, please click on our ad links and promotional business-starting merchandise". Ironholds 21:49, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purist Satanism[edit]

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

In addition to copyright concerns, for which chunks have been blanked, this subject does not seem to be a notable concept in Satanism. I would propose a merge to Satanism, but as near as I have been able to determine, "Purist Satanism" is practiced by one denomination, the Darkside Collective Ministry International. I received 18 distinct google hits for this church, mostly self-referential. (See search results.) There is nothing for the church under google news, google books, or google scholar. The term "Purist Satanism" is likewise not widespread. I get 14 distinct hits, many mirrors of Wikipedia. I have nothing under news, books or scholar. I believe that lacking reliable sources specifically on the topic of Purist Satanism or the church that practices it, the article should be deleted for failing to verify notability. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the nominator has stated the reasons very well. This is not a notable concept. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regarding notability, the source material for the copyrighted text doesn't mention Purist Satanism. Rather, the term "Purist Satanism" was substituted throughout the article for each mention of the topic in the original source. It seems that the author is trying to borrow the (possible) notability of other groups. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongest of deletes/speedy. I suspect I know this editor's work, no-one has tolerated his spam being in the Satanism article, so now he's created this article because people were removing his self-promotion from the others; I've seen it be removed, and links to his site have to be removed, dozens of times. Sticky Parkin 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify- it was being removed because it's not even notable enough to have a mention there, and was basically just promotion of the site/ideas. We have quite a problem with spam links etc on those articles and people claiming they/their individual group are important- this is a new technique for getting the info he wants in when his other attempts aren't getting anywhere. This bloke or a similar spammer's had his IP range blocked for spam I think, definitely similar sites were added to the spam blacklist. Sticky Parkin 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Natas909 has repeatedly removed the afd tag from the article. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GN-001 Gundam Exia[edit]

GN-001 Gundam Exia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written almost entirely in-universe; no assertion of external notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While article clearly needs better sources, notabilty is asserted at the beginning of the article and one of the first things mentioned is an out-of-universe example of influence. Edward321 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preceedural Keep, this was nominated purely in retaliation for comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units. Also WP:IDONTLIKEIT per nominator's userpage. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In fact it was nominated because someone suggested I take a look at it, and I did not see much notable at all. I apologize, I did miss the bit about the race car, but that really is the only notability asserted here, and I don't believe that that qualifies as enough for this to have its own article--it makes more sense to mention that in the article either about that particular racer (assuming they're notable) or the main Gundam article. Also, I have no issue with articles about popular culture--what I have an issue with more than anything is with popular culture lists (see Adolf Hitler in popular culture for a particularly demonstrative example). My issue with this article is that almost all of it is written in-universe, and that I just don't see that this mech is particularly notable outside of that universe. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I just did a lot of cleanup on the main page for this, and removed all the in-universe stuff. What we have for its notability is that it influenced the design of a race-car, and that Bandai made a number of models out of it. I personally don't feel that that is sufficiently notable. But I feel that the article is much better now, and I would have less of an issue with it being kept. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , sufficiently important, and with real world content. DGG (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to/Create List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mecha, as seems like other Gundam series were so amalgamated. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:08, 29 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) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't see it passing WP:N. I think that the bit about the race car should be covered in the article about that particular race car, or in the main Gundam article itself. But I don't see this one particular mech needing its own article based on the sources cited. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I see no problem in that source. In the source, it specifically stated that it is related and specially designed after this particular fictional unit, which is sufficient as a source supporting that this thing indeed has notability. If your argument is that the race car is from the company that produce toys of this anime, you might have some ground to claim that is it in fact more of a dependent source case, yet the source info is from a totally independent website and at least did some research telling people about the designer of the race car and this mecha, I think it suits WP:N very well as a source claiming the notability of this particular mecha. Also, if notability is in question, the tags should be there before the AfD, in which I see none. MythSearchertalk 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see a lot of bad faith in this nomination. I was here thinking I should go for a merge or delete, in the worst case, but seeing the source, and the further discussion of it, I don't think this is not notable. This is in fact much better real world influence sourced than most of the other pages, even better than Walker (Star Wars), A-wing and Y-wing, with no real world influences like Millenium Falcon or X-wing. MythSearchertalk 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the subject is notable, it does not appear to be very notable from its article. I am perfectly willing to change my mind, but right now the article simply does not show why this particular Gundam is sufficiently notable to get its own article. Does it play a central role in the series? If so, then I can understand it getting its own article. Has it become a pop-culture icon, like the X-wing? Then it should get its own article. Being the basis for a race-car's paint scheme is a lot less clear. If someone more familiar with Gundam were to put on the page why this particular Gundam is notable and source it, I'd gladly drop my AFD. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply A race car is very different from the topic mecha, in which creates the notability of the topic as to why it was used as the colour scheme of the race car. And yes, it is the mecha used by the main character of the series Gundam 00, which has destroyed various cannon fodder and the last boss of the first season, as well as an obsessive enemy that appeared after the last boss was defeated, in which damaged this mecha and from the information of season 2 commercial, the main character piloted this damaged unit for 4 years around the world for travelling, and will still use this for some time in season 2 before he gets on his new mecha(if any, say, like the promotion material showed a similar mecha called 00 Gundam, which is named after the series, and figures the hero will get on it sooner or later, so it became only a question of if the hero of season 1 remains the main hero in season 2.) Gundams are pop-culture icons, at least as a whole, and most of them receive a lot of attention individually, at least in Japan and the Asia area. MythSearchertalk 20:49, 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 and Salt per CSD G10 (attack page). This was a totally unsourced, spurious neologism. Horologium (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palinism[edit]

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

Neologism; no assertion of notability or third party coverage; dictdef. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the neologism guideline and the biography of living person policy, borderline G10 NullofWest (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Comment: If deleted, given the nature - I think it should be salted NullofWest (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speculative article on a neologism that isn't (yet) in common usage. The article's author wasn't even able to provide a good example to illustrate the subject. Cosmo0 (talk) 12:18, 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 Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simlish[edit]

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

I don't think this article is worthy on Wikipedia. Sure the content is notable, but that does not automatically mean the article is for Wikipedia. Fictional languages do not have any content good enough for Wikipedia as languages that are fictional are not spoken by anybody or anything, not that every word of a language should be listed on Wikipedia. If there is going to be an article about languages, it should at least be a real language, but this article lists no words in the language which is not surprising. Mythdon (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles that meet the General Notability Guidelines (by having two or more reliable sources) should have an article on Wikipedia. The article needs cleanup for the Original Research issues as tagged, but not deletion. NullofWest (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fictional language seems like a notable aspect of this very popular computer game. Comments: 1. Many topics have two or more reliable sources but are not notable and shouldn't have WP articles. 2. The geekiness, triviality, and/or stupidity of the topic are not reasons to delete. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is almost entirely songs that are recorded in Simlish, and after that, the article just lists where Simlish is found, and the rare appearance of English. In addition, there is no direct translation for Simlish. However, the information stating the languages Simlish was derived from should be put on the main Sims 2 article. --Cmputer 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Here's some sources for notability, took just a few minute lookup on google to find. . [38], [39] and [40]. It also doesn't help the nom's case that their rationale reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating this article for deletion because I don't like (if I'm mistaken of what you are saying, please respond). I'm nominating this article for deletion because it does not belong here. Mythdon (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable enough, and of great interest to anyone who follows The Sims franchise. It can't go in the main Sims 2 article because it applies to all three Sims games, and Sid Meier's SimGolf. (Although I guess this article could be duplicated as a section on the articles for those four games). It's really no less useful than Klingon. --GrahamDo (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm a big fan of The Sims, I find this very interesting. I think that the article has reliable sources. Some cleanup might be needed, but with a little bit of time and work this can be done very quickly. Please don't delete!!! (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.23.137.2 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I'd say that but keep and possibly rename to a more music-emphasizing name. I agree that Simlish in itself is not have-an-article-notable, but the list of musicians who did a Simlish song has encyclopedic worth. – sgeureka t•c 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very notable phenomenon, sources for notability. The wording of the nomination in my opinion falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23skidoo (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — While I disagree with a few the above reasons to keep, I have found five verifiable sources which I included on the article's talk page for usage, certainly showing notability (just in case anyone argues for deletion due to lack of notability). I also agree that the nomination is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With that said, AfD is approaching WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nominator concedes it's notable, which is true due to the existence of reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure what the problem is. There's no rule against including fictional languages, particularly when it's been covered by reliable third-party sources. It's not the greatest article, but that's nothing a little clean-up couldn't fix. I'd support a merge, if someone felt it more suitable to summarize it and include it at The Sims (series). Randomran (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm currently researching variations in gibberish and was thrilled to find this page. Not only are there verifiable sources, arguably as important as an article on Klingon, and that highly notable musicians have recorded songs in this language, as a scholar it has already proved it's worth to me...isn't this what Wikipedia is about? Scholarly research. DO NOT DELETE. Why destroy perfectly good information on a notable phenomenon? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – nominator concedes that the article is notable. I rest my case. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil[edit]

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a word list or lexicon and so fails WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF. Please note the precedent of List of English words of French origin which is moving to Wiktionary as the potential number of words in such cases is enormous and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Note also that this article is a focus for nationalist dispute about the origin of the word Eelam which relates to an article which is subject to editing constraints: Tamil Eelam. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • KeepDelete and move to wictionary, also merge anything salvagable with articles such as Tamil language. Tamil has over 20% of its words derived from Indo-Aryan languages. So we are talking about thousands upon thousands of words. Manipravalam was a dialect of Tamil that had over 90% of its words from Sanskrit an Indo-Aryan langauge. Further Robert Caldwell, in his book A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Languages considers Malayalam an ancient off-shoot of classical Tamil that over time gained a large amount of Sanskrit vocabulary and lost the personal terminations of verbs.[1]So in effect we will be recreating an entire language and its vocabulary in wikipedia. This is a typical wictionary project.Taprobanus (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • with the change in direction, I vote to Keep Taprobanus (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have voted to keep but still I see some issues with WP:CANVASS, here, here, here, here, hereTaprobanus (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The messages in question consist mainly of "Kindly have a look at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil vote at its AfD." That's consistent with: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." As I was one of those connected, I can say that I did my own research and made up my own mind. I have in the past been contacted by people and have not supported them. And knowing some of the other people contacted I can say that they are also people who make up their own mind. If this article had been non-notable they would certainly have !voted delete. There's been no offense committed here. SilkTork *YES! 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue I see here is with user:Taprobanus', might I say, dishonest attempt to paint user:Srkris' messages as being vios of WP:CANVASS and by implication also casts aspersions on the editors he's linked to. Poor. Sarvagnya 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has been (and is being) revised to make it less of a mere list of loanwords and more of a historical analysis on Indo-Aryan borrowings in Tamil, along with pertinent examples to elucidate the analysis.­ ­ Kris (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if improved if it actually does get revised enough. It must have context, not just be a dictionary. Nothing wrong with some examples, explained, not just listed, but they don't make the article. See the various pages at Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin for various ways to do it. There are a great many such articles, and it's a perfectly appropriate topic. The example for French words mentioned by Col.Warden is a poor precedent to follow --thankfully, we're not in the least bound by it, and a representative number should be left as illustrations. Anyway, even it does not delete the article, merely move the examples. So his argument really is not for delete, but keep and edit. - Individual words, every one of the enormous number mentioned, they are what go into wiktionary. DGG (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The topic is appropriately academic, has reliable scholarly work on which to build the article, and given what it says here is "one of the most vital aspects of the Indian cultural history". The article needs editing and to be pushed in the right direction, but without doubt the topic fulfills the requirements of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Just bear in mind that at one time nearly all our featured articles were in a poor state and some of our most interesting articles have been the subject of intense edit wars. That the writing and maintenance of an article is problematic should not stop us from doing the right thing. SilkTork *YES! 07:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a lot less listy than it was when this AfD began, and is starting to move in the right direction. As SilkTork points out, it's an important topic from a socio-cultural perspective, in addition to its linguistic interest. There's obviously still a lot to be done, but it's a good start. -- Arvind (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author is sourcing the article and it is a topic worthy of inclusion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ref improvements made to the article --Jack1956 (talk) 21:41, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BControl[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software, with no license, website or apparent means of distribution. CultureDrone (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Un-notablility isn't hidden in article, on plane view. Operating (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly not notable. abf /talk to me/ 11:17, 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. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bradford[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. POV is also a worry (he is also good enough of a guitar player to have filled in for Steve Morse) Flewis(talk) 08:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom --Flewis(talk) 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article establishes notability per WP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work but sources cited indicate sufficient notability.--Michig (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have been cited, proving that the article establishes notability. Just clean it up a bit, reomve the POV mentioned, and it would be a perfectly fine stub/start class article. RedThunder 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I looked for more sources but could not find any to add. However, notability is established under WP:RS. Article needs significant expansion, though. --Banime (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I changed the "good enough of a guitar player" comment, agree with Red Thunder. Sashaman (talk) 20:05, 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 Judeo-Christian. Gosh...it's...it's...it's SNOWing! (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Judaism[edit]

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

This article violates WP:POVFORKING. But, there are many problems with it so that it has never truly become a rational and agreeable one, and it never will, given all the bickering that it has always engendered, and no wonder, it's a POV magnet. It is a surprise that it has lasted in spite of all its blatant failings and violations. Nominating this article for deletion is justified by the four tags at the top of its page alone: Template:Overlinked; Template:POV; Template:Original research; Template:Essay-like that have been placed on its page by other editors, that prove its violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. But that is just part of the huge problem here. Essentially this article is not needed because whatever needs to be said on this topic has always been presumed to be covered more than adequately in the acceptable Judeo-Christian article with its conventional and academically known and reliable name, with an added accurate and comprehensive Category:Judeo-Christian topics, thus making this poorly constructed Christianity and Judaism article a blatant duplicate and additional article seem like a contrived attempt to showcase the topic of Christianity first (why, is it perhaps for some missionary reason, it is not clear), which defies both history and theology because it is chronologically Judaism that precedes and "gives birth" to Jesus and Christianity, which the traditional Judeo-Christian name and label aptly conveys, so that to reverse the order has to be interpreted as a not so subtle attempt at religious and historical revisionism. This article falls flat on its face in its ambition in spite of the sources it cites, unlike more focused articles like Relations between Catholicism and Judaism or Messianic Judaism. IZAK (talk) 07:58, 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) 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Numbers - Binary[edit]

Prime Numbers - Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A rather confused bit of original research on a non-redirectworthy title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think its OR, however i do think its inside info, and only a mathematician would find this useful, if at all. Operating (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Only a mathematician would find this useful" is not a reason for deletion. Probably lots of Wikipedia would be useful only to a mathematician. So what? And "inside info" is of course nonsense in this case; that implies it's somehow esoteric. Michael Hardy (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it's OR, and doesn't add much to the existing articles on prime numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. In passing, I don't think "only a mathematician would find this useful" on its own is a reson for deletion! Richard Pinch (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It's not really anything that has been already said in Prime Number. MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and non-standard terminology (eg. field). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I didn't check to see how long that "under construction" tag had been on there. I also don't think that this article uses the term field (noted above) like the rest of the discipline does. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry; OR --catslash (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability, and I don't think it can. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there any particular purpose of the concept discussed in the article? (giving the purpose violates WP:OR) Topology Expert (talk) 11:00, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Get On (Annie song)[edit]

I Will Get On (Annie song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pretty much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Without You and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Always Too Late. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 07:00, 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) 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws (CMS)[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. English sources are not as reliable as they could be, but no agreement reached on how unlikely solid Farsi sources are to be found (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Kamkar Lotfi[edit]

Omid Kamkar Lotfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a speedy on this (placed with the rationale of "nn-autobio") as it appears to take a run at providing notability of sorts; it seems there may be enough to this person for an article, if references can be found. Discussion required; consider me neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I AM omid lotfi ! and think this article is better THAN nothing. I have seen many article worse than this ! like this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashang_Kamkar What is this ? only 4 lines ! At least mine was about 20 lines + my website. Anyways, I thought it is BETTER mention my name in here and now I am just about to forget it ALL. Regards ! after all, who cares about WIKI these days. Yours, o m i D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omidlotfi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please do not give up--we would be very glad to have the article, if you can give some published references to the extent to which your work is recognized, instead of just asserting it is. surely you have reviews? DGG (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - little evidence of notability. Unlike DGG, I suggest that Omid should give up - as always, leave it to others to write about you. - Sgroupace (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of Omid's fellow members of The Kamkars already have articles, and he seems to have done some touring with them and with his father. Look him up. Look up his background. There's an article here. Sure, this article is overly fluffy, but there's real content to preserve, and the subject passes notability pretty easily. Avram (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . "it seems there may be enough to this person for an article". AfD is not for cleanup. Expand and source, don't delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: AfD is not for cleanup? Really? Nice to be chided. How about being for articles that do not establish the notability, that say only that the person practices meditation and performs. An artist biography should establish the notability of the performer, and that includes the recording information, the reception, etc. You can't borrow notability from the group you're in, and you can't be encyclopedic because of your yoga. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 27 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) 05:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Omid, can you speak to how you meet WP:MUSIC, which is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. What's in the article doesn't seem to cover it. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While borderline in my mind, it seems that Mr. Lotfi is a recognized artist of notability within his genre. I added a couple of sources and a line about music lessons. While I do not like sourcing geocities sites, the source seems legitimate. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although he might be very talented he has not yet attracted the attention of secondary sources. Something posted on geocites doesn't quite make it. It just proves he has one fan. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some copying and pasting into Google of some of the Farsi from the Farsi version of The Kamkars and their website, and I think it looks like there are some more significant sources out there. Can someone here read Farsi enough to find some Farsi-language sources? It looks like there's a strong discography that is well-documented, just not in English. Avram (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: when the author is the subject, and they tell me that "His performing is technically flawless, powerful, and strongly emotional," I can't trust anything else in there unless there are some serious and independent references. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIf you'd recheck the new source that was added, the description is apparently valid. Yes, it's a Geocities site, but, it's not just some fan. It's a San Diego-based music groups site, which has dozens of reviews of various artists, including this one. The review indicated his technical prowess, and states that he played to a venue filled to capacity. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If they were important and wanted to be taken seriously, they wouldn't be on Geocities. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment We should remember that we are not dealing with a leading American musician, and it would be wrong to assume that evidence of notability or reliability is equivalent across languages and cultures. From my experience with Russian sources, I can say it is _very_ common for even significant institutions to use free hosting services, so you see GeoCities and Hotmail equivalents in many unexpected places. The Geocities page appears to be as reliable as anything; indeed, why should we discriminate between people who buy domain names and people who don't? Finally, this looks like the English-language tip of the iceberg here; I strongly believe we need a Farsi speaker to put this to rest. Avram (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I agree a Farsi speaker would be helpful, but if we start certifying free hosting services as reliable sources if and only if they're not in English, then we face issues of reverse ethnocentrism--giving non-English sources a free pass, as it were. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment My point is not that being on Geocities makes something reliable, but rather that being on Geocities no more makes something unreliable than something having its own domain name makes it reliable. I bring up relativism because I have personally noted that in some cultures it seems to be less obligatory to register domain names in order to be respected. But yes, I would extend this to English sources as well. Avram (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of evidence that he passses WP:MUSIC. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 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 Let's quit relisting this already. There seems to be a consensus now. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The People Speak[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, lack of reliable sources, lacks notability DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's a couple pages on it in the paper I added when I deprodded. Not exactly a web thing. Took me a while to think of a good search phrase because of the commonness of the name, but searching on "the people speak" "United Nations Foundation" comes up with 38 gnews hits.John Z (talk) 02:18, 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, — Xy7 (talk) 00:14, 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) 04:59, 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 Revert to prior version. Revert to prior version which passed consensus, and which does have verifiable sources (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia[edit]

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

Prod tag removed with no reason given. Article is about a book, but does not demonstrate why it is notable. I am unable to find any reliable sources in Google (Books or Scholar). Does not appear to meet the relevant guideline. TN‑X-Man 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - merge with Discordian works. I see no need to this to have its own separate article. --Flewis(talk) 06:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never having even encountered the word "discordian", I decided to investigate. Seems the star among this literature is some jocose artifact titled "Principia Discordia", written by some pseudonym. I clicked on the link to the article on him/her and there read In 2006 a copy of the first edition of the Principia Discordia was discovered in the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in the National Archives, proving Malaclypse the Younger to be Gregory Hill. Such logic! I realize that "I don't like it" is not grounds for deletion, but vaguely remember having somewhere also read something about WP not being a repository for articles about stuff dreamt up by schoolboys one afternoon. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revert to a version from 2006 following the previous WP:SNOW keep from the last AFD. It would appear that at some point the article got redirected despite the AFD decision and was recreated without all the same sources in the version that survived the last AFD. The topic is notable. 23skidoo (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's a sequal [sic] of a book that has an article! Of this one, there seems nothing to say. Delete, or specify the claimed "notability". -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: if being a sequel is a viable AFD nomination, then someone better nominate The Empire Strikes Back. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I don't think Hoary was saying it should be deleted because it's a sequel, I think it was merely a note that the article calls it a "sequal". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the history, which was apparently deleted as part of an article move. The version previously kept at AFD was this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent sources. I'm flexible for what counts as a sufficient source for material like this, but there has to be something. DGG (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest this AFD be closed and reopened (if desired) relating to the version of the article as kept by the previous AFD, as the content of the article now probably does not match that which was originally nominated. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability (outside of Discordian circles, anyway). Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 [[Slam Bang]]. Not notable on his own, redirect to Slam Bang (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Freeman[edit]

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

Not notable, single source, tagged for not meeting notable people criteria and has been since October 2007 Anakinjmt (talk) 14:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a short stub though, and we could just say who the author is in the Slam Bang article. Not every person named on Wikipedia has their own article. Besides, with only one ref that could be found, he doesn't seem too notable to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then a redirect is the best solution. Hiding T 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If* SlamBang itself is notable. As I said when I referred this article to the comics project, I'm uncertain on how to determine notability there. TravellingCari 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Slam Bang is notable, than a redirect from Allen Freeman to that article is fine with me. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:43, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:57, 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) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benrik Limited[edit]

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

Delete.Article appears to be puff for commercial product. All google references, and references in article, seem to be generated by company itself and/or its proprietors. No independent evidence of notability Smerus (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batcomputer[edit]

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

This is a non-notable story element of the Batman franchise. There's nothing in the secondary sources available to warrant discussion of this item outside of the main Batman article, and it's described primarily with in-story references. At best it should redirect to Batman. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the franchise article. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything useful exists, merge and redirect either to franchise article, or some "List of Batman gadgets" article (if one exists); otherwise, straight up redirect. umrguy42 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There are plenty of sources for this. The Batman article already has a merge proposal for other Batstuff like the utility belt. This matter belongs there, not here, because the deletion is obviously inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reliable sources listed. Can you provide some? Corvus cornixtalk 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the seven inline cites, most of them are to fansites or to cached versions of fansite (some of which are broken). There's an completely superfluous link to a page about "Quantum neural computing". None of these sources are acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made the claim that There are plenty of sources for this and yet have provided none. Even the links above don't provide any sources for this subject. It is the responsibility of those who claim that there are reliable sources, to provide them, not for those asking for the sources to have to dig for them. Don't wave your hand and say they're out there, show them to us. Corvus cornixtalk 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these listed encyclopedic works contain coverage of the Batcomputer. They are books and so if you want to know more you will have to do it the old-fashioned way - try a library or bookstore. The point is that they demonstrate that the topic is notable and should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the contents of the second book, but the first and third books each only mention the Batcomputer once. In the later's case, it's only mentioned as part of a plot by Marsha, Queen of Diamonds. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 28 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) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - this article exists under the same rationale as "Batsuit" and "Bat-Signal". Most of the info here is inherently notable, and, if in the case that that this article is to be deleted, the content should be merged with the main article. --Flewis(talk) 06:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is inherently notable. Notability needs to be established. Currently there is nothing to establish that this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, it's odd that you cite the film notability guideline. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Film notability guideline - because this article has content directly pertaining to a film (to be blunt: that was a bit of a no-brainer). --Flewis(talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film guideline applies to films only. The batcomputer is not a film. It's a fictional object. I don't see how you would even apply inclusion criteria intended for movies to a computer. The relevant guideline would be WP:FICT or even just WP:GNG. I would recommend knowing what you're talking about before implying that others don't. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly. This is nowhere near being notable. It doesn't even have in-universe notability, much less real-universe notability. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll trust CW that the sources exist as he has a great track record on things like this. But I'd really like to see them added to the article soon or else merge somewhere. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major elements of fiction as notable as this are appropriate for an article. The primary sources would be enough for V, but In any case, it seems there are secondary sources. DGG (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Batcomputer isn't a major in-story element, and the secondary sources are insufficient, as pointed out above. The books presented as secondary sources only mention the Batcomputer in passing (only mentioned in a single sentence), and only in relation to the 1966 Batman series. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Fanboy Trivia, Batman...Delete! There is no logic, let alone evidence, to warrant a standalone article on this subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In-universe detail, plot, and trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:04, 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 Withdrawing duplicate report, as Twinkle goofed. TN‑X-Man 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia[edit]

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

Prod tag removed with no reason given. Article is about a book that doesn't really show why it's notable. I am unable to find any reliable sources in Google (Books or Scholar) and can't see how this meets the relevant guideline. TN‑X-Man 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. JBsupreme (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Luck (rapper)[edit]

Lady Luck (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm saving myself the trouble of the prod/deprod nonsense. Personally I think this is a borderline speedy delete, but it unquestionably fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve if possible. A quick skim through the first 3 pages of Google hits retrieves an article in The New Yorker ([42]), an IMDB profile showing a couple of things that may or may not prove important ([43]), and a mention here, which suggest that a bit more digging for sources may be worthwhile before deleting, or even nominating for that matter.--Michig (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the article with the sources I found. The feature in The New Yorker and the series of articles in The Source mean that the article unquestionably passes notability and reliable source guidelines.--Michig (talk) 22:10, 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) 04:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New Yorker article is an outstanding RS. The others are weaker, but GNG is easily met. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos M. Gonzalez[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography about a town council member "Council Member-At-Large of Newark, New Jersey". I believe it fails WP:NOTE. I was going to speedy it but I felt I would get your input. mboverload@ 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete should be a speedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics n such (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable local politician. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. No way this should be speedy, given the size (273,000) and importance of Newark. I don't believe this is an autobio; the writing is much less POV than the source material on the city's web site. Nonetheless, without evidence of significant media coverage, I don't think he reaches the notability threshold. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newark is only a medium size city at 273,000, so members of its city council are not necessarily notable. Nothing substantial in Google News. [44]
  • Comment Newark is by far the largest city in New Jersey, and its politics are potentially subject to major media coverage. Moreover, this fellow was elected citywide. This is not some small constituency of a few hundred people that we often see in AFD. I stand by my "delete" above (which is buttressed by the lack of Google News hits), but I also stand by my opposition to a "speedy delete" in this or any similar case of an official elected from a major population jurisdiction. Kestenbaum (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An at-large member of the City Council of the largest city in NJ with a constituency of over 280,000 is obviously going to have generated some news coverage and meet WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOTE. These searches bring up quite a few sources to be used. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Måns Andersson[edit]

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

Non noteable tobacco farmer. Related to the Bushes. Wiki policy is that being a relative does not confer noteability. This should be particularly true when the relative is 400 years removed from the famous descendant. Politics n such (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article cites reliable published sources for its area, and Andersson is notable in the history of New Sweden for his role in the instigation of the Long Finn Rebellion... which we do not currently have an article on. The issue of whether he's related to Bush or not is a red herring; in this case the claims that a president was related to him merely brought attention to his already-notable existence by people other than Swedish historians. --erachima talk 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Early settlers whose life can be reliably documented are generally notable. DGG (talk) 18:58, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article shows notability by having reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is sourced, subject was an important early settler who participated in a notable period protest against one governor and held an imprtant official position under another. Edward321 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Britney Alone (single)[edit]

Leave Britney Alone (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single by a red link artist and a non-singer. Didn't chart, no good sources, all relevant info already in Crocker's article. I would have redirected but the "(single)" makes this an unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It received national FM radio coverage in Australia. I should know - I was the programmer responsible. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many have heard of it, but didn't chart, released on Youtube then iTunes only, didn't make an impact, by a nonnotable artist, based on a marginally notable persons blog. Just comes up short in too many ways. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Didn't chart, no awards, no notable covers. And by a non-notable red linked artist.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete didn't chart, even though a lot of people have heard of it. Also per above, the artist is red linked. --Banime (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The single had significant radio play - and has been a big seller. The info on the main Chris Crocker article is only brief and does not go into any detail of the history of the song. It may not have charted but this doesn't mean it isn't worthy of a wikipedia article. 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyxkelly (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to the main Chris Crocker article. There's nothing about the single that makes it special enough to ignore the notability required for songs, and there's already a perfectly good article that this can be folded into. Nezu Chiza (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, Merge to the main Chris Crocker article, and then delete and SALT that too as NN meme. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 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 keep. per the citations added. The discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing board[edit]

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

Citations needed since Dec. 2007, and possible copyvio. I went in to try and source things based on what was listed in "Notes" and discovered the "sources" were simply copied from a citation in one of the external links. As far as I can tell, this article was originally created by someone trying to advertise his own work and research, and when that was taken out, there was very little left, and no indication that it is not a direct lift of that work (which was stated to exist but that I cannot locate), with no documented assertion of release into PD. MSJapan (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Notability not established (see my comment below). Some of the material can probably be merged into Freemasonry#Ritual, symbolism, and morality. Otherwise, I agree that the article does not fully comply with policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why any of these problems require deletion of the article. The topic is good, the rest is fixable. Far too many editors prefer the easy route to AfD something rather than to actually write content! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is hard to write and expand an article when there is a dirth of reliable sources upon which to build it. This is the case here. About all that can be said without getting into OR is already in the article, and that is essentially a repeat of what is in the main Freemasonry article. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as highlighted above. In the absence of significant credible sourcing I think that makes more sense now. If it grows enough then break it out later.ALR (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Blueboar and ALR said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, there's no reason why this should be deleted. JASpencer (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, I am not sure that JASpencer is correct in stating that this is a notable subject... I think we need to distinguish between a "facinating" subject and a "notable" subject here... This is certainly a "facinating" topic, but I don't see much to indicate that the topic is "notable" by Wikipedia's guidelines... any notability relies on the topic's connection to Freemasonry. Freemasonry is certainly notable, but I question whether it has been established that masonic tracing boards are notable on their own. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People may come here looking for this information --Jack1956 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not a valid reason to Keep... people may come to Wikipedia to find information on all sorts of stuff. If we can not verify information through reference to reliable sources (and looking at the number of unsourced statements in this article, I have to question whether we can), and if we can not substantiate that the topic is notable through citation to reliable independant sources (see WP:NOTE), then we should not have an article about the topic. Has no one outside of Freemasonry discussed this topic?Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations now supplied. It just needed a bit of effort --Jack1956 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two pages is not strong support for the notability of the item in question, nor does it adequately address the need for sources. MSJapan (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references were not put in to demonstrate notability, just to address the citation issue, which seemed to be a problem. --Jack1956 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep subject seems notable enough to me. --Dreamspy (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably help if people explain why they feel this topic is notable? Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 28 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) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why notable?
    • It relates to a broad topic, Freemasonry, that's notable.
    • It's part of the equipment of Freemasonry, a broad topic in its own right. Is there any other religious / non-religious practice that requires so much stuff?
    • Its own existence seems undisputed.
I don't see this as a WP:N issue so much as WP:RS & WP:V. I'm convinced they're notable already (from outside knowledge), the task now is to demonstrate this. That's just improvement territory. not AfD. Surely someone can cite refs as needed without getting their tongue torn out by the root? There is no dearth of good source material for Freemasonry. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Freemasonry in general, yes. Particular subtopics, not necessarily. Many times we know what something is, but that is all. For example, we have an article on Lodge Officers. We know they exist, but we don't know where the actual titles came from other than that someone made them up one day. Same problem here; we all may have seen Tracing Boards, but we don't necessarily use them, nor do we know what they are for as a result unless one has a specialized interest in them. The sources that are in the article are about all that there is for RS and V; the article was originally created as a self-promo vehicle, which invalidated the majority of it. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Tracing Boards are an important part of Masonic ritual and are therefore notable. They are notable also because they form an important element in the history of Masonic ritual and Freemasonry itself. Can the detractors suggest fully why they are not notable enough to be here? --Jack1956 (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In responce to both Andy and Jack...I agree that Freemasonry is notable ... but would do not agree that everything and anything associated with Freemasonry is notable. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what tracing boards are. They have never been part of the "equipment" of Freemasonry, they are not part of the ritual, and they have never been required. Essentially tracing boards were the 19th centrury equivalent of a power point presentation. They were a teaching aid... a pictorial representation of what was being talked about. Many lodges have never owned or used one. Finally... Jack, the way Wikipedia works, it is up to those who write articles to establish why the topic is notable, not the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Notability is not inherited. Article must show why it is independently notable and not in relation to its parent topics. MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for that, Blueboar. I think I understand the concept of what is notable by Wiki standards. That was what is confusing me...why one or two editors think the article is not notable while the majority seem to think it is. Thought I was missing the point. --Jack1956 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there tends to be a general perception that anything related to Freemasonry is notable, generally because of the association. I think it's now getting to the stage that anything MSJ raises for deletion tends to end up retained by default, particularly when certain editors tend to immediately start attacking the intent of the proposal, rather than the nomination itself.
In this instance I do think the topic is worth discussing, but I don't believe there is enough substance to meaningfully talk about it in isolation like this.
ALR has it right... I have made the distinction between a facinating topic and a notable topic in other AfDs... this is another example. Tracing boards are indeed a facinating topic, especially for non-Masons. They depict what to most people are "mysterious" and "secret" emblems, and it is natural that people want to know more about them. But I don't think the topic is Notable as Wikipeida defines that word. We do not have reliable independant sources that discuss the topic, and we have very few reliable Masonic sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALR (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Only one vote per person. However, th question is valid, so why are they not notable enough? Largely because there isn't enough coverage. The article has sat since December '07 with no sources. WP:N states: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic". What is available is a few research papers and a whole lot of pictures. The coverage simply isn't there to present an appropriate article without lifting heavily from those one or two sources, which drifts into potential copyvio depending on how it is done. Yeah, everybody who has been in a Lodge has probably seen one, but that doesn't mean that all of them know anything about them (or that the viewer know what it was when it was seen), and it's likely no one outside of a Lodge has ever seen one. Fundamentally, it's Masonic folk art, and the article on folk art is pretty bad too, which indicates a fundamental encyclopedic problem with the area. There's also not "an important part of ritual" - their use is entirely up to the Lodge, and not all jurisdictions use them. MSJapan (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the comments from Blueboar and MSJ I would support a Merge into Freemasonry so long as it is merged in its entirety or as close as dammit. --Jack1956 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of the material was copied from the Freemasonry article in the first place, that should not be a problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:D ! Lunarian (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not part of ritual (as noted above), and is not itself a symbol. MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: that article has been redirected to the main Freemasony article per its own AfD consensus.
Actually, I think the consensus is to keep. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority view in the AfD for the ritual and symbolism fork was to merge, which has been done, essentially by redirecting as it had no content that wasn't already in the main Freemasonry article. I'd agree that the majority opinion here appears to be tending towards keep.
ALR (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It was redirected by the nominator despite the result being "no consensus" which is a variant of keep. JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority were merge or redirect, since consensus in binary decision making is a fallacy I can understand why MSJ took the action he did, equally I was counting the minutes until the whining started.
ALR (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry ALR, I won't hold that outburst against you and will accept a genuine apology because I know that you would normally keep to WP:CIVIL. JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that was a specific comment, rather than a general observation, that's entirely up to you.ALR (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added citations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sources, it's verifiable, and such a board appears to be as important in some lodges as, say, a thurible in some churches. So what's the problem?    SIS  22:38, 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 Sight reading. MBisanz talk 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sightread[edit]

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

This is basically a dictionary definition, combined with some OR. Propose transwikiing definition to Wiktionary, deleting the OR. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FishEye[edit]

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

Non-notable software, unsupported by reliable sources. Unable to locate sources as well. TN‑X-Man 16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and some expansion) Notable as it already sees widespread use across a number of major open source projects ((especially from Apache & Sun). Oodles and oodles of Googlespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly this one and its many many friends (that's just one I already had open). Pick a major open source Java project, like Spring (as noted, especially those by Apache or Sun). There will be a FishEye front-end to browsing its soure code repository. Checking my commit logs today, I browsed 74 of the things across different projects, none of them even my own project, just ones I happen to be making use of. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any third-party sources that discuss the subject of FishEye itself (not just use FishEye for a project), directly in detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You questioned its notability, not the reliability of sources. I'm sure you can do some research as well as I can. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and notability is determined by sources. The burden of proof is on you. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for atlassian+fisheye returns about 2,390,000 results. The application is in many ways similar to ViewVC or Trac, but based on my perception of its employment in open source Java projects, I believe it is far more popular among developers. See also
Kak (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more to keep the article than Google searches and repository lists, even if you have many of them. None of those links describe the actual topic of FishEye. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for information on the sources we require. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now. The link to Google hits was misleading. The initial problem for me was how to describe FishEye. I did not find any category to fit it in, so I added the page and hoped others would add their thoughts. As you can see from my links above, the application is widely employed and used. This and the fact that fisheye is a lens in photography makes it very difficult to find coverage on the application. I found the following information, which should be sufficient for the notability requirement. Some of the sources reference Cenqua FishEye, Cenqua (another red link) being the original owner of FishEye before being acquired by Atlassian.
  • Concurrent Versions Systems on dmoz.org: "Fisheye delivers a unified view of your repository that provides easy navigation, powerful search, historical reporting, configurable file annotation and diff views, changeset analysis, RSS feeds, and integration with your issue tracker."
  • oscommerce.com: "Repository Browser" which is "a radical change compared to Trac and will take a few mouse clicks understanding how it works. It's fun looking at graphical representations of the amount of lines in the codebase with Fisheye"
  • TheServerSide.com: "FishEye opens up source code repository helping developers make sense of information that is not typically easy to extract, comprehend or keep updated."
  • grumpyoldprogrammer.com: "[…] a tool to monitor your source code repository and provide some in depth insight. Such as providing diffs of the files checked into your repository."
I believe the above sources should be sufficient, but still I have two questions: Do similar notable resources exist for Trac or ViewVC? A FishEye Wiki Page exists since last year. What about this page? In the meantime I will merge that information into the right page and provide a redirect. Kak (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will add some of the items mentioned by Andy Dingley and me to the article. Kak (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources look like they establish notability to me. Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to new sources that establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect to Atlassian . There's a dab page at fisheye, all of which are more notable uses of the term. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explodicle wants to redirect the FishEye page, not Fisheye (note the case of the first e) Kak (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why it should not be redirect to Atlassian. Fisheye is the appropriate destination. 07:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be the consensus, as far as I understood the conversation. Andy Dingley, Explodicle, and I expressed that the article is kept. Tnxman did not add any comments after the initial comment, and 70.55.203.112's comments only concerned the target of the redirect. Kak (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the sources seem to be the ones accepted for notability in this area. DGG (talk) 01:49, 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 per clear consensus. Ty 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly D. Williams[edit]

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

Mere flimflam. Let's take a look:

the fact that Williams has been geographically disconnected from the lowbrow, outsider, and street art scene at large for most of his career has given him a unique view of what it means to be a venerated artist in this particular genre of art -- from which we are perhaps to infer that Williams is venerated in a particular genre of art. Strong stuff! But unfortunately we're not told the genre, let alone who's doing the venerating.

Williams' raw form of art has been exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel, Paris and the United Kingdom.[45] -- a "source" that says no such thing.

His work has also been featured in several international publications[46]. -- a "source" that says no such thing.

Kelly D. Williams currently continues to work as a graphic designer and gallery artist[47] -- very likely a self-penned "source". (The site's "welcome" page tells artists: Get your own portfolio with images of artwork; publish exhibition openings, reviews, press releases. (example) Self-service and Free. Start here)

as well as writing for a variety of magazines.[48] -- The content of the linked page has been deleted, but anyway this external link is also presented as seventh among the list of "references" to this WP article, where it's described as "Music editorial written by Kelly D. Williams", so it would appear to have been self-penned.

No consensus to keep or delete an article on Williams back in January 2007, since which time it has become no more convincing. (Indeed, it has just sprouted a claim that Williams is or was also a photographer, a claim that attracted my attention and for which no evidence is forthcoming.) The article has been living on borrowed time; enough's enough. Hoary (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ......Minor revision for the sake of clarity (no substantive change): Hoary 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no WP:RS there. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the detailed nom. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per very detailed nom. Note also both UK "exhibitions" listed on his website are online virtual shows, in the case of the Saatchi open to anyone to add their own work. I doubt if the last Afd would have survived a Review. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., see my comments at last Afd. --Bejnar (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, consider to article to be placed as stub Keep article pending volunteer to include fact-based information on artist per original Afd indecision, i vote that this article remains and is improved by removing insufficient links and adding more substantial information. Eng500 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your edit summary for this edit, made well over a year ago, you seemed to suggest that you were going to add sourcing, etc. You have always been, and remain, welcome to add this. You're welcome to improve the article as much as you like, starting as soon as you wish. -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eng500, perhaps you forgot, but this is your second "Keep" !vote. I guess you really feel strong about this then... :-) --Crusio (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it's his/her first keep vote. Eng500 stuck it above all other votes. I moved it down here and responded to it. Then Eng500 stuck a second keep vote above all other votes. I can't blame you for thinking that it was first but actually it was second and I am now moving it to its proper place, immediately below this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies for the duplicate keep. Was uncertain of proper format to add responses. My only interest in keeping the article is that it is either improved and corrected with proper references, or removed to that someone else can more properly create the article.Eng500 (talk) 9:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Re: Keep noted, I have removed superfluous statements and irrelevant links. In addition to this, I move that once (or if) the Afd Notice is removed, we place a Wiki Stub Notice to help request additional parties to enhance this post.Eng500 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted by Crusio, a duplicate vote. You can stick such a notice on the article at any time, e.g. right now. You mustn't remove the AfD notice from it, but otherwise you can do anything you want with it (as long as this doesn't break any rule that also applies to articles not at AfD). -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, the links mustn't merely be "relevant"; they must say what it's implied that they say; and assertions must be backed up with evidence. After your recent edit, the article now consists of four sentences. The first isn't sourced (and probably doesn't need to be, IFF its content is backed up in subsequent sentences). Here are the second, third and fourth sentences (in pink), with my comments (in darker pink): Williams' raw form of art has been exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel, Paris and the United Kingdom.[49] The external link at the end of that makes no such assertion, and no evidence is presented for exhibition in these places. His work has also been featured in several international publications[50]. The external link at the end of that makes no such assertion, and no evidence is presented for being featured in international publications. Kelly D. Williams currently continues to work as a graphic designer and gallery artist[51] Yes, the juxtapoz.com page that's linked to shows photos of one exhibition. as well as writing for a variety of magazines.[52] The external link at the end of that says nothing whatever, and no evidence is presented that he writes for a variety of magazines. So: four links, of which three are duds; no significant change to the value of this article since it was nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoary, thanks for the detailed description. I went in and removed the broken links (I only noticed 1 of the 4 that were errors), and added the wiki stub artist category. That is about the extent of the improvements that I will be able to do for now, but others are welcome to correct my edits to align with policy or add further data. Thanks.Eng500 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eng500, are you serious? The link to gimmeshelter.co.uk does not prove Williams "exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel"--it proves (with a lot of coaxing and browsing) that he painted pieces of cardboard for a show that might take place if someone donates gallery space! Drmies (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, please avoid using personal emotion or taste in this exchange. Williams is an artist that I am somewhat familiar with while writing a paper on him for a college class. Although only known in his specific genre, he is a notable artist and designer. This is my reason for trying to improve the weak article. Again, If the actual nominator feels it best to delete, than that is fine by me. But please (like all other articles) give this the sincere study beyond your immediate findings. It requires more than a few clicks of the mouse to gain the full picture of an artists notability and/or influence. I will also revert the changes to the art show references, as this artist has obviously participate in more than these 2 exhibits. Regardless, it serves no purpose to list such shows.Eng500 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no new material to add, though there's been an edit or two to bring the wording more in line with reality. Two external links were removed--they were already in the 'references', and thus seemed to be resume-padding. Now, if the new reality (a three-week show in a gallery in SLC, two years ago, and a one-night stand in Long Beach this summer) suggests there isn't really much notability, soit. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability yet, though I wish him the best of luck. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on sourcing for the exhibition venues (now that this has again been reworked). Curiously, Long Beach isn't listed, but there is evidence of a solo exhibition there. The only place listed with evidence is Israel; follow that link and you'll see that Williams is one of over sixty people exhibited there. Uh, is there no more evidence for exhibitions? -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe in a few years....Modernist (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G7 and salt by RHaworth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Concepcion[edit]

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

Appears to be thoroughly non-notable. Also violates WP:CRYSTAL. Minimal sources. If kept this needs to be rewritten. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author has blanked the page, meaning that the article qualifies for a G7 (deletion as per author's request). Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 07:02, 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khaliq Aziz[edit]

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

unnotable Afghan singer with no reliable sources to verify anything in the article. Tavix (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 "Famous" is not an assertation of notability unless backed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the removal of A7, but what the hey. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - CSD:A7 requires an assertion of importance, which "is a lower standard than notability." Saying someone is famous is an assertion of importance in my book, so I've removed the A7 and either a Prod or this AfD should proceed, so the article's editors can have time to pull together the requisite sources. There's no need to be hasty; if Khaliq Aziz isn't notable, he'll be removed. —  X  S  G  04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spent about five minutes searching for articles or reviews about subject. I found lots of non-reliable sites referencing him, but nothing that would establish notability.—  X  S  G  04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't find and sources to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick Given geographic location and relatively high number of Ghits, I suspect he's notable. But no sources. Is there a good wiki-project to notify that might have paper sources? Hobit (talk) 00:54, 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 (I'm not going to bother with a redirect, as there's really no valid content in the target article, either. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Durrell[edit]

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

Non notable person. Only notability is that he is the brother of Lawrence Durrell and Gerald Durrell. There is already an article on the Durrell Family. Most of the article is gossip on what is basically a private life. Michael Johnson (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Durrell Family (which is basically the same as delete) for reasons stated above - he was a private, non-notable person. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Delete, since there is really nothing of note in this article. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Not delete: surely some information is better than none, and as a fan of Gerald Durrell, I was very interested in the content of the page on brother Leslie.Cnapper (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) — Cnapper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect to Durrell Family and perhaps expand the latter with a few bits of information from this article, sources provided. The reasons are stated above: he wasn't a notable person. As for the "interesting to read for the fans.." thing, well, not everything that is interesting to read belongs to an encyclopaedia. --Jashiin (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn, never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.I. Lenin Higher Party School[edit]

V.I. Lenin Higher Party School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable school. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - tertiary educational establishments are notable. This is a significant institution. It can be verified here. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It verifies the existence of the school. We need to be wary of systemic bias in non-English speaking countries with a poor internet presence. Time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where do you think those are going to come from? The school is defunct. Its no longer being operated. And when it was in operation, it only taught Communism. Not really a top notch educational system. Delete. Synergy 03:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under communist regimes, such party schools (actually a tertiary college) were highly influential. The fact that it is defunct is not germane; notability is not temporary. The sources would have to come from a local library search. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as tertiary school verified to have existed. Bias about subject taught is not acceptable argumentation for AfD. The fact that the school is now defunct has no bearing whatsoever on AfD. It was a college, therefore notable, therefore keep. Simple. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that it was the elite school in its country, and had the equivalent of the First Lady as principal, it looks infinitely mor noteworthy than the countless US/UK/Aussie Bog Street High Schools whose article is unquestioned. Some refs would be nice, but that is a matter for improvement, not deletion. An uninformed opinion on the nature of the education given there is not grounds for deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just couldn't help myself... I have searched and searched for a Bog Street High School, and aside from one Soccer forum post where a person claims to have gone there in the 1960s, there is no indication of such a school having ever existed. [www.footballforums.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-125947.html forum link]. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be looking in the wrong place. Try Bash Street School. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are definitely sources to support notability - I found several straight away on Google Books (not searchable, unfortunately, but I should be able to get my hands on the hard copy versions). As a general note, "higher party schools" were extremely important institutions in Communist countries - there is no real equivalent in the West, but they were the equivalent of elite academies for people who were being groomed as the next generation of Communist leaders. The system of party schools was a Soviet innovation in the late 1940s which was copied in many other communist states. I see we don't have an article on the subject - I'll add that to my list of things to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 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. Wizardman 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell stevenson[edit]

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

Notability is asserted, but I cannot find any sources to back it up. An {{unsourced}} tag has been removed by an IP without explanation. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:21, 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, TravellingCari 02:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence to support notability. There are no reliable sources writing about this individual. There is a claim he an author of climbing guides and books but a search on Amazon turned up no results for him. So also fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Vishwas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and no verifiable sources. Dloh cierekim 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notability not shown. I could change my mind if more reliable sources are added, however. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the article creator could provide us with reliable sources, it would be very helpful. Dlohcierekim 00:41, 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, TravellingCari 02:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. These awards are unlikely to be covered by the mainstream English media in India. So additional reliable sources might be difficult. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Watkins (footballer)[edit]

Craig Watkins (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE, no claim of other notability, prod deleted without any reason Kevin McE (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it similarly fails to give evidence of any appearance in fully-pro league:

Ian Simpemba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kevin McE (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Withdraw in light of evidence provided by Malcolm: no such claim was in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BanRay 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creighton the Cretin[edit]

Creighton the Cretin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is about a fictional cartoon created by a fictional cartoon character in a work of cartoon fiction! While the book it appears in has won awards, surely notability can't be inherited that far? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - couldn't agree more. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Truthanado (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the notability issues are non resolvable. JuJube (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge'it somewhere in the article(s) on the main work--not a possible stand-alone by any standards. DGG (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Beeswaxcandle pretty much summed it up. —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 03:13, 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 Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Centre (Barbados)[edit]

Sheraton Centre (Barbados) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to be the "number one shopping and entertainment destination in Barbados" but it reads like an ad and I'm finding no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of the Dragon Scrolls[edit]

The Tales of the Dragon Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:03, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl choi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, I think. Seems to be autobiographical; orphaned. Prince of Canada t | c 08:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; non-notable, no references, promotional. Kill it already. Prince of Canada t | c 00:50, 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, TravellingCari 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I relisted because the only further info was a !vote from the nom, so it still needs more consensus. That said, I'm not finding any evidence of notability via reliable sources. TravellingCari 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single WP:RS listed, lots of puffery, lack of improvement after relisting. Nuke it. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the visionary and creative brainchild behind the company, Carl is responsible for Plan C's remarkable accomplishments and growth. Sickening. Textbook case of Geogre's Law. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 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 Redirected to Screwball (ice cream). NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ball Screwball[edit]

Two Ball Screwball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability and no reference (nor evidence of existence) after being tagged for ~three months. Bongomatic (talk) 03:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 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, TravellingCari 01:47, 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. While Atitarev is correct that an article on Chinese exonyms and orthography might an interesting article make, the list doesn't have the value needed. WP:NOT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan[edit]

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains merely Chinese pronounciation of the same kanji names. As Chinese and Japanese share part of the writing system, these are not considered exonyms. People seeking this information should simply consult a kanji dictionary. o (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This ain't the chinese Wiktionary. Equendil Talk 03:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems open and shut; this is not a dictionary and this article is pretty unencyclopedic. Chris Picone! 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How is this encyclopedic? To begin with, why Chinese? -- Taku (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wonder if this thread is failing to consider the rationale which informed the work of editors whose names are recorded in the edit history? I would have thought that whether or not this article is "encyclopedic" can only be assessed within the ambit established by its categories and by the ranges of similar articles which are encompassed within those categories, e.g.,
Category:Exonyms --> List of English exonyms for German toponyms; English exonyms of Arabic speaking places
Category:Language comparison --> List of foreign place names in Japanese
Category:Toponymy --> List of foreign place names in Japanese
Category:Transliteration --> Anglicisation
The perceived problem is somewhat misconstrued in wiki-terms of deletion or inclusion. In my view, a better way of framing an arguable issue would focus on whether List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan should have been expected or required to explain the contexts of its unfamiliar categories? --Tenmei (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The articles you listed are useful and encyclopedic because they address pertinent topics. The problem with this article in question is that 1. per TakuyaMurata, why Chinese? And 2. since the overwhelming majority of Japanese kanji has its correspondance in Chinese, and that the overwhelming majority of Japanese placenames are written exclusively in kanji, there is virtually no "real" Chinese exonym for Japanese places. I'd suggest changing this article into List of exonyms in East Asia, and listing placenames in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., all of which used the Chinese writing at one point, making real exonyms (e.g. Seoul) of particular encyclopedic interest. But in any case there's nothing in this article now that's worth keeping. o (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to the Exonym and endonym article: "Some languages use the same spelling as the endonym but change the pronunciation, thus making it an exonym." Therefore using the Chinese pronunciation of the kanji/hanzi normally pronounced with the Japanese reading makes it, contra the nomination, an exonym. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That statement is not a dictionary or academic definition of the term, and I think it should be removed. If that statement is indeed the case, then one could argue that virtually all place names in foreign languages are exonyms, since names that match exactly in pronounciation across languages are relatively rare. One could go as far as claiming that almost all placenames in Scotland are exonyms when pronounced in American English. o (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrivia: The templates seem to have not been completely applied to this AfD -- I've attempted to fix them, but if a full-time wikignome could check my work, that'd be wise. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy to Wiktionary, and someone has already placed that template on the article. I recommend waiting for the copy to happen, then deleting the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not even sure what Wikitionary needs with this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep :There is so little in the English Wikipedia about the topic about how the foreign names are transcribed into Chinese and so much can be done to make the article useful.
Japanese and Chinese transliteration mutual comparison can be of special interest, since there are many factors:
Modern Japanese and Chinese names have very different phonetical values, thus the names convey the same meaning but do not retain or render the original pronunciation. The analogy with European languages doesn't exactly work, as the spelling is not phonetical. So a stop sign may mean the same thing in any language but doesn't have to be written or pronounced the same way. It's worth noting that apart from the character orthography, standard romanisation should be taken into account, which again proves that Chinese and Japanese geographical names are true exonyms.
The simplification in Japan and mainland China developed differently, thus sometimes creating a variety of version for the same name - Japanese, Chinese simplified and Chinese traditional.
To user o, who initiated the deletion: There is a big number of monolingual lists in the Wikipedia. You might to review them before trying to delete someone's efforts. You suggested to improve, why not instead of being destructive be productive and improve the article instead? I suggest Korean and Vietnamese may be a candidate for a separate article, as they don't have a Kun'yomi concept, which makes Japanese and Chinese so different (more different than modern Chinese vs On'yomi. --Atitarev (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like it might be appropriate to Chinese Wiktionary or possibly Wikibooks, but not here. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Auke Bay. None of the material in the article was sourced to acceptable sources so there isn't much to merge, but of course editors can add info to Auke Bay that's sourced to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Ranch Bible Camp[edit]

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

This was a no consensus keep earlier this year but there's still no evidence of notability. Still fails WP:ORG because the trivial RS coverage just talks about the camp offering camp programs. Nothing that establishes notability or differentiates it from any other camp. Thoughts? TravellingCari 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim to notability, nor any evidence that it exists. There aren't any sources cited, and there don't appear to be any. Bfigura (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:ORG "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Google News has a dozen Juneau Empire stories on the camp, a couple Anchorage Daily News, a Capital City Weekly (also Juneau), and a Mount Vernon reference (Washington state, presumably?). There's one Google Book mention. All those are reliable and independent, and there's a ton of unaffiliated churches whose websites mention the camp, too. It's an important place in a sparsely populated state, and meets the notability guides as written. Granted, the article does need to be augmented and cleaned up. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "mentioning" the camp doesn't mean it's notable. I'm mentioned in Google and my company is mentioned too -- neither of us is notable just because we exist. Local camps (like churches) generally aren't notable except for some factor that makes the exception. TravellingCari 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest merging with Auke Bay, Alaska (where it is), cutting the article down to a single paragraph with an external links as a reference. This is commonly a satisfacotry solution for articles on local facilities.

Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 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, ffm 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: fails WP:ORG. Tavix (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Auke Bay: I created this page with the view that this camp was notable enough in the state to be worth mentioning. I also created it in the hopes that people could come by with more information to spruce the page up. Looking back, I still think it's notable enough to mention, but perhaps it's not notable enough for its own page. Admiral Memo (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable ORG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N & WP:ORG. --Googlean (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an organization has to be in Encyclopedia Britannica before it can be notable, why bother with Wikipedia at all? Seems significant & notable in its own realm.Swimmer1207 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly this class of articles needs to make a good case for notability and this one fails. If someone wants to merge this into the settlement article feel free to do so outside of this AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Duality[edit]

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

Future album, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums until it is released or there is sufficient verifiable material. AmaltheaTalk 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Lineman Training Center[edit]

Southeast Lineman Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not demonstrate that the center meets Wikipedia's generally accepted standards for inclusion for organizations. The links at the bottom prove that the center exists but in each case, the coverage was either trivial (a passing reference in an article primarily about a different topic) or traced back to self-published materials (such as a press release). My own search failed to turn up any credible evidence other than self-promotional materials.
The primary contributor to this article appears from the chosen username to have a conflict of interest and declined to provide any new evidence of notability during the period that the page was in "proposed deletion" status. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepNotability and WP:ORG are satisfied by substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, including a Knight/Ridder News service article[54], an article in the Scottsboro, Alabama Daily Sentinel [55], and an article in the Chattanooga Times/Free Press [56]. There is nothing "passing" or "trivial" about these articles. The nominator may see these as "promotional" or as originating in press releases by the subject school, but the vast majority of articles about companies in the mainstream press also result from press releases. No one put a gun to the heads of the editors of these newspaper and compelled them to write stories about the school, nor can it be assumed that they automatically print stories about every school which sends them a press release, nor is it shown that the stories are simple reprints of press releases. Edison (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources supplied above seem to meet WP:N fairly easily. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most basic criteria of WP:N. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars marathon[edit]

Star Wars marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacking WP:RS to confirm this is a genuine cultural phenomenon, I don't see the notability of this article. I am also wondering whether the marathon includes The Star Wars Holiday Special (what's worse -- Jar-Jar Binks in Episode 1 or Beatrice Arthur singing in the Holiday Special?) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice references, JediLofty, but that takes us in another direction -- you are pointing out standalone, one-shot marathon screenings tied to a specific anniversary (the notability of that is questionable, I think). The article is making this marathon viewing appear to be some sort of a regular happening where people watch all of the films. Or am I off-base? (At least no one is slamming Jefferson Starship's appearance in the Holiday Special.) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references go some way to proving that the term "Star Wars Marathon" is a frequently-used term. I've been party to several AfDs where the subject of an article has shifted significantly during the debate, so maybe this is one of those cases. There are a few more very good results from the Google search I did last night that I will include when I get the chance. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another couple of references that go towards verifying the original direction of the article. One interesting idea that I'd not thought of doing before is to watch Episodes IV and V, then watch Episodes I, II and III as a flashback, then finish with Episode VI. I think I might have to try that when I have a spare day! -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep However this article needs expansion. I think we can all agree star wars marathons happen relatively frequently, movie theaters have specials for just such occasions, etc. However, more sources stating this and in general a better overview of the "phenomenom" would be required. --Banime (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Star Wars. Can be summarised in three or four sentences, which doesn't necessitate a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Expand - Very worthwhile, but needs filling out.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Star Wars. The original movies were a cultural phenomenon that created the "desire" for marathons - it's been done since with The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. There is no need to include a separate article, but can be included with the original when discussion importance of the phenomenon itself. BMW(drive) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that this article should be kept. It is a genuine phenomonen amongst Star Wars fans, and this can be proved by a simple online search. Yes, there have been official Star Wars marathons, but the phenomenon exists outside of that as it is an event that most Star Wars fans will have experienced, either publically or in the comfort of their own homes. I suggest that the article remains. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a foo marathon is where fans watch all the films in the foo franchise back to back. End of, really. Back when I saw my first one of these, there was no neologism for it. Makes no odds. This belongs on a fan-wiki, not Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Please do not try to avert deletion by bloating the article with material from unreliable sources like fanpop and ehow. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't know of this 'Foo' of which you speak, but I understand what you are saying. If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that it is possible for any film franchise to have a marathon. This of course is correct, however the Star Wars marathon is a notable phenomenon and the most popular of any such events, therefore it is my opinion that the article does belong on Wikipedia and should be kept. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Do we need Sex and the City marathon and every other Foo marathon there is? This is essentially no more than a dicdef and a directory of previous Star Wars marathons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing cultural about this marathon. Ottre 08:00, 27 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 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Merge. This is a weird one. It meets WP:N pretty clearly, but in my personal opinion, isn't something we want to here. But I don't see a policy problem. So IAR and weak delete. Weird for an inclusionist. Changed mind: The problem I have with this, is that I think, while notable, it's too trivial for an article. And the Star Wars merge just seemed wrong. But a merge to "movie marathon" or some such would be fine. That let's us keep notable material and not have this article... Hobit (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. Genuine cultural phenomenon, also predicted in various science fiction novels. (I think it shows up in Neuromancer but maybe I'm mis-remembering.) Would also support creating an article about marathon screenings of this sort in general as an alternative to this one. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has no use on Wikipedia as marathons have no reason to have an article on Wikipedia whatsoever due to their lack of notability. Whats next, an article about every time Regis Philbin went to bed?. Mythdon (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I can see the value in an article on the phenomenon of marathon screenings and suggest that an article on this would be a better idea. I think I recall recent marathon screenings of Rocky, Die Hard and Alien. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry Its been five days now......when will we find out if this article is to stay or go? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the ridiculous decision to remove this article is made, can an appeal be made? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another five days from now. Ottre 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC) WP:DRV. Ottre 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality (company)[edit]

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

I originally speedied this per CSD:A7 but the user has requested I restore it. The source [57] is provided and I think it's enough to get over the hurdle of A7 speedy deletion. Still recommend delete for failing to meet WP:CORP, but in the slow fashion rather than speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure why you couldn't go ahead with the speedy regardless of what you were shown in the background. The pertinent issue for the speedy deletion is that the article doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the company. It still doesn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability requires reliable sources, which, to me, is exclusive to sources with a wikipedia page. Ergo, A7 is still on the table. Mystache (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't even think of casting judgement on this until someone skilled in the arts tells me if the "HAL" is a notable piece of multi-processor architecture. If these guys have dibs on an interesting piece of technology, they're notable straightaway. If they're just someone's employer, then they have to grind through WP:CORP line-by-line like the rest of the schmucks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not a speedy. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think there is enough reliable sources in the page. Please remove the deletion flag. Gnumer (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion notice will remain for five days while the article is discussed here. After that period an uninvolved administrator will judge the consensus here and determine whether the article will be kept or not. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 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 spedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towers Productions[edit]

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

Unnotable production company: The page is written like an advertisement/essay and there are no reliable sources to verify any of the claims. All in all, its just a bunch of original research of an unnotable company. Tavix (talk) 00:23, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Juggs[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Article has had a notability tag since December 2007. Epbr123 (talk) 17:15, 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, treelo radda 00:21, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old school[edit]

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

Article talks only about a term and its etymology. It is not in any way about a subject or topic. This is purely a dictionary entry. It's different in kind from, for example truthiness which actually talks about the underlying meaning, and the reactions to it, and the forces that lead to the concept (rather than the term). This article is simply about a term and multiple meanings of it to boot. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the page goes into some depth about the application of the term and its scope is significantly beyond that which you might find in a dictionary. Undoubtedly, there are multiple issues but those are for editorial action. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is encyclopedic or not is not about how much is written about it. It's about whether the term is used for a single thing or multiple things. In this case it's multiple, so it's a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia one. If you like the article, please copy it over to the wiktionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other issues are also on topic here. But even if it was referenced, it would still be about a term not a subject/topic/concept. The article right now is not salvageable. Perhaps an encyclopedic entry could be written. This isn't it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Old School isn't a dicdef, it's a state of mind. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article, meets our standards. already goes into appropriate depth for an encyclopedia articel, but could be expanded significantly.DGG (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF#Wikipedia is not a usage guide which is policy. The length of the entry is irrelevant as explained by this policy: However, note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length.... It is the nature of the content which determines the application of this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a usage guide, which is an explanation of how to write or speak--the WP Manual of Style, for example, is a usage guide. Its a description of the significance of a phrase. The material here is currently such as would fit is either a dictionary or encyclopedia, and could be expanded to make it even more encyclopedic. It's thus the suitable beginning of an article. DGG (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My usage and understanding of the term usage guide in this context is that the article is a lengthy catalogue of the usage of this phrase. The article does not discuss phrases with equivalent meaning such as old-fashioned and so is about particular words rather than about the topic which they describe. It thus fails the WP:DICDEF policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per col. warden. It is a dicdef. A good proportion of the "usage" section is OR. I take a narrower view than Warden on the issues of dicdefs in wikipedia (See the nucular deletion debate), but this one still falls into that category for me. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef, OR and borderline WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is not just a DICDEF. It goes in length to describe a variety of situations in which the term is used in popular culture and society, with references included. Sebwite (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just usage of a term! Article's are not suppose to be about terms, they're about a topic. There's no sense that the different usages of the term are the same topic here. The topics here in the article are 'old school in X' but the X's don't overlap. And there's not different terms that mean the same thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not a mere dicdef and Wikipedia has many articles about slang terms. --Pixelface (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give us the list then, and I can AFD them also, if they're purely about a term and the different ways they're used.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add more subject-specific content besides term-specific. -- chAlx 07:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.236.126 (talk)
There isn't any underlying subject. That's the problem. The subject is the term. If the article picked one of them like 'old school reggae' or something that would be fine. But you can't have an article on every different sort of 'old school'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this may work better as a disambiguation page Sebwite (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or merge with school of thought: WP:NAD states that encyclopedic articles are "articles...about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." This article informs us about things that the concept "old school" denotes: religious denominations, music, cars, video games, etc. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly the problem. This article isn't on a single topic. It's about multiple things that are all to do with a term. Encyclopedia articles are on a single thing that isn't merely different usages of a term. Different topics go in different articles in an encyclopedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If encyclopedia articles are about things with agreed-upon definitions, then I guess we'd better nominate truth and justice for deletion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Careful here. There has to be a single topic, not a single definition of the topic. Radically different definitions do call for different articles though (that would be a different topic).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topics don't seem to be so disparate as to warrant, say, a disambiguation page. The term seems to have originated with religion, and it now appears to apply primarily to the arts, especially music. Simple enough. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, old fashioned which is a synonym of this, is a disambiguation page.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good argument. It more or less reduces this to a prefix than a concept in of itself.
Peter Isotalo 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old-fashioned is an adjective that can refer to just about anything. Old school is primarily an aesthetic/musical concept. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. "Aesthetic/musical" is still a huge area. It's much too diffuse to be appropriate as an encyclopedic topic. As pointed even by some keepers, it would be much more useful as a dabpage.
Peter Isotalo 09:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...looks like such a page already exists: Old school (disambiguation). Could certainly be expanded, though. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary definition + usage guide + example farm... nothing encyclopedic. --Rividian (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, and especially the old fashioned-example. Peter Isotalo 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The multitude of use-case mentions have a serious case of recentism. (The term was widely used before your great-grandfather was born, and none of the mentioned stuff was even new-school yet.) If you strip them out, all that is left is a dicdef. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:10, 27 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 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and Change to disambiguation While I do favor keeping for the most part, this would make a perfect disambiguation page, as it already lists various terms with articles for which the phrase "old school" is associated with. Sebwite (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the phrase has transcended it's original use and extends into all age groups and races, even if it means slightly different things to each. An article is appropriate, and since wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, it is exactly what it exists for. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A phrase that no longer has any reasonably cohesive meaning is a classic example of a dicdef. The article doesn't describe "old school" as a concept, but rather a group of semantic meanings. There is nothing in the article that refers to anything written about anything other than the usage of "old school". The article could theoretically be kept if someone digs up plenty of reliable sources that actually discuss the phrase itself. Simply describing how it is applied is a description of language usage, and that's not in the scope of encyclopedias, paper or electronic, but of dictionaries, one of which happens to be a sister project. Peter Isotalo 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many words in the dictionary have multiple modern meanings, that are modified from their original use. But we're still talking about meanings, as in, definitions... definitions belong in a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing moderator: none of the calls so far for keep are addressing the policies in any way here. All of the comments that do address the policies call for deletion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I could've sworn that my "Strong keep" began with a direct quotation of policy, namely WP:NAD itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there has only been one quotation of policy then. But you only quoted one sentence of the policy, and not the part that the article is being AFD for having contravened. If that works as a valid defence then I'm a monkey's uncle.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been expanded well beyond a dicdef. This is one of relatively few slang terms for which an article genuinely seems possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an argument raised in just about every word-article AfD these days, but I've never actually seen it expanded upon. Formatting dictionary information (etymology, usage, synonyms, semantic meanings, spelling variants, etc.) to look encyclopedic does not render that information encyclopedic. So what part of the article is actually verifiable encyclopedic information that doesn't belong in separate articles? Peter Isotalo 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into disamb page: I the nominator, after reading the above I'm going to call for turning this into disamb page; failing that Delete. For the record, it looks like a perfect dicdef to me, but even if it was magically somehow beyond that, that wouldn't make it automatically an encdef.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mainly due to lack of sources, although this vote should not be assumed to mean support for speedy deleting a recreated article that does have sources. There ought to be sources for at least in the context of electronic dance music, on the other hand, I'm not sure there's anything that can be said that isn't already covered at rave. Similarly any other sections for which sources might exist are probably better off covered in the relevant articles. Turning into a disambiguation page is a possibility, but only where the terms are supported by reliable sources - which we don't have for most of these (on that note, is a tag page on last.fm considered a reliable source?). If this article is kept, we need to find sources, or remove unsourced material if it can't be found (recently someone tried to add the term "old school" to goth slang - it was rightly removed due to lack of sources, but I don't see why it should be allowed to remain here without sources either). Mdwh (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd clarify that the sources need to discuss the term "old school", not the topics that it is used to describe. Those belong in the articles of the respective music genres and aesthetic forms. And mere attestation of usage is not enough either, no matter how long or good the prose gets. Wikipedia is not supposed to keep track of how terms are applied. That's the job of the wiktionarians. Peter Isotalo 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page - Francis Tyers · 07:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old's cool! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For me, the whole argument above about whether or not it is a dictionary definition is off track. The real issue here is that this is original research. The only references are to places on the web that use "old school" as an adjective to describe something. While this does support the "it's a dicdef" side, what's more important to me is that while it all may be true, it is all based on primary sources gathered through OR. Not acceptable, sorry.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11) by Gwen Gale. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MatrixLloyd[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. Tagged notab since June 2008, with no significant additions. 595 Google hits. This looks more like a vanity article for back links, over anything else Trident13 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of scripture[edit]

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

Appears to be a soapbox with a couple of spam links, broken links, mainly citations that fail wp:rs, with some OR to boot PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hi - I've added the article. I understand it fails to comply with many of wikipedia's rules, as do many new articles added from public domain sources, however, I hope that myself and other interested editors can rectify that. The article is relevant to wikipedia as it describes an important aspect of the evangelical Christian understanding of the Bible which isn't accurately or clearly described by other articles in the area like Biblical literalism.NZUlysses (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that Ten Pound Hammer wrote this article on theopedia.com, or that he added it to wikipedia? I have copied the article from theopedia.com and can assure you I have no relation to that wikipedia user - I've never heard of him! I could be accused of not knowing appropriate rules for adding articles, since I'm not a frequent editor - do you want to make a case in that vein? NZUlysses (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't jump to conclusions. I'm TenPoundHammer, that was just my signature. I think that the article's soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my apologies. I know the article is not NPOV yet but clarity of scripture is an important part of some forms of evangelical doctrinal positions. Isn't it better to revise the article to come from a more neutral point of view, including more criticism of the doctrine? NZUlysses (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to introduce the concept (if valid) to an article, from scratch, and expand from there. When you start so far off base, there isn't much of a chance it will get to develop as there are more people who find fault with it than there are that willing to fix it. Short version: not having the article is better than a very very bad one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I don't think it's that bad though - I've created the article in order to further discussion of beliefs on the Biblical literalism page. There's probably no scholarly work done to support Biblical literalism; however, the clarity of scripture article does cite one scholarly paper from a seminary about perspicuity of scripture. See my points on the article's discussion page. NZUlysses (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that at this point, the article appears to be a mere seven hours old. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And clean-up POV and Soapboxing concerns. Articles should avoid having criticism sections, including "Pro" and "Con" links and references. Instead, per WP:NPOV these should be presented dispassionately and in conjunction presenting the reader with well sourced content from which they can draw there own conclusions. As for sources Google books show 400+ hits including a handful that seem devoted to the subject. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify - notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a problem with that *if* we get 100% away from the current version, which is fatally flawed, and insure it never rears its ugly head again. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable, part OR, per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Notability seems to have been established with an abundance of sources, OR is a problem to be fix through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of easily accessible, reliable source material Google books, Google scholar, Google news. Not soapboxy (at least not as of this post). Seems like an ordinary article conveying information about a Protestant Christian position teaching. -- Suntag ☼ 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD isn't the place to clean up articles. It's verifiable and notable, the article needs a lot of work, but that's not to say it's deletion worthy. If there is OR, remove it. If needed, stubify and rebuild. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, soapboxery and synthesis. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing blatant OR or soapboxing in the current version, which contains very little of the original import from Theopedia (which I agree was wholly inappropriate). The subject itself is clearly notable and if there are any remaining problems which I haven't spotted, they can be easily dealt with by stubbing it further. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per improvements and obvious notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 albums, delete the songs.. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (album)[edit]

The Crowd (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Got No (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Take Warning (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Artificial Life (song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lint Rides Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Missionary (song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hedgecore (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seedy (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Energy (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable album by band that may or may not be notable, also listing articles for each song, which are even less notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep albums, delete songs Clubmarx (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep on Energy: arguably the defining record of an entire style, 3rd-wave ska. In fact, nomination of this just indicates to me a worrying lack of research. Keep on the other albums. Delete the songs as n.n. and not worthy of redirects because incorrectly namespaced. tomasz. 11:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motherload Metals & Minerals[edit]

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

Prod on grounds that WP is not a game guide removed by sole editor. There is no article for Motherload (which might be appropriate). Richhoncho (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is, it is a list of minerals in a "free online game" that is not notable. In this circumstance, non-notability would be inherited. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a non-notable list about in-game things. Not appropriate for its own article. --Banime (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:08, 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 keep Nominator has otherwise troublesome edits, so this may be a WP:POINTy nomination. Either way, WP:SNOW seems to be applying here. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dark flow[edit]

Apparantly, this article exists prematurely. YouthoNation (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Perhaps its not a mature article, but there is a press release and a paper, and its by serious scientists with serious data. I think it should be kept and allowed to develop as new releases come out.Likebox (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a recently discovered significant movement of not just one galaxy, not just one cluster of galaxies, but at least 700 clusters of galaxies. The scientific work has been noted as important by many reputable sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has references, and seems to be an emerging scientific theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintrick (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It already has a couple solid references (notable) and could provide data important to our future understanding of cosmology (important) - Jrissman (talk) 22:07, 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.
  1. ^ Caldwell, Robert (1875). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Languages. London: Trübner & Co. p. 23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_28&oldid=1081071621"