Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge into Dancing with the Stars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Dance (Live)[edit]

This page hasn't enough information. It is referenced, the song is just a promotional single and there's no music video for it. It should be deleted or redirected to patent album's page.Voices4ever (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Belongs in Dancing with the Stars, not as an independent article.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Promo-only releases are generally not notable. Nothing present supports an article for this song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:37, 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. X clamation point 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notebook hockey[edit]

Contested prod. The lead sentence of the article is also its deletion rationale: Notebook Hockey is a newly invented table game. See WP:SCRABBLE. Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things you made up four days ago. Try again when there are some reliable sources to show that this game is notable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up by article author, non-notable, non-encylcopedic. Rob Banzai (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedy? --Klein zach 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally something made up in school one day. How about not? gnfnrf (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely and totally bogus. There is not a snowball's chance in hell this can or should be retained. JBsupreme (talk) 09:18, 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 Speedy delete g1, complete bollocks, yet another "word we made up that means whatever we want it to mean", WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duuechkie[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism with no assertion of notability except for local usage. No sources. Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would you like us to list as a source? Its kind of hard for us to prove that its commanly used in our community other then taking our word for it. Big lad7 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's the whole problem right there. See, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it requires all of its content to be verifiable, so "taking your word for it" is something we just cannot do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then what would you take to verify it?Big lad7 (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources deemed reliable. Finding them is up to you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VG ☎ 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google search on this word spelled exactly as in the title of the article returns zero results. For some reason, even the Wikipedia article doesn't show up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:22, 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. X clamation point 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying High (album)[edit]

No sources to show that the album is real, Google Search for the album brings up 0 results. Edgehead 5150 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. What's the big rush? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of pre-release hype. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax and/or WP:CRYSTAL. —97198 (talk) 08:22, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schiel & Denver Publishing[edit]

Contested prod. Created as an advertisement by User:Schieldenver, company has no products released yet. (WP:FUTURE) JRP (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Schieldenver has been banned since contesting the prod. Speedy Delete may be warranted, but I am unsure of the process in this case. JRP (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (corporations). So tagged. Speedy tagging can be done at any time if an article qualifies, unless its history shows at least one revision that does not. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy I think it would be cleaner if it were deleted this way after the discussion, so I removed the tag; it does in my opinion not really fit a7. I note the user was banned only for having a promotional user name, not for misbehavior. I deplore the practice of doing this without warning, and while an afd on the article is pending, and then trying to speedy the article as well. Reminds me of rushing a suspect to execution. The normal process will work well enough. DGG (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) delete i originally prodded the article as i identified the company as being a really new one with no actual releases yet. However i agree with DGG that this is not a speedy, as its not blatantly non notable. Thats why we got prod/afd Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed this one too. Let the afd decide. What is this rush to cut off discussion? The very person who placed the prod wants to continue the afd, just above. DGG (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedied. Blatant advertising and nothing but blatant advertising. Themfromspace (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Stubify - The amount of info currently available does provide Verifibility. WP is not paper and can afford to keep as a Stub. As it is "late 2008", it should soon start active publication. "Blatant advertising", no, a G11 does not fit.Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it hasn't achieved enough notability for inclusion yet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the time to start the article is when they actually publish and have some books that attract attention, even if not notable enough for articles at first. Then there will be something to talk about, and some sources. DGG (talk) 02:37, 5 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. X clamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Jaspan[edit]

I am requesting deletion because I feel this guy isn't notable enough. A quick search for reliable sources turned up nothing for me except for an orthopedic surgeon of the same name. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable "local business owner" in New Jersey. ~~SIS~~ 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some reliable sources can come up which demonstrate his notability. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - he does appear to have some minor amount of recognition outside of his councillor activities. This article is about him and his family hardware store. And there is coverage of him as a secondary subject in the New York Times such as this and this. If there were more coverage of him and his hardware store, I'd be inclined to keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirognomy[edit]

Google shows that compared with chiromancy, this term is very little used. The article has only one unreliable) source. The subject itself is, of course, abject nonsense, but in this case it does not look to me to be notable nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's fairly notable nonsense, but the article is just an exact copy of one paragraph in the Chiromancy article. It doesn't add any other info or sources. Delete (or redirect back to Chiromancy). ~~SIS~~ 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to parent Chiromancy. Verbal chat 19:46, 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 Withdraw per reviews found. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small World (2008 novel)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this.Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are a couple of reviews of his book one and two -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just needs editing to bring it up to standards. Michaelritchie200 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Test (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show, which has almost as much information on him in the main article. No indication that this was considered first. We have real problems to discuss at AfD without having to consider obvious redirects such as this DGG (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Articles asserts no notability but this is the main character of the show. Maybe it's a searchable item. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is nothing obvious to merge and title is unlikely search term. Articles violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N otherwise. AfD saves the trouble of endless fan filibustering, edit wars and arbcom sanctions, so coming here directly is alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:35, 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 merge to The Adventures of Little Carp. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laipi[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree there's no point in a stand-alone article, but a merge would be appropriate. Or if the whole series is thought to minor, at least a redirect. No evidence thatt he nom considered either possibility. DGG (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Little Carp, reasoning per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Little Carp. Not enough info for a seperate article. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 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. No list of characters to merge to; series not notable enough to create list. Malinaccier (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheus Superman (1988 TV series)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable character list--one may have to be created. Or, possibly, resurrected in previous deleted--I do not immediately see anything obvious.. Character lists are the way to deal with these articles. DGG (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very weak merge. He appeared in one episode of an animated cartoon that ran for 13 eps - come on. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 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 List of Jem characters. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Raymond (Jem)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jem characters which already contains the same information. Could have been done without coming here. DGG (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course the article can and should be improved with reference to additional sources. There's plenty of reason to call on the article to be improved, but not deleted. —mako ๛ 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ^{(Note: I am the original creator of the article).}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to List of Jem characters. Redundant. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to List of Jem characters. There's ample information there. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can always add more detailed information here. Hackfish (talk) 23:39, 4 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. X clamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Paris (EP)[edit]

EP, unsourced since one year, fails WP:MUSIC, and is probably completely false information (particularly in light of her new album).
Prod declined by an anon user. Amalthea^Talk 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per what the article says: The EP rumored that will be released in 2008 or February 2009. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not exactly. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced speculation. I even found one fansite that referred back to this article as a "rumor". Congratulations, we are now less reliable than http://www.parishiltonsite.net/ --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 4 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 The Adventures of Little Carp. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles (The Adventures of Little Carp)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect or merge to the main article The Adventures of Little Carp. As usual. DGG (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect since no notability is established, but no merge. Article contains unencyclopedic sections like "Friends" and "Enemies" and nothing really usefull. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Little Carp. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 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. X clamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arzt Diät[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be worthy of a merge to main for the series, but series doesnt have page. Mystache (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and edit accordingly to make an beginning on a n article for the show. The redirect will be useful. Moves don't need AfD. DGG (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a HOAX? All given titles/names are German (strange for a Latvian cartoon). Why would www.ArztDiät.de be inaccessible outside of Latvia (not to mention that umlauts in URLs are a pretty recent thing, although not impossible)? No evidence on google that this cartoon existed at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latvia. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is a hoax. The only reference is a website in the ".de" (Germany) domain, said to be not avaiable outside "Latvian-speaking countries". (All one of them?!) Latvia's domain is .lv. Besides, between 1976 and 1987 it is unlikely that any "educational" cartoon produced in the Latvian SSR would have a German title, and make fun of fat people. —Zalktis (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax. User only created this article. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:11, 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarch[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Galactik Football Most of the material seems to be WP:PLOT summary, and when removed the article would be left with almost nothing. There doesn't seem to be that much worth merging. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--whether additional information needs to be merged is for the talk page. I have no idea how important this series is -- conceivably its worth a detailed tratment but thats up to the people who know and care. There might be reason to consider it., for the frWP, which usually is rather restrictive on popular culture, has rather full treatment for the series. DGG (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) Redirect to main show because of WP:NOT#PLOT. Other characters of the same show need attention also. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note: I've changed name. Because we've got D'Jok (Galactik Football) character article and Aarch is a Galactik Football character, so the article name must be Aarch (Galactik Football)... And you can check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactik_Football#Aarch_.5BCoach.5D --Sabri76 (talk) 10:40, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Cangeopol[edit]

Notability Canis Lupus 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please elaborate on what what part of notability it does/doesn't meet? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article would benefit from a rewrite, but the subject seems to satisfy WP:N per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has plenty of references that take it way over the notability bar - they're just not formatted in the standard way. There are more sources found by Google Books and Google Scholar searches. I must also add that this must be just about the laziest AfD nomination I've seen (and I've seen plenty of lazy ones). The nominator clearly didn't look at the sources in the article, and couldn't even be bothered to write more than one word in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 4 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 04:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Strike[edit]

This article completely fails NPOV and Verifiability. The concept of men refusing marriage as a political protest might be notable, but that would be better represented as a section in Arguments against marriage. The few useful parts of the article have been merged to a section there. The article is nothing but arguments why men should not marry, and the arguments are not attributed to anyone. The references are about declining marriage rates and provide support for some of the arguments, but do not describe the topic of the article ("Marriage Strike") at all. Rather, it is an original synthesis to form an argument. I suggest redirecting to Arguments against marriage and deleting the current redirect Male attitudes toward marriage. I did redirect Marriage Strike myself, but it was reverted several times. There is some discussion on the talk page. Apoc2400 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Please do not allow political censorship dilute Wikipedia. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.221.154 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR. ~~SIS~~ 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a NEW "marriage strike" page,the article was completely rewritten, with excellent citation etc, neutral point of view, overcoming all the objections listed above. The new marriage strike article offers discussion of current topics regarding the present day sociology of marriage avoidance. Arguments against marriage article is more historical and political in nature.The newly written Marriage Strike page should NOT BE DELETED.Daxmac (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)daxmac[reply]

KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daxmac (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been less than 12 hours since I lasted posted in the discussion/talk page on the article and its already been deleted? How come no one is interested in actually discussing these things or getting a third party opinion or mediation or any of the other normal paths taken to resolve disputes? hmmm... Jwri7474 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted again on the talk page. Hopefully we can come to a compromise here. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been deleted yet. This page is for discussing if the page should be deleted. The discussion will be open for several days unless it is deemed obvious, then it will be closed by an administrator. This is a method for getting third opinions since many editors review articles listed for deletion. You can read more about the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see other ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 30. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a polemic in places. Essentially OR. I was expecting this to be about the (small and itself not particularly notable) practice of heterosexual couples refusing to get married until equal rights are extended to same-sex couples. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please consult the topic talk page. Please note that the article has been significantly changed since Apoc2400's first attempt at a biased, unilateral blank/merge, with no prior discussion. The article is verifiable, with cited and referenced sources. The article is written in a neutral 'voice'. Apoc2400 just up and blanked 'Marriage Strike' earlier, with zero discussion, or community consultation. Now, failing that attempt, Apoc2400 is attempting to kill this page by any means possible. DesertTruffle (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comments on the talk page read somewhat like a threat to recreate the page, contrary to consensus, if it should be deleted. This would seem to be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. As it is, the article under consideration is original research by means of a novel synthesis of sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect As it stands the article is an original synthesis that uses Wikipedia as a soapbox - as indicated by the nominator. Attempts to get the current SPAs to address the problems with the article have not been successful. There may be encyclopedic content above that already added to Arguments against marriage but if so evidence of it has not emerged. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is actually a pretty common sociological term, though it may be more common in the US. A look through Google News Archive[1] shows many examples of use, with recent articles as well as turn-of-last-century material i.e. URGES A MARRIAGE STRIKE.; Emma Goldman Tells East Side Girls to Wait. And no, nobody is suggesting a there's an actual "strike" against marriage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe this to be a common term, the research is almost all original under WP:NOR and it is poorly organized. I could be convinced that it is notable under WP:NN if there were some non-original research available for the existing points and the areas in desperate need of citation could be filled. However, it would still require another complete re-write. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I've been hearing this term since around the time of the original Rutgers study; as Squidfryershef has mentioned, Google turns up many hits. Today the phrase mostly refers to younger men not wanting to get married, but the article could use some more info on earlier usages. The 'analogous points in history' section should probably be dumped; we have no idea how the current 'marriage strike' movement will turn out. How about some charts illustrating the decline of marriage, and increasing age of first marriage, in Western countries? Heian-794 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please recognize that the opinions of SiobhanHansa are highly biased. SiobhanHansa has a long history of activism against articles she is personally at odds with. SiobhanHansa is colluding with Apoc2400 to attack this page on personal grounds. As SiobhanHansa has said on the Marriage Strike talk page - she essentially didn't like the fact that rates of marriage have fallen due to men's choice in the matter. SiobhanHansa did not like this information. The mask 'slipped'.

SiobhanHansa could not find other another plausible explanation to explain away the fall in marriage rates. See her sandbox - she tried hard. So, in attempting to delete information about the Marriage Strike, she has decided to hide information from herself and others that does not fit her world view. Strong, long-term bias from SiobhanHansa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertTruffle (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my attempt at a rewrite in my sandbox I wasn't looking for a plausible explanation for the fall in marriage rates - because the article isn't about fall in marriage rates in the USA the article is about the subject marriage strike. If the article were on the fall in marriage rates then I would have a whole different set of issues with it! Please do not ascribe intent to my actions - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. -- SiobhanHansa 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed your Tag_team_editors collusion work below so that the record is clear for others. DesertTruffle (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion between SiobhanHansa on Apoc2400's talk page about deleting Marriage Strike[edit]

This morning while you were redirecting I was having a go at a rewrite. Rather than revert your redirection I pasted my edits into a sandbox. It's in no sense a good or finished article but provides a little more depth to the term than the current Arguments against marriage paragraph. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be a good alternative to redirecting the article. A significant part of me favors the redirect because I think it will be easier to ensure less POV pushing long term. But I spent a few hours putting the rewrite together so have a certain attachment to seeing that information in the encyclopedia if appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] There will be a lot of overlap, but your version provides a good view on the history of marriage criticism. The term "marriage strike" itself doesn't seem all that important, but marriage-critical activism and writing certainly is. Still, would it be possible to merge the two articles? Arguments against marriage is in quite bad shape too, and could certainly use a rewrite. I like the idea of separating it into historical periods since the criticism of marriage and marriage itself has changed a lot over time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sounds like a good plan but I don't know how much I could help with the more general subject. I did my best on the marriage strike rewrite but really sourcing from a couple of good newspapers isn't exactly great for what is, in the end, sociology. Do you have ideas or sources that could be used to improve and combine the two? Also it looks like there's a bit of an external campaign (or a bunch of sock puppets) getting into the Marriage strike discussion. Might make sense to broaden input so there are more good editors keeping an eye on it before it gets out of hand. Any ideas? -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are some ways to request outside opinions, but it's often hard to make people spend time on something. I'm still considering listing it at AfD since it is essentially a question of deletion. AfD has many regulars the know the Wikipedia policies well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's a blunt but often effective tool :) -- SiobhanHansa 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] I listed it at AfD, discussion here. Please help out if I forgot something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above was copied from User talk:Apoc2400 by User:DesertTruffle. Border added by User:Apoc2400.

Oh, yeah. Reasonable discussion between editors. How simply horrid. Violet (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article seems to sufficiently substantiate the idea that this particular neologism is notable, and not original to Wikipedia. There is no convincing candidate for merger without loss of information. There are some fairly dodgy parts of the article, but nothing that can't be fixed by regular editing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Marriage Strike" has certainly been used by many writers, but for all kinds of different things. This article only about one such case, Men's movement activists suggesting men to boycott marriage because of perceived unfairness to men. They have used the phrase in a small number of opinion pieces (only two are cited, both related to ifeminists.com). The article could be rewritten to include all kinds of "marriage strike", but then it would become an article about criticism of marriage in general, and should be merged with Arguments against marriage (which I think would be better moved to Criticism of marriage. What information would be lost that is not original research or synthesis? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of a "Marriage strike" is distinct from "criticisms of marriage". I'd like to see the article concentrate on the use of the term "marriage strike" by journalists, and how they use it for a variety of situations where people avoid marriage consciously or unconsciously. An article about "criticisms of marriage" would talk about tax issues and divorce rates. While this article obviously needs work and has a ridiculous number of "see also"s, it is not WP:HOPELESS, and a revamped article would still include the material on the Rutgers study. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that with a rewrite in my sandbox. The wording is used in all sorts of ways and doesn't cover one concept. I found my rewrite attempt unsatisfactory because in the end this is a sociology topic - not a journalism one and it becomes a fairly uninformative article if it just lists when the term is used - but I couldn't find good sociology sources for use of the term. The Rutgers study doesn't mention "marriage strike" nor does it draw the conclusion that one gender is refraining from marriage to a greater extent than the other or attribute the reduction in marriage rates to its findings about reluctance to marry by young men. Indeed it finds that most young men want and expect to get married - just not yet. I'm not sure how it would fit into an article on journalists' use of the term except to say that some commentators have used it along with statistics on falling marriage rates to draw the conclusion that there is a marriage strike by men in the US - but it doesn't appear that any actual experts on marriage have drawn the same conclusions (from what I could find). -- SiobhanHansa 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News articles[edit]

I actually went and checked all the articles on Google news ([2]), 101 hits in total.

39 articles are from before 1950 and about all kinds of things. I skipped those.
25 of the remaining 62 don't actually use the phrase marriage strike. Example: Indeed, the Bush Administration's recent proposals to "encourage" marriage strike me as just west of absurd.
7 are about marriage strikes for same-sex marriage, by either individuals or priests.
1 is about Kuwait women, 1 about Japanese women and one is a 1959 article about Israel Arabs striking due to high bride prices (the stuff you find...)
2 I couldn't figure out because it requires payment and I could get around it or understand enough from the Google summary.
1 was a user comment on a news article (Google News must have failed with filtering it)

Remaining are 24 columns or opinions pieces. Removing duplicates there are 13 distinct ones: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. All by eight opinion writers. None of it is actual news coverage.

Our guideline on reliable sources says

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 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.

Since this article was deleted... I would vote to at least expand the current section "men's movement" in the article Arguments against marriage. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Articles fail the verifiability test. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Innocence (band)[edit]

This is a band which allegedly had two top ten albums, yet Google has never heard of them. I agree with User:Guest9999 who tagged it as a likely hoax.

I'm also nominating their alleged albums

Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The "facts" don't add up, more than likely a hoax. ~~SIS~~ 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a likely hoax --Banime (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note For those of you who missed it in the article: "The band has also stated in previous interviews that British musician Sting is an influence, not that they listen to his music, they just respect the fact that he is making it."... This is a joke from Zoolander. -- Swerdnaneb 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 00:40, 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 as failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen Varma[edit]

This article has a number of problems, not the least of which is that there is little in the way of reliable sources to indicate that the subject does in fact hold a world record. I went through a Google search - News, Blogs and Web - to try and come up with solid reliable sources to back up the claim, and wasn't terribly successful. There are a lot of Google hits for Mr. Varma himself, but many of them seem to be variants on this article posted to locations that accept submissions. The two registries that are stated to have declared the successful world record also turn up few Google hits, and I have to wonder about their authority in terms of being an authoritative source for the base claim here. We can lump in the fact that the article has been edited by Jayenvarma (talk · contribs), Musicrecords (talk · contribs) and Worldrecordbassplayer (talk · contribs), and there's some conflict of interest involved as well. I think this needs some discussion as to whether it's an acceptable article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I have tried to clean it up and reference, but at the end of the day, it just doesn't have the sources to show notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the message here, it seemed Jayan Varma was not entirely opposed to the deletion of the article if our notability requirements could not be met. I agree that there just aren't enough reliable sources. --Jh12 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~SIS~~ 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of verifiability, I don't see any inherent notability. There could be notability on two counts: (1) the achievement itself might be notable, or (2) the fact of having had the achievement recorded by some organization might be notable. As for the first case, is strumming a guitar quickly a notable skill, to the extent that anyone cares who does it the most quickly? As for the second case, suppose we could verify that some organization that recognizes world records had him listed for his achievement. For that fact to be notable, it would have to be noted elsewhere in one or more of the usual reliable sources. Otherwise, it means that his being recorded in the annals of that one organization wasn't found notable. Someone might disagree with this perspective, on the grounds that the recognition by the organization itself confers notability. My response is that such organizations often make money by manufacturing "notability" that really doesn't exist. With many of these stunts, the claim that a record has been set is highly suspect. How does anyone know that someone else, somewhere in the world, can't strum or hasn't strummed a guitar even faster? As far as we know, the achievement really amounts to "The person who has strummed the fastest in front of our officials", and as far as we know, that has been only three people. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page: I got reply with a meaning that, the page can not be fully accepted. Hence, I do not want to go deep in to the said subject. But I believe in Truth. Today is the Birth day of Mahatma Gandhi, who fought for truth. Truth is bigger than anything else.I do not want to go ahead with this with my pages filled with notices. So let it be deleted. Let Time proves everything.. Thanks and Regards JV I think that puts this towards a G7 delete at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author has also blanked the page several times. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is basicly a self promo page which makes a neutral POV nearly impossible. The most vocal editor of the page appears to be the subject of the page and based on his posts on varrious talk pages has no understanding of what Wikipedia is about and considers it to be just another Blog

"Though I ve lots of Blogs in the net, I find only few are reliable. I consider Wikipedia as one of the most reputed ones. I agreed to delete my page only when Wikipedia was reluctunt to accept my post. But I wish to inform you that my World Record is very much Official as the Registry of official World Records which does it with Record Holders Republic is a competent Authority."

Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. I also wonder if we are dealing with multiple sock accounts User:Musicrecords, User:Worldrecordbassplayer, and User:Jayenvarma Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had earlier confessed that I was ingnorant of editing rules and that was the reason for making many changes and blanking it out of frustration. Sorry for the same. I ofcourse was dealing it like a blog. But I realise now that WP is such a very reliable and reputed Organisation. I appreciate your comments. And surely, like any other human beings, I am doing it to be noticed and everyone does it as self promo. I am to break my own record end of this month in front of 20000 people in India which will be varified by computer software then and there( this is yet to be confirmed by the organisers after discussion with GWR or RHR). . If anyone can play faster than what I did he can ofcourse break it and I told many people and organisations that I am ready to do demo infront of any great musicians to prove what I did, provided the notes per second should be varified by computer Thanks for all the informations. Regards JV

Comment:No one is denying that you are a record holder. What we (those who have commented to delete) are saying is that the article does not have sufficient sources to demonstrate your notability per the relevant WP policy on notability to be found at WP:BIO and that it crosses the line into self promotion, which is also not allowed: WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks With due respect to the WP editors, I thank for the above comment, which is really objective. I hence request the WP editors that the page may be made as if it doesnt look like self promo. Now, I would appreciate even if the page heading 'Jayen Varma' is changed to meet the WP policy. Regards JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic doesn't meet the criteria for notability, then there isn't any way the article can be rewritten to change that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for getting edited After going through the Rules and Criteria for notability,very carefully, I am convinced that the article requires changes. Now I feel I am not competent to edit it. Therefore I wish to submit the article to the WP Editors to scrutinise it to meet the criteria. Hope this can be accepted after editing by WP editors. Regards, JV

Registry of Official World Records (UK&USA) and Record Holders Republic (UK) in 2008 declared a world record in bass guitar for Fastest Percussive Bass Playing [16]. . The Record is 36 percussive notes per second, played by Jayen Varma from India. Percussive Bass, which is otherwise called slap bass is conventionally played by slapping the strings with Thump and Poping the strings with index and middle fingers. But the precussive bass style adapted by this Indian Bassist is in the same way that the Indian percussion instruments tabla and mridangam are played. Percussive Bass is played mainly in Funk Music, though it is widely used in many music now a days. Percussive bass style has been going through many major changes since it’s evolution in 1920’s and many Bass players play this using different techniques. More information in this can be had from the List of slap bass players (electric bass).

Reference

http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484

External Link

1. http://www.myspace.com/jayenvarma

2. http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/kickapps/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=2700383&as=7691

The Recent Editing suggestion above I went through the notices in my page once again and could see the following notes:- .1)Delete: It is basicly a self promo page which makes a neutral POV nearly impossible 2)This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. But when I looked in to this link: List of slap bass players (electric bass) For Eg; Pl see the profile of the 25th person in the said list. I do not want to name him. I could see that many of such in different profiles look like self promo and autobiographies or biographies of different bass players. Anyway I respect many of the Bassists in the list. Kindly look in to those with a neutral and indiscriminatory view. I however love many of those Bass players and respect them.

However, I have made changes in the above submission to get edited with a view that mine should not look like an autobiography or biography as per the WP policy. I have produced proof for what is written there. I have also received appreciation from many Bass players including the greatestJeff Berlin. In this context, I request to either approve my above suggestion for editing or kindly delete my page at the earliest since it is filled with many notices and that is indirectly affecting my profession. With due respect to all the WP Official Editors. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.'

Based on the aforeread notice in the article's page, editings has been made. I have done it to the best of my knowledge after due discussion with others who are familier in this. Please see if the editing is appropriate. If not it is requested that the article may be approved after making necessary changes as per the WP rules. And if it is not found to be notable, it may be deleted, since it is a long discussed article where there is no false information and proper reference is given. I am doing the editing since the notices are still there in the article's page even now. Thanks for the informations.. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.129.163 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator will decide whether to keep or delete based on the discussion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I request that a decision in this may be taken as early as possible since its a long discussed matter. Regards--Jayenvarma (talk) 01:28, 5 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. Google and google news searches prove notability. Malinaccier (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Oliver (violinist)[edit]

Article was prod'ed but was removed by a new user. The article has no reliable sources and fails notability. Bidgee (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With respects, this search shows ntability in RS exists. Article author should have included them. But thier lack is no reson to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see notability with a standard Google web search, but Google News and Google Book searches don't bring up any reliable sources. Jeremiah (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And your point is what exactly? Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that it may seem notable based on the Google web hits, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's enough reliable information out there to actually source the article. Jeremiah (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The dance group she heads does not appear to be notable (nor is there a claim that it is). The article doesn't cite the conventional indicia of notability for musicians (soloing or playing with notable orchestras, winning competitions, etc.). The list of composers whose work she has performed does not give sufficient context for why those performances are notable, nor does the list of musicians she has performed with.
For you Googlers and other claimers of notability, why not spend a couple minutes improving the article instead of defending it here? Bongomatic (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, you could have done so yourself. Not having notability sourced in an article is no reason to send it to AfD. When I visited earlier, I did not have the time to do more than look or I would have worked on the article then. However, I just spent the last hour at the article and it is much better. Thanks for your patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep the "You could have added sources" off this AfD since this AfD is not the place to discuss who should add what. I will say this, No editor who has not added content to an article should have to source it. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the work that MQS did to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see the article has had work done to it with a better layout and with reliable sources (I don't have any doubts on the sources ATM) but I still feel the article lacks notability which needs to be explained why she's notable? Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe notability in her field is shown by the sourced statement "Her equally brilliant work as an improviser is a rarity in the ranks of first-rate classical interpreters", which shows that even her peers consider her work outstanding... and they'd know better than I. She is qualified as notable under WP:NP subsection WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the sources in the article a Google News search comes up with loads more reliable sources, contrary to what is stated above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 4 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 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barnett[edit]

Disputed PROD. No evidence of notability provided over and above any other business person. The "references" do not actually refer to Mr. Barnett at all. PROD disputed by a new editor, Erroreraser (talk · contribs), as his/her third edit. His/her first edit was this charming message Mattinbgn\^talk 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Note: PROD was disputed with the following edit comment: "Notability is not being notable in Cleveland"[reply]

Fair enough... I'll update the sources so they better reflect 'notableness'... Give me a couple of days. Triki-iki-wiki (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons stated above, no notability. Half the world's population are probably "business people", shall we have an article on them all? Nouse4aname (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These searches ([17], [18], [19]) indeed show he is an Australian businessman. They do not show any special notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find anything showing notability. Seems like an average businessman. --Banime (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable. I went through all of the references cited, including trying to find Mr. Barnett on the list of officers, and was unable to locate him.SunTzuGuy (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable (else half of us are probably worth an article for our real-life business positions).--VS ^talk 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 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 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordana Jenell[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. A quick google search brought no results worth mentioning and she doesn't have much of a claim to notability anyway. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources on Google News or Google Books. Jeremiah (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as the artcle still needs major rewrite and sourcing. Will try other search parameters to look for notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I could not find any additional sources. --Banime (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has an IMDB entry.Delete per nom. Bongomatic (talk) 06:56, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Child Ministries[edit]

Has been speedied once as non-notable group. Almost certainly written by someone with a COI. Short on references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this Google News archive search -- Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current state of the article is not up to Wikipedia standards, but notability is present and an article could be crafted using available reliable sources. Jeremiah (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I couldn't find too many sources myself, most of them were on geocities or something. However, there are a few sources so keep per Eastmain. --Banime (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep. Have just tagged the article for cleanip and rescue. Definitely notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This group has a strong presence on Google and their programs seem important.Ngolo (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — Ngogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sources seem readily available, clean-up via regular editing. -- Banjeboi 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable NPO. - References are mostly self-published the company or websites. Not a single reliable source. The GNews hits - five of them,mind you - are minor mentions. Most Google hits are listings for advertisement, lists of NPO's, or batches of YouTube links and webpages. I fail to see WP:RS or WP:N being met. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 00:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EMIS, ECFA and Guidestar are reliable outside sources. I found many news articles on the internet, too. Topics of the organization's programs appear to be significant.Yazole (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — Yazole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment And how EXACTLY are EMIS, ECFA and Guidestar supposed to be reliable sources? The ECFA entry itself is not notable and is under discussion. What we have in terms of "sourcing" is 25 so called sources: 14 of which are from the company itself, 7 more of which are just non-notable websites, a couple of handbooks which are basically listings, and two news articles. The Ghana Chronicle is hardly the Ghana News or Accra Mail, it's not even as big as the New Ghanan. It's basically an "events" newspaper. The Monitor article is at least direct coverage. But I'm having problems buying the whole "very notable" argument. Having a presence on Google or having important programs or a pile of Geocities pages does not notability make, and the fact that three SPA's decided to weigh in on this issue just makes it more unlikely that we're going to miss anything encyclopedic here.

'Comment'EMIS is the main--no, really the ONLY handbook for Evangelical and Protestant Mission Agencies--found in all libraries of Evang. & Prot. colleges, highly respected within its own community, which is, after all, the topic under discussion. The ECFA listing in Wikipedia may be undersourced, but within the Evangelical community it is certainly a highly respected organization. Sources for it are out there, too. It's just that no one has yet made the effort to put them in Wikipedia. I think the entry for this organization is worth KEEPing.Musoniki

(talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response -- Gee, that still doesn't seem like indepedant coverage. More like "a listing of charities and NPO's." WP:ILIKEIT isn't a keep rationale. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'It's not how big the Ghana Chronicle is that is in question. The GC is a respected source of news on business and education, which is probably why news about this organization's school appears there. One would not expect such a newspaper to be as popular as some others. Many in Ghana are simply tabloids. The Ghana Chronicle, on the other hand, is a serious news source and shows that news from the organization in question is considered seriously in one of the countries where they work.Musoniki (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'I think the ECFA membership of this organization is significant because as a member of the ECFA, they have to submit to and publish an annual audit by an outside CPA, submit to the seven principles of good stewardship described on the ECFA website, and submit annual reports to the ECFA including even examples of advertising put out by the member organization, which are analyzed by them. I know that the ECFA even conducts random on-site visits to check on its members. At least the ECFA provides an independent check on any self-published claims the organization makes. Seems significant to me. Musoniki (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not negotiable. Membership in an organization is *not* notability. If the group is notable, why isn't there coverage? That's all I want to know. I don't want to know your personal opinion on if a list of companies or audits is important, I want to know -- very simply -- why it should be here if it has no notable third party coverage. Third parties are groups that have no stake or direct connection to the group in question -- and obviously if ECM is a member of ECFA that's not an independent relationship. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wiki standards for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer1207 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — Swimmer1207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Upped my "keep" to strong in light of the superb work over the last few hours in improving and sourcing the article. Good job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Most sources are blogs, press-releases, or ECM's own website. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&Keep. Coverage considerable. Ten news & features in newspapers (US) are quoted, as well as one from Ghana and one from Uganda, two magazine features, 3 school & similar sources, not counting references to ECM's own website or others, databases and handbooks.Musoniki (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of references is not a reason for deletion. Nor is COI (since it doesn't seem egregiously non-neutral). Group is notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Pleasure[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested for failing WP:MUSIC. No chart success = not notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am also confused as to how the previous AfD decision was to keep? This decision was not based on policy or consensus. No valid arguments were presented in favour of keeping the articles, whereas they all clearly failed (and continue to fail) the necessary guidelines at WP:MUSIC#Songs. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was confused, too, at the time and opened a DRV. It was left as keep with the option to merge/redirect. Since it was kind of ambiguous, I thought I'd try and get something concrete this time. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, song fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send My Love to the Dancefloor, I'll See You In Hell (Hey Mister DJ)[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested for failing WP:MUSIC. No chart success = not notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, song fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.
Delete According to Billboard, the rock group Cobra Starship only has one charting single, Snakes on a Plane (Bring It), which peaked at #38 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks Chart in 2006. This song did not chart and isn't notable per WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Valleys Club[edit]

Non-notable club, raising a little money for charity. No Secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, obvious original research. Jeremiah (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources could be found. --Banime (talk) 21:04, 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 redirect to ¡Viva La Cobra!. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The City Is at War[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested for failing WP:MUSIC. No chart success = not notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to ¡Viva La Cobra!. Schuym1 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, song fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:21, 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Hot Addiction[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, fails WP:MUSIC. Also note that the user who reverted the redirect (User:Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy) has been making a habit of reverting redirects of persons/songs that fail WP:MUSIC, for instance Mikey Way, Ray Toro and Bob Bryar. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, song fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect According to Billboard, the rock group Cobra Starship only has one charting single, Snakes on a Plane (Bring It), which peaked at #38 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks Chart in 2006. This song did not chart and isn't notable per WP:MUSIC. However, this would be a useful and plausible redirect for the band's album While the City Sleeps, We Rule the Streets where this song appears. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:09, 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 delete a1, no substantive content after copyvio removal. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin K Kayani[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Also, I suspect WP:COI. Prod declined. — X S G 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. — X S G 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had nominated the article for speedy deletion. Not only does the article fail to establish any sort of notability, it is also probably a copyright violation, being copied directly from here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Banime (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~SIS~~ 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice catch! I've removed the WP:COPYVIO material, and now we're left with a page that satisfies conditions for a CSD:A1. We'll see where that goes. Hopefully it'll go bye bye. — X S G 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And now I know about CSD:G12. I'll save some work next time... — X S G 02:03, 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 per WP:SNOW. Maxim_(talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken theories[edit]

Essay-like rambling about the Tekken game series. Tried to prod it, got second vote then author removed my prod. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TL;DR. Seriously, delete, long, rambling essay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's apparently the personal observations and theories of one person. Belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY because tekken is full of theories and not facts so it should stay. Ace2690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace2690 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ace2690 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

STAY because it could be a good page, base on everybodies ways of tekken i think its a good page STAY because all the facts base on tekken stories is and are theories because most of the so called facts about the story are not stated in the game. so they are theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown2020 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Unknown2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

STAY because they right about it all look if you guy want to know why it should stay ask one of namco producers here is her email [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power250 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Power250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:OR; unsourced, rambling personal essay. As an aside, can someone who knows the tag add an "AfD is not a vote" notice on this. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put in a Sockpuppet report based on the vandalism to my user page and similarity between comments and usernames (the same users you see here voting STAY) but the process is just too long and complicated. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle makes things much easier. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the smelly ones on my feet right now? Sure do. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageably incoherent original research, attempt to communicate, and more or less gibberish. Then put all the socks in the wash. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my support of the original prod. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stay because tekken series is good and the page is just looking at the series in a defferent way, i think its cool. --nicrow-- —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 30 September 2008.

— Nicrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Wikipedia is not a blog, a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. Jeremiah (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to draw the page creator's attention to the First Rule of Holes: When you are in one, stop digging. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay The reason why I made this page is so that many fans could come and talk about the tekken game and comics series. many of us has talk to one of the tekken comic producer, and she has told us that many of tekken stories is mix up, the producer says that namco has defferent stories about tekken, and many people have question and theories. So I came up with tekken theories because namco have the game series defferent from the comics series, so i wanted to tell the defference between them, and tell the theories about them from the tekken forum fan web page base on tekken. I still want to work on the language and corrections on the page so that I can make it out of an artical. These are just theories not facts about tekken, these are forum tekken fans theories base on the comics and games series of tekken ––Teriko–– —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:42, 30 September 2008.

— Teriko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dude, haven't you heard the expression "less is more"? Using more words to defend yourself isn't a very effective tactic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY because these theories is good to think about, because the series is alittle mix up. --carvus-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008

Delete - Rambling (and virtually unreadable) essay that completely ignores WP:OR, WP:SOURCES, and WP:SOAP. ~~SIS~~ 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rambling, crufty, in-universe original research. There's probably a Tekken wiki somewhere that would like this, but not Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written WP:OR essay, no good references. --Banime (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to just be for collection of speculation. I found a Tekken wiki but I can't find any "policy pages", so I am unsure whether it would be accepted there. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all of the above; it boggles the mind. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Above users in question have been reported as potential sockpuppets. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- …as well as the three below. MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay because its just explaining the tekken theories, from the facts. --darkryuken-- — darkryuken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stay because its good a little theories about some, life has theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkyaku (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay its pretty cool to wounder about the unknown about tekken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 (talk • contribs) 30 September 2008, 21:42 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: User:pyrocrow doesn't even exist; that edit was made by a numeric IP. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete The place where this is appropriate material is a fan blog. FWIW, a sudden group of users entering irrelevant opinions in terminology other than used here is the most transparent type of puppetry. DGG (talk) 21:46, 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, and redirected to Paris Hilton#As a recording artist. Cenarium ^Talk 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton's second album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's second album

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Album has no name yet. No sources other then an on air interview. Hammer's Law applies. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER indeed. Delete, no verifiable info. Why the hell do peopple do this all the time? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:CRYSTAL—Kww (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons expressed above. RFerreira (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. - eo (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The interview is more than enough verifitable and more than enough reliable....nothing in this article in untrue....everything is 100 % true....all form the interview............, and paris said in the interview that the album will be released "in the next couple of weeks" , so why delete it when its gonna be recreated "in the next couple of weeks"......there are many articles created for yet unreleased albums, so why you want to delete only this one?......CHECKORUP (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's CrystalHammer Time! AlexTiefling (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say, my initial reaction was to remove all links to the new single and the album, as I've done innumerable times, but while the song surely fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, this album passes WP:MUSIC#Albums. I've just listened to the radio interview, and the facts from the article are all confirmed by the primary, reliable source Paris Hilton. And while that interview and thus the album announcement is only a couple of hours old, it is already generating significant noise in the news, and I really don't need a crystal ball to know that this will increase during the next hours or days to become definitely notable (and I urge the closing admin to check this at the time). In particular, it is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, since it is verifiable and of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
I agree that the article creation was premature and could have waited a couple of days, but deleting it now is very POINTy. A merge to Paris Hilton or her discography is the least that we should do, and as before I say we keep it. --Amalthea^Talk 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem is that the announcement is not particularly credible. She finished recording it "a few days ago", and it will be "released in a couple of weeks"? How many albums have you seen that had a 17 day lag from the last recording session to release? Didn't have a title two weeks for release? When I see a record company provide a release date, track list, and title, I'll agree that it isn't crystal. Without those, it clearly is.—Kww (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball --Banime (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see why this shouldn't stay in the artist's article until the title, release date and track list have been verified by reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal hammer. 'nuff said MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this doesn't define crystal ball, nothing does. Even the release date mentioned is vague. Many albums set to be released in X year are released the next year or later. Look at Jennifer Hudson's new CD. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Don't feel like making a hammer joke this time. JuJube (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album, why is it okay for it to stay ??......if Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album can stay, then this article can stay too.CHECKORUP (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Stuff is on Wikipedia and mine should be too is not a valid argument. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:18, 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 (non-administrative closure). The article does show notability, but it is mentioned that there are WP:COI problems with the article. COI itself in an article isn't necessarily a reason to delete an article, and that's the main problem here. There's a {{COI}} tag on the article, so someone should eventually cleanup the COI in the article. Besides the COI problem, there's no reason to delete this from looking at the discussion below. -- RyRy (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hindman Auctioneers[edit]

Blatant advertisement, posted by an employee of the company (as admitted on the talk page). Article does nothing but promote the company. References verifying various "facts" about famous clients and such are not present. (Contested speedy; a virtually identical version of this article was speedy-deleted previously.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on getting together the necessary references. I will have these cited and noted within 1 hour

Skeyelab (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't fix your conflict of interest problem. It's still spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - major COI problems; no evidence of notability, just bald assertions; no references. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI, spam, no assertation of notability that's backed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten. Sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The fifth largest in the country" is an assertion of notability. COI is not a reason for deletion; lack of notability is, but I think notability has been established. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - has it? Looks like bald assertions so far. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG as fifth largest auction house in U.S. If the tone is promotional, edit it. Deletion is not a substitute for editing when there are sources. Check Google Book search, and you see many reliable sources with substantial coverage. Business Review Weekly: BRW (1992) said of Hindman "she runs Leslie Hindman Auctioneers, the hottest auction house in Chicago.""Furniture Hot Spots: The Best Furniture Stores and Websites Coast to Coast" (2005) [20] has extensive coverage, calling Hindman's the fifth largest auction house in the country and the largest in the midwest. Google News archive [21] search has many news article with substantial coverage [22] , such as Businessweek(2000) which has an article about her appraisal service [23] which talks about her sale to Sotheby's for $20,000,000 in 1997. It was also covered in The Chicago Tribune [24] and The New York Times [25] . The Washington Post covered her discovery and sale of a Van Gogh at a then record price for a Chicago art sale [26]. Sotheby's getting out of the Chicaho auction business it had bought from Hindman was covered in 2001 [27] in the Tribune. Auctionbytes (2003) covered the reopening of her Chicago auction operation [28]. Hindman has been a TV show host, has written books on art collecting, and has been acknowledged as an expert. Her business is internationally known. Edison (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for an article about Hindman herself, but not the firm. I'm still not convinced on the notability of the firm, spam nothwithstanding. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to above: Perhaps a good solution to this is to have an article about Hindman herself, with a section about her firm. I think the notability lies more with her than the firm, due in large part to the TV show and Eappraisals.com. But this should be done independently, without being written by people from her company. Comments, anyone? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is substantial press regarding the notability of the firm.[29] Skeyelab (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old Chicago Tribune references help to a point, but because they are old and only available by subscription, they are of limited usefulness. Items from PRnewswire are not considered reliable sources because they are news releases issued by the company and distributed for a fee. But you still are trying to promote your company! That's not allowed! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RS in no way discourages "old" print news stories (the firm was only founded 26 years ago: I include lots of 19th century newspaper stories as references in articles I edit, for Pete's sake), or those available only by subscription. They count for every bit as much as some article from last week which is still available online for free. Notability is not temporary. I saw multiple substantial coverage of the firm, not just Hindman. Many references at Google News archive are not press releases. I for one have never worked for the firm. The firm having sufficient notability for an article in no way precludes Hindman from having sufficient notability for an article as well. Edison (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs to be rewritten and improved though. WP:N is satisfied and it is reasonably well sourced as is. COI Issues abound but if the article is more NPOV I don't see a problem. --Banime (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources for notability. The things to do with spammy articles is to remove the spam. I just eliminated a good deal, including considerable duplication. 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep - the sources establish notability for the firm, and teh issue with conflict of interest will need to be dealt with in editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be cleaned up pretty well. COI is still present, but peacock and advert writing hase been fixed IMO Geetsromo (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated by reliable sources. Of course conflict of interest can be a problem, but the solution is not deletion of articles on notable subjects, but for independent editors to watch and edit them to ensure neutrality. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 4 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. Google news search shows notability. Malinaccier (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to delete. Google news items are passing mentions and consensus is against me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey[edit]

Article on unremarkable film director, with COI issue. Two of his films have articles but are themselves of somewhat iffy notability (although they feature notable performers). Unreferenced except for movie reviews and none of those meet WP:RS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's an amount of articles on the web that mention Tim Chey but I can't find anything that is solely or largely about him. I'd be willing to change to keep if somebody digs up an article with substantial info to build an article on. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —miniluv (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject may be notable enough in the future after enough reliable sources appear, but current Google News search brings up nothing. Jeremiah (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That search only covers the last month. You need to click on "all dates" to get complete results [30].

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of the sources originally in the article seem to meet WP:RS (Christianity Today and Christian Spotlight) and the Google News search that I linked above uncovers substantial coverage in The Sacramento Bee [31], The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [32] and La Crónica de Hoy [33] along with passing coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Village Voice etc. I think there's plenty there to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 4 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. Notability established. Malinaccier (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theo & the Skyscrapers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Theo & the Skyscrapers

Fails WP:MUSIC. See also Theo and the Skyscrapers (2006) and So Many Ways To Die, their albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This patently and verifiably sails through C6 – I can't see what the point in even having this discussion is. – iride scent 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see how it "sails through" C6. I found no sources to verify the membership. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Theo and The Skyscrapers is comprised of Theo Kogan on vocals, Sean Pierce on guitar, keys, and programming, and Chris King on drums and percussion";

"Theo Kogan, front woman for the alt rock Theo and the Skyscrapers and previously of the Lunachicks";

"ex-Toilet Boys co-frontman Sean Pierce"

"Theo and Sean found bliss in the form of fellow vertically-daunting musicians Chris Kling and Dimitry Makhnosky".

Google is your friend. – iride scent 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent (and here's another C6) ~~SIS~~ 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The singer Theo Kogan was in a very important riot grrl band called the Lunachicks. Her husband who is also in the band is a member of the Toilet Böys. So there are two members of the band who have been important in music history and continue to be today. The article should not be deleted. Keep ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. -- Banjeboi 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 new references were added, which confirm the notability of the band. Strummer25 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused keep C6 is a well-established notability precedent. Why are we here, mes amis? the skomorokh 19:19, 4 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 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll-playing[edit]

Aside from lacking sources to demonstrate notability of this term, there's also no evidence to suggest it's not a neologism. Further, this seems like this could be original research filled with weasel words. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like original research to me. Themfromspace (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard the term, plus for a drerogatory comment to work, wouldn't it have to sound just a bit different? MadScot (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, can't find anything to verify the claims in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Role-playing game terms - doesn't need its own article. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This term has been in reasonably wide use for at least 15 years, and probably 20 or 25. I remember its use in Dragon Magazine many years ago. Sadly, all my copies of Dragon are currently in a crate in my parents' loft, so I can't produce a source straight off. And of course, verifiability does not guarantee notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I looked for as many sources as I could and added a few more external links to the article, however I don't think they establish notability. They are also not very reliable, mostly blog type stuff. Even though I bet the term does exist I can't vouch for its notability and have to say delete. --Banime (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote to Merge and Redirect to Role-playing game terms, as I think it would be useful and informative there. Not enough to stand on its own as an article though. --Banime (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a redirect to role-playing game terms. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it's certain not OR, this is just not notable. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to role-playing game terms. Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 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, and redirected to Paris Hilton#As a recording artist. Cenarium ^Talk 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My BFF[edit]

Single fails WP:MUSIC. Radio only release, uncharted, from an album that is still a piece of WP:CRYSTAL. Creator restored article after a redirect, so here we are at AFD. Kww (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete, not notable, WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Songs. --Amalthea^Talk 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an official single....why are you nominating it for deletition......and who told u its a radio only release, its not a radio only release....the itunes/u.s. digital download release date will be announced soon.......and ofcourse its uncharted, it was just released today, how do you want it to chart when it just got released today???..........there are many articles that are not even singles and are not nominated for deletition, and this is an official single and you want it deleted??......this is unbelievable.......im really shocked.....CHECKORUP (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly, most of the release dates haven't even been announced yet. WP:Crystal --Banime (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why can "If I Were a Boy" and "Single Ladies" have articles and not this one?? CHECKORUP (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't any more. Thanks for pointing them out.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 22:15, 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 all NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retching Red & The Twats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Retching Red & The Twats

Non notable album from a non notable band. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Check out Retching Red and the rest of their albums too, I see nothing that meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also tagged Get Your Red Wings and Scarlet Whore of War, and put the band's page up for A7. If the band's page is A7'd, the albums should clearly go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums--Scarlet Whore of War

Get Your Red Wings Retching Red & The Twats splitṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:18, 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 merge to Halo (series). MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Halo 3 project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Basically WP:CRYSTAL. Sources verify little else than that the game exists. If this were an album it'd be WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The game just had screenshots released, there is a trailer, there is not too much confirmed information, but what little we know is backed by reliable sources. Deleting it would be a waste of time once we have to re do all the work already done for when it comes out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It meets the notability requirements, and has a number of reliable sources. Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Article is liberally sprinkled with such phrases as "Rumors have circulated", "It would supposedly feature", "The idea... was further fueled when", and "claims it will be an expansion to". If these aren't crystal ball predictions, what are? Themfromspace (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps if I removed those parts conflicting "CRYSTAL"...then it would be satisfactory.OsirisV (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of outside press. At the very least merge with Halo (series) or Bungie, but I definitely support a keep. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, lots of coverage and reliable sources. Scotty dude _review 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm perplexed by the "definitely notable". What's definitely notable here? Its a bunch of speculation. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Halo (series) and redirect. This is speculation from the industry about what is coming. There isn't an actual product here yet to write an article about. Merge it into the main series article and then recreate the article when more information is available. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Halo (series). The main problem I have with the article is the title, and the potential for the article to be moved to any number of other, similarly vague and speculative titles on a whim; it would make a mess of useless redirects. I would support the re-creation of the article once the game's official title is revealed. -- Comandante {Talk} 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (series) — too early for its own article. There is only one source in the bunch that is verifiable (the last one) with the rest being speculation from blogs. The article's history, in this case, should also be preserved, providing another reason against outright deletion. Once more information comes out to the point that the article can stand on its own, then split back out to here. MuZemike (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (series) per MuZemike. A little too speculative at this point to warrant its own article, especially considering it doesn't have a name yet. Also support re-creation once title is confirmed. Cliff smith ^talk 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted above; needs more reliable sources for a full article but can be covered in the main Halo series article. Also, without a name, the page title is ugly and pretty much unsearchable. --MASEM 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Full article should not exist but what does exist can be useful in the Halo article. --Banime (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo series article, per above. There's some coverage here, but really not enough reliable information to support a non-stub, with no sign of further coverage on the horizon. Split it later, once we actually know what the heck the game is. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More information will be coming out for sure, deleting the article then having it come back up will be a waiste of both parties time. Ripster40 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jeez folks, come on here. It isn't out yet. We're going on speculation and clues. The time for an article on this is after the game is released, not now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do not merge this, the Halo series article is big enough without adding an ever growing game article to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of room in the Halo series article for a paragraph and a few references to stay in a holding pattern until more info becomes available. Once something more than CRYSTAL comes along, then it can be moved out. --MASEM 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm inclined to agree with the above merge comments. This article, although all good effort has been made to make it work, is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL all the same, as so little is known, not even the name. Concisely merge it into Halo (series)#Spin-offs and sequels, and then spin it out again when some real hard substantive stuff can actually be said about the game. A good criteria for knowing when to do that would be when it actually has a name and some indication of what sort of game we're actually dealing with, rather than the speculation we have at present. I strongly disagree with Judgesurreal777 on his view of merging, a few extra sentences or perhaps even a paragraph into Halo (series) is not going to detract from that article's quality or length if the merge is conducted efficiently. -- Sabre (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reasons given. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Merge and redirect? Who in their right mind searches for something titled "Untitled Halo 3 project"? JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is utterly useless from a search point of view, but merging preserves the edit history. Actual deletion is not really an option here, and is meant as a last resort for articles that have no place on Wikipedia at all. Merging is preferable as when the article is inevitably spun-out again when there is proper coverage and an actual name for the game, editors don't have to start from scratch: they simply revert the redirect, move the article to its name and carry on building the article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The subject appears to have reliable sources, although there isn't much in terms of the gameplay in the article. I don't have any objections for a move, however. I'd suggest a title change if the article is kept, however. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew L. Cohen[edit]

Police officer of no apparent notability other than featuring in an incident which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable policeman. Schuym1 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely nonnotable. Themfromspace (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after reading the article, it is still unclear for me how notable he is. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 4 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miami High School (Ohio)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Little Miami High School (Ohio)

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school districts are considered notable. Needs cleanup though. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable and this one is the only high school in its school district. Sufficient sources to meet WP:N. I am cleaning it up. TerriersFan (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Note: The entire article (except the infobox) is a copy/paste copyvio of this. TerriersFan has put an "under construction" tag on the article, but if the copyvio isn't dealt with posthaste, I'm going to slap a db-copyvio tag on it. Deor (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to this stub version, which is not a copyvio. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. I agree with User:Eastmain however, copyvio issues should be reverted. Scotty dude _review 18:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was this ever raised for speedy deletion, because someone added some copyvio material? So fix it. RFerreira (talk) 18:44, 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvanian Society of Dracula[edit]

References do not support notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability asserted in the article or found by me.Weak Keep ONLY if the article is thoughouly rewritten to an acceptable standard, which it now has been (although further statistics about its membership and how active the organization is will not hurt the article). Themfromspace (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article easily fits within the Wikipedia category "fandom" [[34]]. A LexisNexis Academic search, utilizing the name of the organization, returns 54 articles centred on the group in major newspapers in North America and western Europe since the mid 1990's. I encountered one claim that stated that it is the largest academically based organization in the world dedicated to the study of "vampire lore". Current references in the article are not demonstrative of the range of citations available in support of the group's notability. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sourcing found : -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Stake it through the heart. Do you have that LexisNexis search string handy? Because oddly, I'm finding a tiny handful of papers , most of which give them a single cite from their literature, and almost every "news" reference I've seen is a one-line mention of some local "chapter president". ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I can't find any direct coverage, beyond the very trivial. I'm not finding any in the article, which is mass of uncited information and possible OR. Lines like "There is the vast chapter of the unanswerable, of mysteries yet unfolded, of disturbing hypothesis – as debated at the TSD’s annual symposiums, seminars: all yours to consider" make me wonder where exactly the encyclopedic value in this article can be found. Finally, the editor who created it is very new and may not be familar with all of WP policies yet, they seem to be rather focused on vampirism. On the other hand, please note that it's only a few days old. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I utilized LexisNexis Academic, entered "Transylvanian Society of Dracula" and chose "Major U.S. and World Publications" as a source category, producing 56 returns from 1993 to present. Although a majority of the articles tend to focus on the group's "touring" activities in Romania, a number of them provide a more detailed overview of the groups mainstream academic involvement in research regarding the history and folklore surrounding the vampire motif, with specific focuses on the historical figure of Vlad III the Impaler, the literature surrounding Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goth subculture in general. Although my "inclusionist" biases may be showing here, I'd like to suggest that we are jumping the gun in terms of prematurely excluding this article based on its current form, it obviously requires some "cleaning up", but as I mentioned above, in my opinion, it is currently under represented in its own reference section in terms of what's out there in the literature. I think we should give the editor concerned an opportunity to do some more work on improvement before we too hastily dismiss their topic as too "esoteric" or "unsupported" in the literature. There most definitely *are* references out there that support its "notability", we should provide people who are involved with this piece the chance to provide them and do a general clean up, without feeling they're 'under the gun' right from the start. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep. ~~No reliable sources to assert notability of this organization.~~ The article is written ~~entirely~~ mostly from primary sources, with a grain of WP:OR. VG ☎ 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many marginal references, see the {{rescue}} template, e.g. this one from a 1993 NYT. All these together probably justify an article about the society itself. I'm still worried about the verifiability of most of the claims in the current article. VG ☎ 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've added some other references, like the article in National Geographic Magazine, March 2006 [35] featuring links to Elizabet Miller and The Company Of Mysterious Journeys, the Official Travel Agency of the TSD and another one on Answers.com [36]. Like somebody said before, yes I am new to Wikipedia and I need some time to learn how to fully write articles here. The TSD page is not completed as in the days to come we will add some more information and clean it up. We just need a little time. --Deepbluero (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT article along with the rest is just sufficient for notability. The text needs a complete rewrite, as several people have said. Besides finding sources, I recommend at look at our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep(added: Seems like enough books have a paragraph or so about it. The article still needs cleanup to make it less spammy. The NY Times article is one source. The Nat Geographic only appears to include a directory listing. Most of the references are to the organization's own sites or publications and cannot support notability as they are not independent. Answers.com is not considered a reliable source for purposes of notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google books seems to have 30+ hits 20 of which are citeable online, Google Scholar has 16. -- Banjeboi 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ten second search across the various Google domains verified that there is more than enough significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources to verify an article. the skomorokh 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:ORG as far as I can see. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 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 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty (Machinima Series)[edit]

COI article. I'd have speedied it but technically it asserts notability (youtube comments and ratings, please). It is clear from reading it that the series has not received any coverage in reliable, independent sources. Drat (Talk) 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Home movies on YouTube fail WP:MOVIE by definition. ~~SIS~~ 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As far as I can tell, this web content does not quite indicate why its subject is important or significant. Cliff smith ^talk 22:41, 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 Snowy Delete as obvious hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Geng[edit]

The article says he co-directed three major films, but there is no mention of this in the Internet Movie Database for those films. e.g. [37]. In fact Philip Geng is not listed anywhere in the IMDb [38]. A Google search [39] finds 27 hits, none to do with the film industry. Jll (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "director" doesn't even show up in the credits lists of the films he supposedly directed. Themfromspace (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —miniluv (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This dude is allegedly 14 years old. When Confessions of a Dangerous Mind came out, he would have been 8. It quacks like a hoax... AlexTiefling (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious rubbish - I don't believe for a moment that George Clooney needed an eight year old boy to help him direct Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. If the subject really co-directed these films, he should fire his agent immediately for failing to ensure he got credit. Fortunately, he wasn't unfairly denied credit because, in fact, he didn't co-direct these films. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: looks like we've got a hoax here. Cliff smith ^talk 22:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as hoax article. What a hoot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with attitude. --billinghurst (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow this hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SNOW this hoax outta here. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon's All That 10th Anniversary Reunion Special[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon's All That 10th Anniversary Reunion Special

One-shot special cruft celebrating 10 years of the sketch show existing that was made when the program was at a creative wane and months from cancellation. All sources are either PR fluff or TV/movie directory descriptions of this glorified extended episode, and this is certainly not on the level of any regular reunion special (which rarely have separate articles) or a network anniversary program. Note that the article creator currently has two other nominations, one from me, for articles which deal with minor Nickelodeon topics inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring the existence of WP:RS - Database entries ala IMDB do not suffice, in and of themselves. On a side note, transwiki to http://nickelodeon.wikia.com might suffice, if anyone has an interest in keeping the content accessible, and if the other wiki wants it. MrZaius^talk 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with All That. iMatthew (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move: I guess since that that yall believe that the 10th Anniversary isn't meant for a seperate article, I guess it would be sent to All That (Season ten), but I wanted to less expand the Main All That article, because it's gotta seperate to diffrent articles. whats on the show, like the Seasons 1-10, episodes, franchises (100th episode, r u all that, and 10th anniversary), and media (the album, book, festival), I believe they should all have their own articles, where all ends can meet in the All That Navigational Box at the bottom of the main page. If anyone is against this, then just say, and not go with my idea. Thanks --Wikialexdx (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent, reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with rationale by nom and by Stifle (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all above. In fact, I would have thought there was enough consensus to delete and not be relisted. Anyway, the article appears to fail a number of WP:NOTs. There is too much trivial detail, and reads like the closing credits. There would be precious little left to warrant keeping the article if all the chaff was trimmed. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to All That (Season ten), and/or transwiki to http://nickelodeon.wikia.com , per above. -- azumanga (talk) 00:01, 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, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 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 merge to Fay Moulton. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fay G. Moulton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable football coach, no biographical information proffered. A previous AfD was withdrawn on an editor's assertion that the college football Wikiproject had declared all college coaches notable and that Moulton was an Olympic athlete. However, WP:CFB's notability essay goes well past the remit of WP:ATHLETE, the subject fails WP:V completely in that there are no independent sources, and the Olympian is in fact Fay R. Moulton RGTraynor 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination: Truth be told, following JK's link explicitly stating that the football coach and the Olympian were Fay R. Moulton, I'm surprised this was relisted: it's plain that a Merge to the Fay R. article is appropriate. RGTraynor 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources "no independent sources" -- even though one (yes only one) was on the article when you nominated it. One is more than none. With some effort and improvement, there are now several others (as well as some other sources that aren't exactly "independent" but are useful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head football coach at what is now Kansas State University, a NCAA Division I FBS school. Olympian is indeed different and it was discovered shortly after it was suggested that the articles be considered for merging. The College Football notability essay CFB:N does not exceed WP:ATHLETE but merely helps to further define it. Anyone who reads the essay can conclude.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Easy to make the mistake since they both went to Kansas State University about the same time. See [40]
Modified per my comment below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Delete Simply not notable, as evidenced by the dearth of sources. I don't think that he fails WP:V, because I expect that a large public university will have sufficient fact-checking by enough individuals that we can accept their records that he existed and was their football coach for six games. But the fact that no one outside the university has paid attention to him means that he doesn't merit his own article, although he certainly would be included in an appropriate list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I hope you're not expecting a significant amount of online sources for a coach from 108 years ago.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not an excuse to not have any sources, you want him to have a page, find some offline sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please look again, there are seven. Do you disagree with them as sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable college football coach who is lacking reliable non-trivial sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought at a discussion on my user talk page, the nominator of this deletion stated: "...we haven't touched Div I and I-A, nor are likely to do so, because there's no dispute that that level does represent the "highest level of amateur sports." For my part, I don't at all believe that coaches at any level of any sport count under WP:ATHLETE, but I wouldn't touch the Div. I articles, because I know consensus would be heavily against me." By the nominator's own admission, this article should be kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't a Div-I school when he was coach, what the school became later is irrelevant. -Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct! Yep, it was most definitely the highest level of the sport at the time. The NFL didn't even exist yet! Does this mean that you'll go change your stance on the other articles like J. J. Thiel et al?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I don't read WP:ATHLETE as being applicable to coaches. Coaches are the "face" of the team, with ample opportunities to address the media; I see no reason why the general notability guideline shouldn't be fine for them. Just put him on List of Kansas State University football coaches or a similar list. Eventually someone will write a comprehensive football history of the program, then we'll have sources to re-create it as a separate article. There's no rush. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: No, it was not the "highest level" of the sport at the time. Come now, Paul, you are (I would hope) knowledgeable in college football history, and you know full well that obscure aggie colleges west of the Mississippi weren't big time anything in 1900. The "highest level" of college football was Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Michigan, Chicago and the like. Your stance that whatever is notable now must have been notable in 1900 makes about as much sense as claiming that the players of the 1950 Vancouver Canucks were major league just because the Canucks joined the National Hockey League in 1970. RGTraynor 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response Sure, Harvard, Yale, etc got more coverage from sportswriters, but the Kansas Jayhawks had an undefeated season in about 1910 or so, major innovations took place at the little old College of Emporia with the forward pass under Homer Woodson Hargiss, and the conference itself was the first to organize with a common set of rules. These teams were integral in the development of college football. "Popularity" does not necessarily equate to "notability" now, does it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: No, but notability does require proof, which you've not yet offered. What about Moulton's career or this school at the time were remarkable in the annals of football? Anything? Any sources? No. This article survived AfD the first time because you made a claim people took on faith that proved to be incorrect. Right now, "gee, reliable, substantial sources just must exist somewhere" or surmises that he must be notable because you want him to be isn't good enough. Either there is direct evidence this subject fulfills WP:V and WP:N or there is not. RGTraynor 16:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Maybe put him in a list or table. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response He'd be the one member of the table, as all the other coaches at Kansas State have stand-alone articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of independent sources. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable enough, but the article needs more sources for verification. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undistinguished college coach. The main sourcing comes the college newspaper, which shows how limited of interest the subject is. I mean is being ranked 22nd anything special? We66er (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There is little doubt that newspapers of the day covered the games and coach. Those sources we have to be pulled from archives and years of microfiche to suss out the articles about them, cross your fingers they are digitized and indexed as well. Completely not envious of whoever gets to do that. -- Banjeboi 07:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure the local papers did cover the games and mentioned the coach, but that is not enough to meet the requirement about being non-trivial the article has to be about the coach specifically. -Djsasso (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sports reporters are known to write about such things in order to fill their copy requirements. Little doubt they would be more than trivial mentions. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fay Moulton. I've been doing research on this, and I've come to believe that this is the American olympian who performed in the 1904 and 1906 games. Check out this link, which indicates the olympian attended Kansas State at the time Moulton was head football coach. The olympian was born in Kansas, and a birth date in 1876 means he was the right age in 1900. I haven't found a source that comes right out and says the two men are the same, but the odds of two Fay Moultons who are athletes being at the same small school in Kansas at the exact same time is immense. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't been able to find any sources, but if someone in a time zone further east than me could call up the Kansas City library and ask them to look up this item, they should be able to give a definitive answer. I tried, but they had just closed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fay Moulton (modified from delete above). All credit to JKBrooks85, they are the same person, correctly named Fay R. Moulton. See this link to the book JK mentioned above, you can scroll back to page 212 to read the entire entry. Looks like it's time to fire up those merge discussions again... Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's clear they are the same person we simply merge, no need to discuss if just how, if that needs talking through. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fantastic find, Xymmax! Boy, it feels good to uncover that mystery. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fay Moulton per JKBrooks85

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If this is the same guy as Fay Moulton, then merging is the best idea. Captain panda 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fay G. Moulton and Fay R. Moulton are not the same person.~~ →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify if you looked at the source I listed above (found by JKBrooks85)? Are you basing your conclusion on the earlier conversation, or is the book unpersuasive? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. They may be the same person. It's not 100% clear, but there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that may be the case. If so, my opinion is to keep but merge. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources have been added and KSU is a Division 1 university. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:47, 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, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 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 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Blanchett[edit]

I'm not convinced that this costume and set designer is notable. She appears to have been nominated for (but did not win) one of the Green Room Awards. Grahame (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Set designer, worked on one film (in 1993) as an assistant. Doesn't appear to be notable and fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. ~~SIS~~ 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she is probably quite good at her job, but I'm not seeing anything here that would show she meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:29, 4 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) 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merton F.C.[edit]

Football club which plays in the Southern Amateur Football League, which is "a mixture of 'old boys' associations from schools and colleges, business house sports clubs as well as private clubs". The league is not part of the football pyramid and has never played in any FA competition. Bearing this in mind, I do not believe the club is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the club certainly fails the normal notability criteria, would the fact that it has produced the occasional famous player be enough to make it notable, such as Wallsend Boys Club? My opinion is no - there doesn't seem to be enough decent secondary sources to save this one. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd certainly agree on the famous former players point. The Wallsend club is extremely well-known for having produced a dispropotionately high number of internationally capped players. This club, on the other hand, gave us Efan Ekoku. Hmmmmmmmm..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable. Giant Snowman 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who disgareed with User:Number 57's original speedy deletion of this article under criteria A7, as there certainly are assertions of notability in the article. While I think it would be wrong to base criteria for deleting SAL team articles on the same basis as those in the pyramid (they can't get to "Step 6" or "Level 10" as they are outside the pyramid completely), subjectively I feel top SAL (and Amateur Football Combination) clubs are of a higher standard, have a longer more storied history, and are generally more notable, than those who do meet those magic numbers. However, my belief is that no articles should have "Inherent" notability, and instead depend on WP:N, needing multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to assert their own notability, and at the moment I can't find them for Merton. I'm looking through print sources to see if they had any significant results in the FA Amateur Cup which would be the historic equivalent of the FA Vase before the professional/amateur split was abandoned in 1974, but haven't found anything as yet. If I do, it will be a "Keep" from me, but for now it is a reluctant Delete - fchd (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 09:56, 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 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Olmeda[edit]

Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. A plain google search gives 6 hits[41], nothing at all in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks. The two books authored by the subject are not listed in WorldCat as being held in any libraries[42]. No evidence of citability of his research that I could find, no academic awards or honors and no other coverage by independent sources to show passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO that I could find either. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Crusio (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information pointing to notability at all. Per my search the subject does seem to be a ham radio operator, which endears him to me, but I'm afraid that doesn't merit an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, discussion page suggests delete --Buridan (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not support a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no claim to notability, given that neither worldcat nor LC can find the books claimed, either by author ,title, or isbn. Possible hoax. DGG (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:19, 5 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 Boldly redirected, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind Eraser (roller coaster)[edit]

another article exists for The Mind Eraser which discusses the roller coaster. Capt. Beardo McDougal Esq. (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mind Eraser. No objection to closing this from me, doesn't require an AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:58, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Muldowney[edit]

non notable college tv presenter that lacks non trivial coverage in reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't you just improve an article and examine an article carefully before nominating? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this guy probably scrapes in on the back of his cited TV appearances, although a cleanup is needed to remove all the extraneous quotes and publicity-firm-speak. I've removed a bizarre section, added by an anon before the AFD nom, which has HOAX all over it in big flashing neon letters. Ka renjc 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His tv appearences appear to be limited to a campus TV network and an appearence on single segment of talk show. Neither make a person notable without proper coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been sourced, verified, and the subject of a lengthy debate, as seen on its discussion page. On that page, the relevance of the article was proven. With a couple tweaks I think it's fine.--Zwillie (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Zwillie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It could use some slight improvements, but I'd have to say keep. Notability has been established previously, and it article is well sourced. Some things could be re-written. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the entry is retarded but the page meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, so don't get your panties in a bunch. --Transmodiar (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has not been established previously on the talk page. Nothing was proven, just claimed. Muldowney's tv work does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER (significant roles in multiple notable television productions). The way I see things is that nothing in the content of the article is enough to make Muldowney notable so the subject of the article has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Looking at the coverage, references consist of: Two editions of a college department newsletter, one trivial, (not what I consider a reliable source and not that independent of the subject). Two articles in a University student publication, one more about the Gettin' Later show than Muldowney, the second trivial (a publication Muldowney wrote for and not what I consider a reliable source). IMDB (not a reliable source). Thechimp.net, a gossip blog (trivial mention). Tyra Banks Show recap of the episode on which Muldowney appeared (primary source, does not work). A series of videos that are primary sources that may verify claims in the article but do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Subject has appeared on multiple nationally syndicated and broadcast television shows in addition to local efforts. He is a published writer and actor. Notability better established than yours. Duffbeerforyou (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Subject also worked in narcotic interdiction, but that section was removed for its seemingly facetious nature. IllhaveaDuff (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Another notable fact is that Subject has yet to spend hours researching Wikipedia minutate to prove a case no one cares about. Uhaveone2 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transmodiar (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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) 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Triple-A All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

Obvious violation of WP:NOT#INFO, and likely WP:N, no evidence that broadcasting the Triple-A All-Star Game (which isn't extremely notable itself and I believe that article should be merged to AAA (baseball) with the game details removed) makes any of those reporters notable, nor is a notable subject itself, not worth a merge to Triple A All-Star game neither because of notabilty concerns Delete Secret ^account 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Triple-A All-Star Game. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:26, 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, Stifle (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC, items 1-3, 5, and 8. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 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 (G10). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Horridge[edit]

Vandalism ɷ i m b u s a n i a 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have just put a speedy delete tag on it... Sorry. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is not vandilism. the guy i am writing aboput is sitting next to me helping come up witht he rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirachinmoku (talk • contribs) 09:46, 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racebannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep The nomination has no substance. The nominator was involved in the previous AfD, and put it on a list of topics he believes should never have an article. The previous AfD was successful mainly because the author of the article was an employee of the band's record label and the article was an obvious puff piece (or so I surmise; I haven't seen the prior version). The group easily passes WP:MUSIC for its releases on important labels (Secretly Canadian, Southern Records), and has gotten press in e.g. Allmusic, Pitchfork Media, Alternative Press and The Stranger. Chubbles (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Chubbles. No substance to nomination. There are plenty of sources, including a rather substantial Allmusic bio and third party reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom. Meets WP:MUSIC per Chubbles. Nom should note that the subject does not have to meet every WP:MUSIC criterea, and this artist meets criteria 1 (non-trivial third party sources) and 5 (released music on Secretly Canadian, a notable indie record label). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's good/bad faith shouldn't play a part in the discussion of the article's merits, which appear in this case to satisfy the criteria for notability. Themfromspace (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nomination was made in good faith. It is true that I keep a record of articles that have been deleted which I check periodically to see if any have been recreated, but as far as I could see this band failed all criteria on WP:MUSIC, which is why I nominated it.
- The band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works
- The band has not had a charted hit on any national music chart.
- The band has not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
- The band has not received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- The band has not released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
- The band does not contain at least one notable musician
- The band has not become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city.
- The band has not won or been nominated for a major music award
- The band has not won or placed in a major music competition.
- The band has not performed music for a work of media that is notable.
- The band has not been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
- The band has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
If I am wrong about any of the above then I apologise. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Let's see: #1 (multiple non-trivial published works): Article from Pitchfork Media and a review from same. Also A biography and several lengthy reviews from Allmusic. Also, band is/was on Secretly Canadian, a notable indie record label which has released music from notable indie rock artists such as Animal Collective, Antony and the Johnsons and Throw Me The Statue and therefore is considered a notable label. The band also released music on Southern Records, which has released music from notable artists such as Babes in Toyland, Chumbawamba, Crass, Les Savy Fav and Slint, which makes that label notable. Also the first Pitchfork Media link I linked to features information on a "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I withdraw my nomination. I was not aware that Pitchfork Media and Allmusic were considered reliable sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:07, 4 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 as failing notability due to lack of reliable sources needed for verifiability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BYOND[edit]

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

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

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

Article presents no assertion of notability (WP:N) or independent references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed [43], a blog which isn't sufficient per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? (blog author has 22 ghits) Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability, nor could I find any. Article is also written in an in-universe tone and reads somewhat like an advertisement. It's kind of interesting that this article has been in this state or similar for over four years without a single deletion or trip to AfD. MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Need For Deletion - Most of the info you need to know about BYOND is hosted on the BYOND website itself, so of course it's going to be hard to find outside sources. There used to be an outside website called BYONDscape, but it eventually became part of BYOND's Dream Makers articles. Now look at Game Maker as an example. They're both very similar types of software and most of the sources on their Wikipedia articles link directly back to their own web page. The only difference in notability is Game Maker's tiny blurb in CNN's Web 2.0 article. SuperAntx (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could actually take a look at the WP:Notability guideline. If you know of any sources like the ones it suggests, that would be very helpful. If the only reliable information is on the official website, that's not enough for notability. Marasmusine (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bartle has been quoted, "BYOND is 100% free, and is excellent." Technically that's a review, a very short one. SuperAntx (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly "significant coverage". Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Nova had an article on free game creation software which was written by Richard Bartle, a notable person in the field of game development. The blog is notable and counts as an outside reference. BYOND IS NOTABLE - CASE CLOSED! SuperAntx (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The site is used by tens of thousands of game developers and creators, more than five thousand of which are on at any given time. Though informal, many reviews and information of the system is available (see: http://www.mmorpg-info.org/timewasters/byond-a-great-engine/ and http://www.softarea51.com/windows/Games_Entertainment/Other_Games_Entertainment/Review-BYOND.html as well as associatedcontent.com/article/758701/byond_build_your_own_net_dream_with.html). BYOND has been featured on G4's 'Attack of the Show'. The website has approximately a 10,000 ranking on Alexa, far higher than many websites featured on Wikipedia (Maddox, anyone?). It's highly notable, and growing, and deserves its place on wikipedia. Joe D (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not valid reasons to keep. The sources are not reliable (see WP:RS) nor do they go into any significant coverage of the engine. The Alexa argument is not valid (see WP:ALEXA) as it is the presence of verifiable sources, not popularity of a site as measured by ghits, Alexa, etc., that determines notability. Also read WP:WAX; we are not talking about other articles here. If there are other articles that do not meet notability guidelines, they will be dealt with in due manner. I suggest reading the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and notability. MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure. But I believe this qualifies as reliable source, even if it is short. http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=209219 Oronar (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — there is a potential canvassing attempt going on at the website's forum here. MuZemike (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there's not. That was a single person saying it, and he was already criticized for doing so. We've been attempting to look for legitimate ways to keep the article. Popisfizzy (talk) 00:05, 5 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 to My Chemical Romance. This issue should have been discussed on the talk pages of the articles as this really isn't the place for a merge/redirect discussion. While this can be the result of a deletion discussion, initiating a deletion discussion with the intent of discussing a merger and redirect is inappropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Toro[edit]

Three musicians that are part of a notable band, but have no individual notability as per WP:MUSIC. Redirect at each page is persistently contested and redirected. Using AfD to get consensus and formal approval for the redirects. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other musicians:

Adding former drummer, has no other notability claims other than previous having played with the band.

Merge/REdirect Both fail WP:MUSIC. I don't see this as particularly controversial merge, very similar to many others. Only one editor is edit warring over it and has not respond to any of the discussions. I think a proposed merge would have been better than an afd. --neon white talk 10:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. True, but I find an AfD generates more discussion, whereas proposed merge templates just sit around for months with no formal decision. At least this way we get a formal record of the decision in case this user continues to revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, it would be nice if proposed merges generated some sort of contribution but often they do not. --neon white talk 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to My Chemical Romance. None of the three is notable outside of the group. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD is for deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of an AfD is often to redirect the page instead of deleting, which is what is proposed here. If more people contributed to proposed merger discussion, then I would take it there...Nouse4aname (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 speedily deleted by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JAMES GONO[edit]

Hoax, probable attack page. Google finds only a myspace page for this individual. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:39, 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 as failing WP:N due to lack of reliable sources which can be used to verify independent notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorina Pineda[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not every character in a soap opera is notable. No reliable third party sources, no references, no real world information in general, no nothing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to Bituing Walang Ningning. ~~Totally unsourced.~~ Not notable outside that universe. The merge inproves Wiki Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every character is notable, but she's the lead character in a very major series (not that one would guess either from the nomination. The article asserts that this particular role in this particular series was of special importance outside the series itself , which, if adequately documented, would be enough for notability even for those who don'tt hink that in-fiction notability is possible. DGG (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and recommend TTN and Magioladitus actually find and sources for a change.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the fate of "Dorina Pineda" and the soap is strongly connected. Is it any chance to find some information that we should not include in the soap opera article but only in the character's? Would that information be enough to have a different article? The soap opera article needs clean up itself as well. I think a section to that article about "Dorina" is enough. We could convert to redirect instead of deleting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include pertinent information in Bituing Walang Ningning which already has plot summary relating to this character, and/or Sharon Cuneta which already discusses the actress' career. The article does not indicate any notable discussion of the significance of this particular fictional character. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [44] shows sources exist. Also [45] may have something of interest. At the least merge all of these characters from the show into a characters list. More than enough total notability for that. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are just giving links about the show, that contain short summaries from the plot. This means the show is notable but this is not implied for the character as an individual work of art. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But enough sources to merge into a character list at the very least. "Plot rehashing" is a valid source.... Hobit (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no established notability, no real-world information, simply plot rehashing. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:10, 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, Cirt (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Klein zach 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nine hits on google news do not establish notability. Themfromspace (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, Hobit. Main character of series and sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Reynolds[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists only by plot and some trivia. By googling, I couldn't find anything that could establish notability. Why is not even linked by the TV series article? According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Jo_Reynolds the article is orphan as well! On the other hand, the article for the show is very good. -- Magioladitis (talk)
Merge to Daphne Zuniga or Melrose Place. Article has no sources, but this can be fixed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to boilerplate nom that merits nothing more than a boilerplate response.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, except that TTN still provided a valid reason and you didn't. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, though one would not have guessed it, a major character in a major series. But, actually reading the relevant articles, it seems that her originally relatively minor role developed into one of the principal characters for four years of the series. Major character in major series are appropriate for individual articles, and they share the notability of the series. I think it wrong to give a boilerplate response regardless of the nom. DGG (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor component of fictional work. Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. --John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PLOT applies here, as the article does not indicate any notable discussion of the real-world significance of this particular fictional character. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rehashes plot, no sources, no established notability or coverage in third-party sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:12, 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, Cirt (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite easy to find sources for this topic. Another cookie-cutter nomination which ignores WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on DGG's reasoning and Colonel Warden's sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 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 as failing verifiability due to lack of reliable sources which can be used to verify all of these competitions the article subject is alleged to have done well in. While it's great that so many people"know" he has done well in so many different competitions, Wikipedia requires sources backing up these claims. So far, no one has provided them, instead just stating that they "know" he has won (or done really well or played something really difficult). This closure is not prejudicial, and the article may be created again in the future IF reliable sources can be found supporting all of the claims made here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bennett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No really reliable sources, mostly YouTube and trivial mentions. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. (I just hate it, too, when people put an article in a category, sub-category, and sub-sub-category.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously deleted in 2005. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half the references are to Bennett's own web pages, and his teaching and research credentials were all work as a graduate student, while the phrasing in the article makes it seem as though he were a prominent professor. BeIsKr (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria # 5 (two albums released on TheOrchard / Digital label and available throughout music sites for sale) and #9 (Chopin Competition prize verifiable in a google search on the Kosciuszko foundation web archive), and possibly #1 (Chronicle article cited, CNN article cited). I seem to remember the Download.com citation used to check out too (passing #2), I was dubious at first about this when the claim was made -- seems the site possibly reorganized so may be useful to strike this claim. Numerous links from other wikipedia pages to the article. It should be noted that the music notability criteria have changed since 2005. If you have problems with the other parts or phrasing or categories, change them to be more neutral in tone! It is possibly worth noting that he has a very large following on youtube with hundreds of thousands of video views. It seems that unless you misconstrue the notability guidelines that this passes. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sourced notable criteria to address reasonable concerns of TenPoundHammer. Check the visit statistics on article page to verify frequent outside viewings of page by fans. Seems BeIsKr may have some personal axe to grind regarding Bennett, his comments on the discussion page seem to be more concerned about tone (which are reasonable), but not notability under Wikipedia Music guidelines. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the label notable? How is the award notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concerns about tone were just to emphasize that it's a vanity page, seeking to make non-notable accomplishments appear notable. The same issue was raised in the previous deletion discussion. Also, it's interesting that there are two administrators arguing for deletion and one anonymous IP arguing for keeping. BeIsKr (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Orchard (music label) has been discussed before; it's not actually a label, but a distributor that works with independent artists. Near as my research last time they came up turned out, you can pay them to distribute your stuff - that does not a notable label make. I don't see this subject as notable at present, without substantial third-party independent referencing. (If that turns up, I'd be glad to reconsider.) Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheOrchard is the biggest music distributor online, but also an Indy label, and works with both independent and mainstream label artists. The individual sites have to accept the artist into their library, the more sites the artist is accepted to, the more important the artist is to the TheOrchard catalogue and the Digital Label. The Chopin Competition is one of the most respected American piano competitions: here are a few links about it: http://www.thekf.org/MUChopin.html, included Carnegie Hall: http://www.carnegiehall.org/article/box_office/events/evt_13211.html?selecteddate=04052009, http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608003145/Murray-Perahia.html. The other contests mentioned on the page now include the Kingsville, which is one of the biggest international competitions in the US for all instruments for the the under 24 age category (I believe Bennett won prizes in it in 1995 and 1996). The Richardson is a national competition held in Lansing, MI annually that rotates through instruments. The Silver Lake is a now defunct International Piano competition that was held in Silver Lake, WI. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) It should be noted the page for Frederic Chiu, Elizabeth Borowsky, and Moses Hogan all cite the Chopin Competition in their wikipedia articles as notable accomplishments. Ruslan Sviridov mentions the Kingsville competition in his entry. All have less page views per month than Bennett. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Tony Fox: the awards now have substantive independent citation on the article page. It seems that if the Bennett article were to go, then hundreds, perhaps thousands of classical pianist articles need to get deleted too, as a fan his name stands out in the top group of a young generation of recording pianists in my mind. Please watch his youtube videos and read some of the comments if you don't believe he is noteworthy before voting to delete this article. Additionally, shouldn't there be some metric for evaluating page statistics in the keep/delete discussion? If it is getting visited by a lot of people every day, doesn't that mean something? 71.178.122.46 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the issues that I see with the above. First, if one looks at the sources, one finds that he did not actually *win* any of the competitions mentioned; he receives a special mention in the Chopin competition, and was a finalist in the other. I admit to not being versed in classical musical competitions, so I can't say whether the competitions mentioned are at a high level. To quote the relevant guideline: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Whether finalist counts as placing is up to interpretation, but for myself, my opinion is that it doesn't - others may disagree, and that's fine, because the deletion discussion is all about one's opinions. Page views are not a notability gauge, and YouTube videos - presumably posted by the artist - are not reliable independent sources. If this artist has made an impression on the industry such that he has become notable, then we need to see reliable sources discussing it - not his own contributions. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:37, 26 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) 08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tony Fox. --Klein zach 09:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 71.178.122.46. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tony Fox. Although he may be a gifted pianist, he has not achieved the notability required for an article. Paying a studio to release your work is not the same as being independantly recorded. Themfromspace (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see my comments above). BeIsKr (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are aware that you already voted delete in this AfD? Themfromspace (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment yeah, but I've never been in an AfD discussion before, so it seemed like everything above was being disregarded and a revote was requested. Sorry if I misunderstood. BeIsKr (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BeIsKr and Tony Fox. Back in January, I tagged the article as lacking "Information about concerts and non-download releases, current academic career" - it is still not there. The article has been fraught with problems concerning the choice of sources (forum postings, YouTube videos, Facebook groups ...) and references not fully supporting the statements that they were cited for. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is also gay ~ curiously, that has never been mentioned on the page. Oh yeah, he is also a ceo. of bennett arbitrage wtf!? it looks totally bogus to me58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)delete this sucker 58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and he is a child prodigy, apparently. says who? self proclaimed, nothing more. 58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) It's not personal 58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as gayness is not a reason for deletion... but should probably remove the stuff thats sourced to youtube as thats unreliable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think people here are missing the importance and difficulty of Rachmaninov's Third Concerto in the piano literature and the noteworthiness of this guy playing this concerto at 14. He was one of the youngest in the world to do so (the only person younger that I know of was Sgouros), and it was noteworthy enough for a private benefactor to buy him a concert grand Steinway and for him to win all sorts of awards from Steinway for it (and all those facts are available on the cited sources all over the web). As a pianist, I myself heard him do this as a teenager and knew he won prizes in the Silver Lake International Piano Competition playing it (4th and 1st in 95 and 96) and in the Kingsville International Competition (3rd) (check with those organizations yourself if you don't believe me) because those were the important international competitions for young musicians and I myself aspired to enter them so followed who was winning. 63.70.170.34 (talk) 20:42, 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 keep due to addition of references indicating notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Findley[edit]

Delete. This article was tagged a year ago but little has changed. It shows no evidence that this person should be included in an encyclopedia. Although the creator has written a response on the articel's talk page, I don't feel this in any way addresses the fact that this person is not notable. Hndis (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As any professional and/or person interested in the music industry well knows, session musicians - however notable - tend not to get their names in the press. Finding sources other than album credits is thus relatively difficult, but doesn't make such musicians any less notable, i.e. deserving mention on Wikipedia.--Technopat (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral simple questions for both the nom and Technopat is which of the many WP:MUSIC and/or WP:N criteria does he meet? Which reliable 3rd party sources cover this in what would be considered a non-trival manner? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with Jasynnash2 about our usual standard of needing third party references covering the subject in a non-trivial manner in order to prove notability, I believe that the subject of this article is somewhat of a musical gnome and, as such, is unlikely to receive such coverage on his own. However, due to his participation in numerous musical projects of which many have beem deemed notable enough for Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Chuck Findley), I believe he crosses the threshold of inclusion into this encyclopedia. It's true that none of those projects by themselves absolutely guarantee his inclusion in Wikipedia but, as a whole, his body of work is large enough and has received enough third party independent and non-trivial coverage that it wouldn't be unreasonable if we allow him to squeeze by the notability guideline. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only arguments for keeping are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. VG ☎ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I couldn't disagree more that ILIKEIT has anything to do with my rationale. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 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) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and VG. If he is a gnome, i.e. performing without much recognition, then I don't see how he can be notable. --Klein zach 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After creating the article, apart from wikilinking it, I forgot all about, and didn't get round to adding references. This was partly because I didn't have time - how many 24/7 editors are there here? -, and partly because I was relying on Wikipedia editors to rally round. When the deletion template appeared, I added some perfectly reliable third party references/sources which were not there when the template was slapped on. With such references - admittedly no journalist fan of the article subject has yet written a biography - is it still a candidate for deletion? --Technopat (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the only arguments for deleting are of the “I don’t like it” variety.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no they are not. Did you even read the discusion? Notability is the problem suggested.Yobmod (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the IP editor was trying to point out his issue with VG's !vote further up the page in a somewhat sarcastic and ironic fashion. When it comes down to it, the closing admin will almost certainly ignore both !votes since neither one of them introduce a valid new rationale. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable. The individual himself hasn't been discussed, only groups that he's been in and more famous musicians that he's played background music for. Themfromspace (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the new sources mention him by name, and are enough of them that i would say notability is proven.Yobmod (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article still has a way to go, but the references indicate some level of minor notability. Hndis (talk) 12:36, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Security Forum[edit]

Non-notable conference; borderline advertising. Blowdart | ^talk 10:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources within the article link to websites that I would not consider reliable, a quick google news search on "World Security Forum" turns up no relevant results (you would think, google news being a sort of compendium of baseline and better reliable sources would turn up something), the event seems suspicious at best, with next to none outside middle-east coverage. Because of these factors I think the article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is How is this not notable? Sir Ken Knight will be speaking there and it is under the patronage of the UAE Interior Ministry. I wonder what is suspicious about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.157.59 (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC) — 217.232.157.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The event has clearly been covered by major media in the Middle East and enjoys the official support of the United Nations. I agree that we should not even be discussing this article's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengoerd80 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) — Jengoerd80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Must keep this page This is my page - the information is factual and of interest to the general public, as it concerns a non-profit conference aiming to promote worldwide security and safety issues. The previous person is correct in stating that the event has indeed been covered by mainstream media in the Middle East - I have only found 4 articles mentioning it so far, but others may also currently exist and I will continue to monitor the press for any future references. In addition, if you search on Google.com or .ae you will see that the offical WSF website is listed as 3rd on both search engines. Does this still seem 'suspicious'?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherazade10 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not 'your' page. There's no individual ownership of pages on Wikipedia, and you can't expect to exercise control over the material you submit. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just pointing out that this Keep is by Sherazade10, who votes again later in the AfD. --Banime (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I tried to fix this article because I believed that it sounded legit, but the more I got into it the more I realized it was not. This appears to be all based on a press releae, which I believe was released by EPOC Messe Frankfurt GmbH, to a few minor news agencies (see here for the original release and information that it was a press release from that agency). This press release comprised the entire reference section of the article. It was simply the same press release on 4 different sites. I believe this article on Wikipedia could also possibly be an extension of that advertisement, since I searched diligently and could not find any other sources regarding this event. There are many conferences called the "World Security Forum" and this event has no reliable coverage by third party sources. Very strong delete especially when I consider that this could just be an advertisement for the forum, and when reading some of the comments above. --Banime (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some major reliable news sources are provided./ If they should be when the conference is actually held, no reason not to create the article then. DGG (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong 'keep' While indeed there are currently few external reference sources for the Forum, it is a new event and not yet widely known- as the date approaches however, and certainly once the Forum has taken place, more major media should cover it. More important however, it is a non-profit conference - and so the inclusion of an article on the subject does not constitute commercial advertising. The aim of this conference is to improve international co-operation on global security matters; therefore as it will ultimately benefit the general public, how can anyone argue that publicity for such an important event should be reduced? Deleting the article would do more harm than good. Sherazade10 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, you already made a keep !vote earlier in the AfD. Second of all, I think you should read WP:CRYSTAL which states that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and just because there might be good sources for this article later, does not mean that it should be created now. I'm sure once the convention is underway and it gets significant press coverage, then it can be recreated, but as of now it is not appropriate for wikipedia. --Banime (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it suspicious that you are pushing so hard, Sherazade and others. As for the Forum itself, I don't yet see enough substance in coverage, although this seems to be in flux. I saw an article about it in Gulf News, which is a respected newspaper here in the Middle East. Also, the United Nations is an official supporter. But again, not sure whether this justifies keeping it. I suggest waiting until the Forum takes place and then decide about deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.197.49 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — 85.126.197.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to point out that I did a lot of work on this article trying to improve it, but there are only two sources, both press releases, despite the large amount of references other users keep adding. The first source is an earlier press release from the forum organizers, and the second source is another press release from the forum organizers. They are simply posting as many links as possible, even though it is the same press release posted on different websites. --Banime (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Banime and since its an obvious advertisement. Themfromspace (talk) 18:05, 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 no consensus to delete leaning toward keep. Please take the merge discussion to the appropriate article talk page(s). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction to the 2008 Dairy Scandal[edit]

This article was created by User:Roman888, a serial copyright violator, possibly as a vehicle for his continued transgressions. Its existence outside from the 2008 baby milk scandal, which is itself (45k) hardly at a size where it is of concern, is potentially a POV fork, so I do not see a justification for retaining this article at this present time. Please note that the creator is on the bench for his repeated copyright violations. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I do not believe the individual topic of the international reaction to this incident is long enough to warrant its own article and it should be merged into the original article. Although I cannot comment on the author's motives, assuming good faith would be appropriate. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there is nothing to merge: everything, is already in the 2008 baby milk scandal article. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A split (or a complete trimming) is to be expected if the impact section is expanded to the point its begins to outgrow the rest of the article. As of right now the Impact section alone is now occupying some 30-40% of the article, but doesn't seem imbalanced enough yet. Neither is the article long enough as a whole to require a split. - Two hundred percent (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split. I agree a split or a complete trimming from the main article should be carried out immediately. The number of reactions from international countries in the main article is now nearing 50% of the main article which warrants a spilt. As for the comments about serial violations by Ohconfucius, we should investigating him for serial vandalism of articles. I would support any action against him that will bench him for his serial vandalism violations- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman888 (talk • contribs) (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hahaha! Investigate away! Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: as long as the article contains countries that don't react negatively (if there are some... North Korea perhaps?;) ) - then it is NPOV and fine. It's a legitimate topic and can be comprehensive in a way that a mere subheading in the main article wouldn't be. Previous bad behaviour by the creator is no reason to remove a page which has no problems. Malick78 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a fork of the the "Impact" section of the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 29 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) 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There is no problem whatsoever with this article as it list the countries in an alphabetical order and supports the main article. There is no reason to delete this article just because someone has a personal vendatta against the creator as this is a NPOV. The article is properly reference, only needs a bit of cleaning. 16:58, 30 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.247.112 (talk)
Merge back into the main article. POV forking is not an accepted method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge How is this not a part of the 2008 baby milk scandal Wiki Entry?!?! Oh wait, has anybody checked the entry? EVERYTHING IS ON IT ALREADY! Someone started a new entry just to have a list & he/she copied everything from the "2008 baby milk scandal" entry. Delete/Merge + Clean up ASAP. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not duplicated into the main article. The topic is notable but I don't really see the point in breaking this out into something separate. 23skidoo (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There may not have been enough information for a separate article a few days ago, but there would b by now. (per Roman888's comment). 22:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
would be more useful to have a more complete list of products banned/affected by this issue worldwide. just my comments on this. but a good article to have - love the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.247.123 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 23skiddoo X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but only with careful comparison. I've already removed or revised several copyright vios from the article. I would not be surprised if there are more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Two hundred percent's recommendation. The international reaction in the main article already exceeds 50% of the total content and is reaching 60% of the content space. Doing a comparison with the main article and this article, there is extra information of separate countries that this article that the main article doesn't have. I strongly suggest the main article deletes their part of the International Reaction and use this article instead. -Madsingh ^(talk) 23:190, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Preferably, I would suggest merging what is in the main article to this article if possible. Certain parts on specific counters are longer there than it is here, and vice versa. - Two hundred percent (talk) 15:49, 4 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) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chang'an CV8[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chang'an CV8

Was legitimately prodded by another author. Prod removed by main editor however article still appears (as per the previous prod) to be a non notable car - with no sources & indeed the one link provided is a Chinese link which does not assist this article. --VS ^talk 07:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this stage as per my nomination.--VS ^talk 08:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very strange AfD,the notability depends on where you live and what you have learnt.The orginal reason of PROD is absurd,nn car no sources to say why this should be on here--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again Ksyrie - I'd be happy to support you but can you show links that verify notability. Where I live and what I have learned is immaterial - every reader who opens up the page on this vehicle is entitled to be able to see on that page that there is such a car, that it is notable and be able to check to see if the references are accurate.--VS ^talk 08:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right,and why I remove the previous PROD is its obvious strange reason for PROD,otherwise you can place in all pages with the words nn blablabla,I don't think why it's here--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best guidance we have here is probably Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) although it's just an essay, not a policy or guideline. This car would qualify as a "type", so it may be inherently notable, like the Ford Fiesta. The rest is probably down to sourcing and a stronger assertion of notability. I'll see if I can do anything. Ka renjc 09:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep What the hell is going on here? There are no grounds for deletion if the car exists. Man with two legs (talk) 22:58, 26 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) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. It is because the car is non-notable. Wikipedia is not for everything that exists. Schuym1 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Chang'an Zhixiang, which is the production name for the car previously code-named the CV8 (i.e. reverse the redirect). I've added some references to reviews of the car that show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 4 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. Lack of sourcing is fatal here. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microbead pillow[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable product.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Pillow or create Microbead. Article just needs improvement, this is a very common, popular product type.[46] Similar stretchy construction and microbead filling is also commonly used for stuffed animals.[47] Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename and expand as microbead. Sticky Parkin 18:59, 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 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bean bag. Mystache (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced, non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Microbead, the concept of microbeads seems sourceable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Microbeads are certainly of interest. There's still also some novelty to this construction (smaller beads, harder beads, elastic covering) compared to older beanbags. As I don't know of any uses for these beads outside these pillows, and as a key change from traditional beanbags is also their use of a Spandex-like outer covering material, then I'd favour keeping it here rather than renaming to Microbeads. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're used in the giant beanbag thingies you can sit on, and I think also in some soft toys. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But microbeads aren't the same as the beads (expanded polystyrene, bigger, softer) used in the big beanbags since the '60s. These new ones are different. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make it microbead stuffing if you don't like plain microbead. But I do think this should be kept and expanded under some title. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself (wisely) makes no claim of notability. Despite being in existence for four months, the article cites not even one reference. Bongomatic (talk) 06:58, 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, Cirt (talk) 08:25, 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 as unsourced WP:BLP, and redirect to phpBB. No sources are provided to support any biographical facts beyond a role in software development. The opinions acording to which this role or his being interviewed (about the software, not about himself) confer notability are given less weight because they are at variance with WP:BIO. Sandstein 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Atkinson (software developer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

One possibly reliable source and that's it? Contains quite a bit WP:OR (he currently lives in Canada? where does it say that?), and is, overall, a giant WP:BLP1E violation Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's notable for the phpBB work (giant evil steaming pile that it is). However much you like or dislike it, it's massive and being its Dr Frankenstein must convey some sort of notability. I'm interested in this article and its narrow one-product nature just to know that there are no other ghastly security nightmares out there waiting. WP:OR, {{unref}} etc. is an issue for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove all WP:OR, you'll have a stub. Besides, if anyone genuinely feels they can write a worthwhile article on the topic, they can do so just as effectively with this deleted as with it not. That said, I don't think calling phpBB a "giant evil steaming pile" is WP:CIVIL. Also, see WP:NOT#FORUM. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we just have a stub, then we have a stub. We keep those (labelled), we don't delete them merely for being stubs.

Secondly, I don't believe I've ever been required to be WP:CIVIL to a pile of PHP code. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, your comment still violates WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. No indications of notability except for being the initial author of phpBB where his name is mentioned. If you can find some more coverage of him, I'm willing to reconsider, but his name is very common, so my search fu fails me here. VG ☎ 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his role in the development of phpBB confers notability. As the Administrator of a phpBB 3 forum I can confirm that is indeed an evil steaming pile. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, basically, you're arguing that notability is inherited? In any event, let me demonstrate why WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX violations are inappropriate by asking this: Why? Why do you consider phpBB to be "an evil steaming pile"? United States citizens think that George Bush is the most wonderful president ever chiefly out of ignorance. Are you being similarly ignorant? Well, until evidence is presented to the contrary, I'll just have to assume you are. Oh - and per WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, you can't present your evidence - you can't defend yourself - in this AfD. Too bad for you. Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"conferred" isn't the same thing as "inherited". In this case, notability is conferred (and thus wiki-valid) by his role in phpBB (as his role in this was active and crucial). His partner (assuming for the moment that he's married) would not inherit (i.e. not wiki-valid) his notability though, as that role as a spouse isn't relevant to the original source of the notability (phpBB). That's the difference between conferrence and inheritance. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting semantic argument, but I cannot find any wikipolicy that backs your interpretation up. Quoting WP:INHERITED, Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.. Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what Andy Dingley said. Atkinson's involvement in the development of phpBB confers notability upon him, that isn't the same as inheritance. Clearly you're a touch excitable on this matter and in the interests of keeping the peace I won't address the remainder of your comments. Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to phpBB if he's indeed connected with that. Just because the software is notable doesn't mean he is. TravellingCari 01:57, 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, Cirt (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Atkinson has been interviewed by Linux Magazine and probably other publications. Even if he wasn't, yes--he'd be notable as the originator and a sometimes soul developer of phpbb. This isn't a "single event" in time, so WP:BLP1E does not hold water. --Karnesky (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like this is a dead standoff, right now. Andy Dingley, X MarX the Spot, and Karnesky vs. myself, VG, and TravellingCari Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job it's WP:NOTAVOTE then. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in enough AfD's to know that that doesn't hold any weight what-so-ever. If 90% of people vote keep, without giving any reason, and the 10% of people who vote to delete give very cogent and very real reasons, admins aren't going to care. They're not going to risk getting the 90% of people who voted to keep mad at them. Sure, the closing admin could cite WP:JUSTAVOTE, but those people who voted to keep aren't going to care - they're going to be mad, no matter what. And if the percentages are really close, as they are, here, the closing admin will say that there's no consensus, even though there is. The 50% of people who voted keep didn't form a consensus because all they did is cast a vote whereas the people who voted delete did form a consensus because they didn't just vote - they presented very cogent and very real reasons.

But hey - you want to play that game? Fine. The argument you presented for keeping this article is dead wrong as per my earlier reply so your vote should, pending a better argument, be ignored, per WP:JUSTAVOTE. Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you assume good faith? I argued that there are reliable sources that establish notability and have explained why I don't believe that BLP1E applies. You're obviously very passionate about this deletion, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you have no base for their opinions! --Karnesky (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your justification that I discredited - it was Andy Dingley's. That said, I still don't believe one interview is enough to justify inclusion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. You had initially referred to all who want this article kept as a collective entity. You also failed to remark that some deletion comments only argue BLP1E, which is meant to keep current events/news from over-running the encyclopedia, and which I don't really see as fitting here.

The Linux Mag interview is a second source that is not in the article, so there are at least two separate interviews with Atkinson. --Karnesky (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I've participated in enough AfD's" WP:NOTAPROOFBYAUTHORITY either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to prove anything with my first paragraph. The paragraph you should really pay attention to is my second one - the one where I suggest your vote be ignored. That doesn't involve any appeal to authority arguments - what that involves are wikipedia policies, plain and simple and if you believe that attacking the first paragraph invalidates the second, see ignoratio elenchi.

And as for the first paragraph.. that's not really an argument for anything. That's just me sharing my own experiences. And per those experiences, I don't believe the admin is going to ignore your vote, even though, at this moment, they should, since the only argument you made has been shown to be invalid. If you, none-the-less, want to believe that the first paragraph is an attempt to make an appeal to authority argument, go ahead. A no consensus closure, which is what I think will happen, per my first paragraph, means you essentially win, by default, and if that upsets you, that's your problem, not mine. Personally, I'm opposed to a no consensus closure, but I'm not the one doing the closing Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 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 as failing WP:N. Additionally, the sources provided either 1) don't say anything about the event in question, 2) are blogs which are not generally considered reliable sources, or 3) are primary sources which can not be used to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great West End & Railroad Square Hand-Car Regatta & Exposition of Artistic & Mechanical Wonders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Great West End & Railroad Square Hand-Car Regatta & Exposition of Artistic & Mechanical Wonders

Rather spammy write up of a non-notable new event. The author could not even be bothered to check whether WIkipedia's idea of an handcar is the same as theirs! - Sgroupace (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to verify notability. Having browsed the contrib history of the article's creator (User:tyjones2000) I would suggest that this article also needs to be added to this AfD. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is two days old. The event is notable in that is showcases how art interacts with community in Northern California. How sure how user would know what notable means in this context. Does it live here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyjones2000 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does it live here? Are Wikipedia contributes not people all of a sudden? Wikipedia has policies that we go by that dictate what notability is for Wikipedia, not just what any random user thinks is notable. Tavix (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability cannot be verified within the article. (and has a terribly long name, even though that isn't a reason to delete) Tavix (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there objective third-party sources which establish notability for this article ? If not, then the answer must be to delete it until a properly-sourced article can be contributed. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly my point. Tavix (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event, now ref'ed by at least two sources, one with video.

Article's terrible and looks like it's the first wiki edit by someone posting a press release onto it. That's all edit work though, not deletion. Basic topic is sound. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's wrong with handcar? Watch the video for an indication of how this article interpreted them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gramlee[edit]

A grammar correction service written up by user:Gramlee. Is it spam or not? - Sgroupace (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Non-notable software doesn't qualify for speedy delete, and~~ this article at least attempts to be encyclopedic. VG ☎ 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, this is a web service, so it could be deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but the article does try to assert notability with a couple of reviews, so it's worth debating here. VG ☎ 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no references. Equendil Talk 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO, the two reviews provided in the external links section are not from reliable sources. VG ☎ 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant advertising by a user with conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:29, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemofarm Group[edit]

Notability, page provides no secondary sources other than the company's own site to establish it as a "major pharmaceutical company". MrNerdHair (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Other sources have now been provided including its "major" presence in the country. Buttons 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some marginal mentions in Google News (see rescue tag) but nothing significant. VG ☎ 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They were the leading pharmaceutical company in sales in 2004; google books gives 60+ hits, Google scholar 50+. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notice placed at WikiProject Business & Economics, WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Serbia. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Most of the citations provided are to the company's own website. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company with 50 year history, many subsidiary companies, a basketball team, and a ton of easily found refrences. The fact that we can find English sources for this Serbian company means that it's way more notable than it seems, which already easily passes our requirements. Do a google book or news search next time before going to AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have a basketball team!!!Delete. The number of hits on Google Books goes down significantly if you only search for "Hemofarm", and by inspection, most of the references are of the most passing variety. Might be worth mentioning them in the STADA Arzneimittel page, but this doesn't merit a merger discussion. Bongomatic (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually the number of Google Books hits for just "Hemofarm" is 62. It doesn't go down at all from the search linked by Benjiboi. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well sourced article on an obviously notable company. Are we really considering deleting an article on a company which is reliably sourced to have 45% of Serbia's pharmeceutical market? How on earth can anyone claim that that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added to the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 5 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) 06:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galenika (company)[edit]

Notability... Page references no secondary sources to establish this is a "major" pharmaceutical company. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Added additional source concerning the article Buttons 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to Google news this company is notable for an explosion at one of their sites. VG ☎ 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar pops 130+ hits while Google books has 250+. Will add a ref to help with notability. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notice placed at WikiProject Business & Economics, WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Serbia. -- Banjeboi 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Controlling 1/3 of the pharmaceutical market (although unsourced at the moment) in Serbia meets notability standards. Themfromspace (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the absence of citations from accessible, reliable sources. See WP:V. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What do you mean by "accessible"? If you mean "freely available online" then there is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that demands that. See WP:V. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly has a strong enough assertion of notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick browse through the sources found by the Google Books search linked above shows obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 4 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) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Ryan-Lush[edit]

A few assertions of notability but no evidence offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources. See also WP:V. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 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 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Druid Order (ADO)[edit]

Notability. It provides no secondary sources referencing the organization other than the organization's own website. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: author had conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New-age spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:43, 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 04:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screentoaster[edit]

Non-notable software; the PROD was deleted, so i've moved it here. Ironho lds 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Ironho lds 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About as bad as they come, not notable, no references, hardly any context. Equendil Talk 12:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the author just blanked the page. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any source to make this notable. VG ☎ 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this is a one-sentence definitional statement and does not assert notability. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable software. Neptune5000 (talk) 09:40, 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 Pyramid scheme. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse funnel system[edit]

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

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

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

Obvious SPAM. Article's references criticize this pyramid scheme for the sole purpose of promoting a second one. Repeat occurrence, strongly recommend salt, or protect as redirect to Pyramid scheme Reswobslc (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree that the current references are problematic, the article can be improved by rewording to remove any bias and adding more references, efforts that Reswobslc has consistently blocked by getting the article (semi-)protected,[48][49][50] reverting, and screaming "it's spam spam spam" rather than engaging in a constructive discussion on the Talk page.[51][52][53] Reswobslc has created the article himself as a redirect to the pyramid scheme article, where the term is not mentioned at all. Obviously, this is not a proper use of a redirect per WP:REDIRECT and now that the most recent request for protection is declined because of improper use to settle a content dispute[54], he resorts to inproper use of AfD per WP:DP#Discussion. As for notability, the Google test gives 454,000 results for "reverse funnel system" [55]. The article implies that this is the result of Google bombing. The subject seems to be heavily advertised and reliable information on the web is completely overwhelmed by the Google bombing; Wikipedia would do potential victims of the alleged scam a favor by objectively documenting what the scam involves. Han-Kwang (t) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Salting is not to be used as a pre-emptive measure. Han-Kwang (t) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs work, sure, but a plain redirect to Pyramid scheme is no solution. The RFS scheme appears to be wellknown (or should I say infamous?) enough to justify an article of its own, just like MMF and the Ponzi scheme. ~~SIS~~ 12:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect with possible partial merger of content to pyramid scheme, which would probably tell anyone what they need to know about this scheme. After all, we're dealing with one of the oldest con games in the book, one that has been reinvented and rebranded thousands of times: every new one does not deserve a separate article absent some case for independent notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should recommend to either delete it alltogether, or to redirect AND mention it in pyramid scheme. A redirect to an article that does not mention it is not one of the permitted uses per WP:R. Han-Kwang (t) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep'~~ There was already a conversation as to how to manage this problem on the article's talk page. Redirecting to an article that does not mention this term is not appropriate. I does not seem "obvious spam" to me, request for page protection to lock it in as a redirect was denied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) The more I look at this the more unsure I am about the sources. Switching to Neutral see below Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This extremely negative article needs some specific reliable sources. The various references in the previous version don't meet the test. DGG (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in the current form doesn't contain any references to other pyramid schemes. It should be ok now. WH Coordinator (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article in its current form doesn't contain any references at all, as long as we ignore those stupid guidelines like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N (who cares about those silly jargony WP acronyms anyway), the article is great. Maybe it should be featured. Reswobslc (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about now? WH Coordinator (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all of the "sources" blatantly flunk WP:RS and WP:QS as they are all blog/forum postings or self-published "articles" on websites that publish any junk submitted by anybody. None of these are acceptable as reliable sources. Reswobslc (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific on how they flunk WP:RS and WP:QS? WH Coordinator (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, Krasnaya Zvezda, Time Magazine = Reliable Sources. Joe Schmoe's Blog = Not a reliable source. Article on Print-N-Po$t.net that publishes anything from any Joe Blow = Not a reliable source. Posting on somebody's blog = Not a reliable source. Posting on some other wiki or forum = Not a reliable source. Even Wikipedia itself does not meet the bar for "reliable source" because it consists of user-posted content. Please read WP:V and WP:RS in detail. Reswobslc (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both WP:RS and WP:QS, and am still having trouble equating it with the afd, could you bring a specific quote out, so we could analyze it, and see how it's relevant to the Reverse funnel system. WH Coordinator (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the references meet the criteria in WP:RS/WP:QS, or whether meeting/not meeting those criteria means that the article should be deleted? I think that the references are somewhat questionable if viewed by themselves, but taken together they do make a point, although a single article in the NYT would be better. I do believe that there are better references hidden among those 454,000 search results. Han-Kwang (t) 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well after the article gets deleted, if you can find a few of those "better" references, you could consider recreating the article. (However, chances are far more likely you will find a leprechaun or a pot of gold, or get struck by lightning; both of these occurrences would probably dramatically alter your life enough to keep you from wanting to promote or discuss pyramid schemes on Wikipedia.) Reswobslc (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let's not loose the thread of the discussion. Reswobslc, you are suggesting that WP:RS/WP:QS warrant the AfD for this article, could you bring the exact quotes to support your assertion? WH Coordinator (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reswobslc, having a good point does not mean you can throw WP:CIVIL out the window.[56] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, go blow me. Just kidding. I don't think I have been uncivil or a dick, though if you disagree, you're welcome to toss a template on my talk page. Use of sarcasm is not uncivil. Telling someone to "go blow me" is. Assuming they meant it. :) Reswobslc (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not constructive is all. It does not strengthen your argument, it makes it appear weaker and more mean-spirited. Nevertheless, the "sources" on this article are bunk, and the article's creator has been given ample time and explanation as to what the problem is. My vote is now Delete and salt the earth to prevent re-create without references. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Rubilio Castillo[edit]

I suspect this page does not contain sufficient material to assert the importance of its subject. However, I don't know enough in this area to tag it for speedy deletion, and thus require consensus to verify my suspicion. MrNerdHair (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A player in what I think is the top league in Honduras. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once this AfD is done, the article should probably be moved to Román Rubilio Castillo. --Eastmain (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

--Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. E P 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep - the league's article asserts that it has been professional since the 1965 season. Assuming this is accurate and I interpreted it correctly, he would be notable. matt91486 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The aticle claims to get its information from this page which doesn't actually state the league is professional from 1965, just that it was founded then. Babel can give you an English version (after a fashion) if your Spanish is a little rusty.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is my understanding that the league is fully professional, a position that is supported by the English and Spanish versions of the Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras article, although I cannot find a reliable source which gives an exact date at which the league became professional. E P 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this will be a good test case for us, since hopefully we can figure out where to include the Honduran league on our list of professional or non-professional competitions. 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Honduras is one of the top-ranked nations in the Champions League, and he has played for one of the top teams in their top league. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 4 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Dault[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, aspiring actress with extra parts and Youtube videos. Prod removed by anon. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — are you kidding? This fails WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT big time. MuZemike (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and probable WP:COI (authors username resembles who the article is about and the article is also that users user page). Matt (Talk) 06:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Delete user page also as a mirror. JuJube (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with possible reference to WP:SNOW, as pure vanity promotion. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have left a message on the author's talk page. Let's see what she does. Oh and weak delete as COI. Maybe if she is notable enough, someone will create an article about her from a neutral point of view Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't want to support WP:SNOW in this one instance in case some better sources can be found, but I feel its unlikely. RFerreira (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was there any attempt to speedy this?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Pemberton (anthropologist)[edit]

May or may not be notable - sent to AFD. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not clear if this is the location to take issue with the AFd or the DRV - when the only text found so far is sent to Afd and this is it? very odd and circular for a concerned editor - and for a comment 'may nor may not be notable' is patently absurd if you dont mind my saying so in good faith Satu Suro 02:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 25 - is a clear indication of the lack of understanding of the individuals considerable contribution to debate in the Indonesian cultural studies - which has absotutely nothing to do with the issues that the conversation held there(google is not the place for the material on the significance of many subjects and is not a final arbiter in many subjects - it is culturally skewed for a start) (at the deletion review) showed any semblance of understanding or even considering possibly asking someone from the Indonesian project about. Satu Suro 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the "lack of understanding of the individual's considerable contribution" is not surprising since the article at that point in time didn't make reference to those contributions. Google is certainly not the place to find all sorts of useful references for notable people, things, and ideas. However, looking there shows sufficient good faith in attempting to rescue an article that doesn't even bother to make the claim of notability in the first place. Your edits and comments convinced me, not the generic shell that was there before. Bongomatic (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in view of the individuals role in Javanese studies - I consider the article undeletable - still finding more relevent RS which I know exist Satu Suro 03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent edits to this article are starting to show the notability of the subject (though they could use amplification). Bongomatic (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Satu Suro 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least time should be allowed to expand this article. List of publications implies notability. Davidelit (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A list of a few publication does not imply notability, just enough to keep it from speedy and send it for discussion--and that was what the deletion review was about. This is the discussion. Actual notability for a scholar depends upon the number and importance of the publications. He has one book only (with two short reviews), 2 peer-reviewed articles, and 2 or 3 essays. Unless the book is very important indeed, that's not enough for notability per WP:PROF, or more generally as an author. He is still an Associate Professor, and as his career develops further he might become notable. As a personal opinion, Columbia may have given him tenure on the grounds of futrue possibilities, but we have no way of judging that. DGG (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His work has not received enough attention to satisfy WP:PROF. There would be thousands of assistant professors we could add here if his record were sufficient. Lack of citations to books/articles is also a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - So if I get this right - the fact that most USA academics wouldnt even know where Java the country is - and they havent actually done what Pemberton has done - then along comes the criteria and you can bump an article out - just because of the way you read the N criteria? something stinks - there might be no more than living 10 academics in the world who have done what he has done - and you are going by criteria that have nothing to do whatsoever with the Javanese context? There is a specific project and subject here that argues for the retention of the article and gives him a specific category - regardless of the problem of the mass of thousands of USA academics who probably want to do a self bio - notability here is specifically about the context of the specific book and when it was done - I think that does not allow for a precedent of flood of non entity academics to have their bios in - this is specifically to do with an era in Indonesia where Keeler, Pemberton, Woodward and Florida were doing something which has not been done before and not since - if indeed I have to deal with geographically challenged globalistic rationale - do I have to start questioning the validity of Afd in the same way Cfd is being seriously questioned for utterly disruptive pointless global context. The book and the author were important at the time for very specific historical reasons - and regardless of how easy it is to swipe it in terms that deny the Indonesian context. Notability in this case is quite different from that discussed above - it is to do with the Indonesian experience, and yes just one book - but very specifically the context makes it unique - and for that reason notable. Satu Suro 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per DGG. It may be that SatuSuro is correct and the book of Pemberton was/is very important, but I'd like to see some explicit evidence of that (e.g. some reviewers or other researchers saying so). Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment "On the subject of Java" has been cited 182 times according to Google Scholar, which seems a lot, but then consider that three false positives (other "J Pemberton"s) in that same search have been cited 243, 198, 193 times... and the following three false positives have 153, 150, and 141 ciations... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond some uncited assertions in the article and outright rhetoric here, we currently have little to work with. I mean it is the bio of an American academic and his subject is not that exotic. If his results are important, then it should be possible to add some sources saying so. Meanwhile the Indonesia project might want to consider to actually integrate his results into the 'pedia which also gives some recognition to a scientist. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some answers - I do have some refs but will not be able to trace then before the end of what is the usual Afd time - I personally did not actually start this art and would not have predicated the article on being an american academic after seeing most of the comments above - and am now caught out as always by those who assume it is all online - that is not the case. If someone actually closes this in the negative - all of the article - will go to a new article at some later stage loosely on anthropologists and historians in Java and issues brought up here will be totally redundant or irrelevent, hopefully - Satu Suro 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a degree of notability is apparent --Dreamspy (talk) 19:49, 29 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO notable. --Klein zach 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I haven't read the earlier versions of this article, but I can't see any problem with using the version at this time as the starting point for a potentially strong article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per barely meeting WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I continue to think the assertions of importance in the text of the article are merely promotional language. DGG (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the skepticism - I cannot gain access to the material that I need within the space of time allowed for afd's and as I didnt start it I would have not made the assumption that any american academics are inherently notable in the first place. Javanese history and culture and society are always subsumed at the best of times (that is another article too) so skepticism is probably as sound as knowledge of the subject. The whole reason for wanting to even spend a second's effort on any of them - keeler, florida, woodward, pemberton (and their mates from australia - Cribb, Lucas and others) is for the very reason there seems to be doubts as to their N - their work was conducted in new order Indonesian when outside researchers were given a hard time by new order bureaucracy (ask me it took me 3 years to get permission to get into the country) and their strategies to either avoid or cope with the new order/suharto era when writing up their Phd fieldwork was exemplified by pemberton's clever critique of the new order in context of something that had happened in the 1700's - but hey I am not gonna sweat over all this if necessary the separate article will solve the issues If I have to at some stage in the future - rhetoric, assertions of importance - it will all out if necessary in an article about those who had to cope with new order bureaucracy in the 80's and 90's - a bit like N issues in wikipedia (sic) - pity it will take me physically about a month to find the refs - cheers Satu Suro 00:22, 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 no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Christian Heywood[edit]

not enough secondary sources to write an article and subject is not notable Jeremiah (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no reliable sources covering the subject, and the article itself describes him as "up and coming" - no objection to recreation when he actually arrives -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejuddice, as there is "amost" enough out there. As a lab rat, he just squeeks under the notability radar. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete per subject's comment. Knowing that this is a major series character named "Lab Rat" and not simply a lab rat, I may be able to find a notability. I can do a wider search based upon this new information. I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial - Likely leaning towards delete. Even though I am this person, I do not consider my work very noteworthy at this point in time, nor did I create or particularly care for the article carrying my name. Though in consideration of its deletion, it should be noted that "Lab Rat" is not a minor role, but the actual name of a lead character appearing in every episode. -M.Christian 99.240.96.229 (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said it is a very close thing. If you give your management a boot in the backside they should be able to spin that "up and coming" into a "arrived and cheering". Can you point the direction to any articles about "Lab Rat" as a character. As a name, it is such a generic term that searches bring thousands of non-related hits. Damn near impossible. I'm willing to work on improving the article and establishing notability, one actor to another, as I have been learning what Wiki expects from an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not yet established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set Redirect to Grossology. There is already a section there on the actors and the characters each plays. A merge saves this information, and improves Wiki. If/when Mr. Heywood reaches a Wiki-level of notability, the information can be extracted and this article might be re-created. In the meantime, folks looking for the actor information for Paul "Lab Rat" Squirfenherder, can find it right where they might expect it to be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with this proposal. Jeremiah (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment with a nod toward M. Christian: I did spend some time searching and sourcing to source the facts of the article. I was even able to find his character's full series name and searched and sourced that as well. I think he is most definitely an "up and comer" and that the article on him will be back with a smile. Don't be disheartened. Keep on doing what you do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 29 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 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) 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Tipton[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is nothing but plain cruft. It also provides no real-world notability and only appeals to a small group of people - those who watch the show. --haha169 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary in-universe article. It adds no information on top of what is in the parent article The Suite Life on Deck. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yarr, put this crufty mess seaward, as it adds nothing to the parent article at all except obvious conclusions, like they live on a boat and have a warning system. Nate • (chatter) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Suite Life on Deck. Plausible search term. No question as to the notability of the parent program, but I don't think that there are sources to support this spin off. I don't see anything to merge, but no objection if someone wants to try. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:fancruft. The article made no sense to me. VG ☎ 20:31, 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.

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The S.S. Tipton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Coleman[edit]

There are assertions of notability but doesn't seem notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - $2000 in a regional competition is not a notable prize. Note that author of article is one of his sponsors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:37, 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 04:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Springer[edit]

Failed PROD. Unsourced article about a non-notable actress. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 04:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 05:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed prod turn successful deletion nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bongomatic (talk) 06:59, 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 (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA National Grape Catching Competition[edit]

No sources or google hits. Suspected hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a hoax to me. Also lacks internal consistency. Huadpe (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism, G3 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as decidedly not notable. No WP:V via WP:RS. Were this a notable event, it would have some mention somewhere. And it has none I can find. Creator similarly created Mikie Marsh, now for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Marsh. ‎ Dloh cierekim 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-mega delete Total WP:BALLS Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Marsh[edit]

No evidence of notability. Was tagged for A7 speedy deletion and the tag was removed without comment. I do not wish to edit war over a speedy tag. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - part of Hoax. See nom for USA Grape Catching Competition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again Even if true, this is decidedly non notable. There is no verifiable information from reliable third party sources. The only source for this is the Youtube page. A search of the Internet does not reveal significant media coverage. Nor does a search of Google news. No book mentions. Not enshrined in scholarly works. No real assertion of notability, if you look at it. Which is why I speedily deleted it before. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with extreme prejudice as unadulterated bullshit Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 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) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Hills Books[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7. It has a slim assertion of notability, and the press has been written up. I don't think this is an A7 but I don't think it meets notability standards either. Chick Bowen 04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question... do we know that this publishing firm is more than one person? And inre WP:CORP, the guideline states "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"... and for what it is and where it is, it seems to qualify. I mean really... Duluth, after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability and certainly no evidence thereof. - Sgroupace (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tiny publisher which has apparently published only three books [57]; I don't think a brief mention on a local website can establish notability, and none of the other 35 google hits look like significant independent coverage. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed up the article, added proper links and references. The company has a major writer in its line-up, Bruce Henricksen, and its first book pays homage to Pulitzer Prize winner James Wright. This is a new company, so I tagged it as a stub -- over time, this can grow into a larger article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple references. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current references, other than the one I linked in the nomination, are reviews of books published by the press. Can anyone find discussions of the press itself, rather than books it's published? I think they would be more helpful in determining notability. Chick Bowen 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back For a small start-up press, reviews are an important way to secure notability within their industry. The vast majority of these publishers never get written up in major media, so getting attention via reviews is key to establishing their cred. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved, the article about the publishing firm just sneaks over the notability fence. It's not a biggie, that's for sure... but it has notability in its area which has been verified by reliable sources. Nuff said. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 4 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. Sandstein 07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.W. the Picky Eater[edit]

Basically just an episode of "Arthur". No reason for it to exist as a separate article from List of Arthur episodes. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added because it has basically the same issues:

Delete. Looks like they are only plot summaries with no use on Wikipedia. Not all episodes need to have an article on Wikipedia because many television episodes are not notable. Also, the "Dancing Fools" article looks to me like a copyright violation due to the fact that it links to Youtube videos of the episode. Mythdon (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arthurcuft with no sourcing or individual notability, and no need for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 08:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Arthur episodes. This doesn't belong here, it belongs to the episode list. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. This article (Dancing Fools) if we keep adding onto it could have some potential. It just needs some images, and addition to the plot. Plus, why do we have all those articles for episodes of Seinfeld? Elbutler (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they have sources documenting their real-world relevance as a cultural phenomenon. JuJube (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elbutler, I suggest that next time you want an article kept on Wikipedia, say keep, not do not delete. Mythdon (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable and no real world wources. Also the plan to improve it by "adding plot" would make it even more deletion worthy.Yobmod (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move. I suppose i could move this article to my sandbox? Or make it a sub-page to my userpage? Elbutler (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you can freely move the content to your user-page/sub page, where you can work on the content. If it eventually meets WP:OR, WP:WAF, and WP:N, it can be re-added as a regular page.-- StarScream1007 ►Talk 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay then if anyone is against this move speak now. Elbutler (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i'm moving it now Elbutler (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbuter. Why did you move that page to your userspace. It seems to me your trying to evade those pages deletions. Correct?. Mythdon (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reason why this page should be kept...The Alien Costume is just another episode of Spider-Man and you kept it, and don't say it's important because it isn't. You're only just deleting this page becuase it's a page from a less popular tv show, if i created an article page for Home Improvement, or Superman: The Animated Series you would keep it. Also why do we have a page for the BTAS episode Almost Got 'Im it's just another episode of Batman? Now correct me if i'm wrong, but it think you guys are deliberatley picking on me!!!!! Elbutler (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never involved in a deletion discussion about The Alien Costume. Also, we are in no way picking you. These articles should be deleted and that is final. Mythdon (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, articles about Spider-Man and Batman episodes usually have quite a number of outside sources, whereas you'll likely never get any people talking about particular "Arthur" episodes. JuJube (talk) 04:57, 4 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) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Brabaw[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable person. Author of two self-published books which are not notable, and has been a production coordinator for a handful of TV episodes. No independent sources to verify biographical details. Very few Google hits. Article was originally written by Brabaw's PR agent, definite COI issues. Same author wrote a similar article about Brabaw two years ago which was speedied. This edition was speedy-tagged but declined, then PRODded which was removed without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ThatsNotFunny (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why? (BTW, this is the same editor who removed the {{prod}} without any explanation in the edit summary.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC
Please read WP:NOREASON. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Brabacious (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)" The books are not self-published. Another article was deleted a couple years ago because we didn't know that you could "fight" deletion. There is nothing wrong with writing an article that is a biography as long as the person has done something notable or unique. Her books are not self published, she owns her own production company, she directed and produced a film and has worked in the entertainment industry for seven years. Just today another article was written about her by WWTI-TV in Watertown, New York. She is one of few authors that has written about borderline personality disorder. If you google her name, tons of things come up - mostly related to her work in television and film. Almost all of the biographical info is supported either by IMDB or www.JaniceBrabaw.com. Yes, we are trying to gain publicity and notoriety for this writer, but we are being unbias - per Wikipedia rules. If you have specific issues that about where we can edit the article or where we need more references, let me know. I don't really know how Wikipedia works. I'd appreciate help instead of someone just trying to delete my article and make things difficult[reply]

As I told you beforehand, Wikipedia specifically forbids articles which promote anything at all, and especially self-promotion or promotion by someone who is paid to do so, as you admittedly are. Please read this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Last time I checked you don't have to be a New York Times Best Selling Author or have won an Oscar. She's a new talent making her way. No skin off wikipedia's back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkyJo (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — SparkyJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: This user signed up for a user name exactly one minute before posting this comment, and has no other contributions other than that and a snarky message posted on my talk page. I am beginning to suspect sockpuppetry, but it's just an old reporter's instincts right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. since when did wikipedia become the c.i.a. trying to seek out when users signed up, posted messages, etc. it's not that serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlahBlah2008 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — BlahBlah2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please read WP:NOHARM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTMYSPACE. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My remarks to the entry before this one apply here too, excpet this user took three minutes from sign-up to vote. Anyone noticing a pattern here? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion based on the merits of the arguments. Recently-created single-purpose accounts don't usually carry much weight, especially if they just parrot each other. Bringing a ton of sock-puppets is pretty pointless (and usually obvious) and I've seen it be counterproductive in their AfD goal. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's cut the hyperbole and personal feelings about what is an "important" person. Wikipedia already has quite clear guidelines about what makes a person "notable enough to merit having a page here": WP:BIO describe the level of notability/accomplishment and WP:RS describes the types of sources we need to support those claims of notability. If the books are groundbreaking or very important in their field, then it should be no problem to find reviews in major mainstream publications or in scholarly journals in that field. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Obvious SPA attempts here in this discussion. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any evedience of notability. References in the article are:
- Her own website so doesn't establish notability
- Her entry on imdb. Apart from the fact such an entry does not establish notability there appears to be nothing notable in her credits.
- An amazon product with such a low sales rating I can't believe it establishes notability.
- A press release. Press releases don't establish notability per WP:N.
- An article on a university's website. Coverage is little more than trivial as it just says what she's doing and I don't think even an in-depth article in such a source would establish notability.

Further, a google search only returns about 70 hits nearly all of which are either imdb (or similar) or facebook (or similar). Dpmuk (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable person's self-promotion. PS: If you're going to rummage in the sock-drawer, try not to pick socks that match. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not establishing notability. The sources can't really be classified as reliable or substantial and the tone just smacks of the meddling of a PR firm. The militant SPAs above only exacerbate things, too. In the end, I'm afraid that one (and a half) self-published books, a screenplay that seems to have stalled and credits as an assistant accountant (amongst other things) on a handful of reality shows do not add up to a WP article. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just noticed that the majority of the article is taken verbatim from here... just thought this possible copyright violation should be noted here too. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence provided (or found on searching) of reliable sources discussing this woman, her books or film -Hunting dog (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, and anything else you can throw at it. The comments of the anon above, "Yes, we are trying to gain publicity and notoriety for this writer" pretty much says it all, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dpmuk expresses the issue perfectly. -Verdatum (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THis is an author who has written two books. There is no assertion of notability in the article, apart from the fact that someone wants her to have a broader profile. WIki is not a book catalog -- delete -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. Neptune5000 (talk) 09:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums[edit]

Trivial intersection. I see nothing particularly notable about acts that have had two or more self-titled albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Trivial, but these are still notable articles in their own right (If they aren't, then AfD them first). I wouldn't bother to create this list myself (Why?!), but that's no reason to seek its deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think it meets WP:SALAT? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the definition of the list is clear and well-bounded. I wouldn't claim the members of this list were exhaustive, or even that it was an exhaustive list of all potentially wiki-notable albums that would meet it. I certainly wouldn't want the role of maintaining it. However I don't see anything in WP:SALAT that this conflicts with. I certainly don't see it as being either too specific, or too broad. With WP:SALAT particularly in mind, I see no concern that either would, or ought to, split into List of hip-hop musicians with multiple self-titled albums, List of rastabilly skank musicians with multiple self-titled albums etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and "lists that are too specific are also a problem" from Wikipedia:SALAT. VG ☎ 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Interesting, comprehensive, neither too broad nor too vague. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the proviso i can create a list of rubbish lists on wikipedia. I'll start with this article. Operating (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eponymity is a non-encyclopedic categorization. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivia list. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe --Klein zach 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletle - this is a trivia list. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For too specific for my liking. WP:SALAT --neon white talk 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From where I sit, it passes WP:LC 1 & 2 (I have used the list for reference both as an editor and as a music collector), 5 (musical artists continue to, confusingly, name multiple albums after themselves), and 7 (there is content about commonly used nicknames or other differentiators used by music fans to tell these albums apart). One man's trivia is another's useful information; as a user of this list, I don't find it trivial at all -- Foetusized (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the word "multiple" were not in the list criterion, I'd agree with you. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list with very limited usefulness, and is of interest only to a very small number of people. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~. Says who? The article is linked to from a lot of articles. It serves a useful disambuguation purpose, differentiating creative works from the same artists with the same title. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is voting twice reallly called for? And both times strongly? That's pretty strong!Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote by same user as voted earlier struck through. Probably a mistake, given it was either side of a re-list, but striking for the benefit of whoever closes this. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE anyway Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's listed twice, I'll restate my opinion. This appears to be a bad-faith nom as it is; major contributors and the relevant wikiproject were not notified. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think anyone can have a problem with that, hence why I didn't strike what you wrote. But a bad-faith nom is stretching it, I think: major contributors don't have to be notified, nor WikiProjects - infact, as far as I'm aware, no one does, but it's generally customary to notify only the creator, no? That's all I do when I nom something, and I certainly hope my nominations aren't taken in bad faith... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems pretty much a trivial intersection (ie good for answering trivial puruits questions). Intersection with albums/films with any similar titles have been created (Films with cities in their title etc), this doesn't seem any less trivial to me. Being intersed in an artist who has done this would not induce me to want a list of others, except for banal curiosity reasons. Agree with those saying it fails items 1,2 and 8 of WP:LC.Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a difference between untitles and self-titled? Most of these seem untitled to me. the self-title is just given by marketing types, cos people expect one.Yobmod (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Throwing Muses maintain that their 1986 album was untitled and their 2003 album was self-titled, but I don't know how anyone would be able to make that distinction from the album covers/packaging. -- Foetusized (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely trivial list. Fails WP:LC on multiple levels (1, 2, 7 (although it wouldn't be good as a category, either) & 10). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely trivial. It doesn't really tell you anything, which I think is the definition of trivial. it's just a fact. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LC is not a guideline or policy. It's a personal essay and not accepted by the community. Therefore it has no weight whatsoever in a deletion discussion. Deletion recommendation based solely on this article are likely to be disregarded. --neon white talk 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the page and its contents are an essay, doesn't mean the points in it aren't based on policies which are perfectly reasonable reasons to delete: particularly, its ideas include WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:NOT, etc etc. Just because people choose to cite listcruft as an all-encompassing term covering one or more of those other core policies doesn't mean their arguments should be dismissed out of hand. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then those policies need to be mentioned, you can't point to an essay and say 'delete because of that'. It's just not a valid reason for deletion and will carry even less weight than pointing to a policy or guideline with no explaination. Many of the points on WP:LC are not in line with existing policy or community consensus and are not agreed guidelines. For Example 'The list was created just for the sake of having such a list' - Everything on wikipedia is created for the sake of having an article on it. This is not a good reason to delete. 'The list is of interest to a very limited number of people' - Doesnt make it non-notable. 'The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category' Directly violates policy WP:CLN and guidelines on navigational lists. 'The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.' - There is no limit set on the amount of time or effort a wikipedia article should or shouldn't take to keep in order and up to date. In the end these are all just personal opinions and not based on any agreed policy or guideline. --neon white talk 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your premise completely, I just don't think people's opinions should be discounted out of hand for pointing to the wrong page. If any just said "delete per WP:LC" I would agree, but none of those citing it said just that - the three people pointed out at least one individual part of the essay which are built in policy. Their opinions shouldn't just be ignored, that defies common sense - but I would expect any admin with decent experience closing AFDs would be capable of weighing the opinions of those who quote it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:41, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warkop[edit]

This article was speedy deleted twice, but is back again. Obvious problems with WP:RS. All of the films listed here are redlinked and (I assume) none were ever released outside of Indonesia. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any particular reason this can't be speedied again and salted? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.

Comment well it depends.(1) Once again another Indonesian topic is left out of the Indonesian project deletion list (2) problem is that many Indonesian editors have no idea of RS and at most times the request to ask them to add them is left with complete and utter silence from the editors (3) I dont think that Indonesian editors have sufficient or adequate understanding of article V - N issues to adequately defend afds for a start - which makes the speedy suggestion so tempting I suppose (4) although perhaps not meeting conventional understanding of the N or V context the external links onto youtube would be ok if this wasnt an afd :) Satu Suro 10:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this article this group are "iconic comedy figures" and this source says that a generation was brought up on their comedy. They are enough of a household name to be referred to nostalgically and for one of their members to get press coverage for giving up smoking. I've no idea what this article says (maybe SatuSuro can help?) but it certainly seems to be substantial coverage of this group. I would also add that there is absolutely no need for them to be known outside the world's fourth most populous country to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 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, TravellingCari 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Phil who seems a dab hand at digging out WP:RS on Indonesian topics. Maybe - and this is in all seriousness - he could write a how-to guide for the Indonesia project, who do seem to have a problem getting the sourcing sorted apparently? MadScot (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as it stands, the article does not establish notability, and I believe would be appropriate for deletion. Phil Bridger's sources suggest it is indeed a notable topic. However, this information needs to be added to the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:11, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfterSys[edit]

Appears to fail WP:WEB and/or WP:CORP. <100 Google hits, for one. Biruitorul

Delete. No claim to notability, no third party references. Also, appears to violate WP:COI. Bongomatic (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Talk 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrNerdHair (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't see any Google hits which indicate coverage in secondary sources. It is incidently a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion A7. Jll (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A tech services business (web hosting company) that fits the typical profile of a Wikipedia spammer. Absolutely no showing of importance made in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Plaza[edit]

Non-notable strip mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a (mostly) dead strip mall's proximity to a notable dead mall (Bannister Mall) does not make the (mostly) dear strip mall itself notable. Searching revealed no useful sources for verifiability or notability. - Dravecky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --DAJF (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - solely for the fact that it has nothing going for it at this time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Howarth[edit]

not notable, info could be merged into other articles Saveourcity (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF for now. Very little in GoogleBooks[58] and GoogleScholar does not indicate significant citability either[59]. Similar results in Scopus. I looked up her website[60] and did not see anything else (awards, honors, etc) there that would indicate passing WP:PROF, except for being on editorial boards of two journals. That is not sufficient for passing WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with Nsk92 that she is't there yet, but especially the two editorial board memberships indicate that some people think she's somebody important in her field, or becoming important. Still, WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not yet--11 papers in Scopus (relatively complete for European social Sciences) Most cited papers, 12, 11, 11; membership on an editorial board or an associate editor is only an early step in what might become a notable career eventually. DGG (talk) 03:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable National Basketball Association games televised by CBS[edit]

Hopelessly PoV article, while sourced, many of the sources doesn't tell why many of these games are "notable" and the few that does aren't really independent of the subject (team websites). Some of these notable x games as been deleted in AFD before, and I see this one no different Delete Secret ^account 12:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is quintessentially indiscriminate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:31, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopefully overcoming my visceral dislike of basketball to give a neutral opinion and agree with the nom. MadScot (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of CBS's broadcasting of the NBA, or something like that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — obviours attempt to shirk the deletion process by including the word "notable" on the article's title. MuZemike (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with strong agreement with MuZemike's point above. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:18, 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 Notebook Paper. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Hustle[edit]

No rankings or awards or anything else that would lead one to believe that reliable source material is available for this topic. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. -- Suntag ☼ 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All content in the article is already contained in the album's article, and that is unlikely to change. --Megaboz (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notebook Paper until there's something more substantial to write here. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added in a reference to the Billboard chart, thus it passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:13, 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, TravellingCari 03:06, 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 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album. Low charting single, unlikely to be more than stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:20, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Mal[edit]

It is an album article with little more than a track listing. In sufficient source material. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. -- Suntag ☼ 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adicta. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:06, 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 02:01, 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 Suicide Silence. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Lucker[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined. — X S G 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as nom. — X S G 01:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suicide Silence - assuming Suicide Silence passes its AfD. — X S G 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur no notability outside of role in band as far as I can see MadScot (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since XSG revised to redirect, I'd be happy to concur with that too if it's deemed the overall best solution. MadScot (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jakisbak (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Silence[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Existing sources are press releases and a blog (not reliable). Does not meet guidelines for general notability. Claim for notability for a band (Peak #94 on Billboard 200) is questionable. Prod declined. — X S G 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. — X S G 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Looks to me as if the band just about meets WP:MUSIC. One album released on a label with a large enough stable to meet "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" - Hell, I even recognized one band name, which given I'm virtually clueless about the genre must stand for something!, with a second album on the way. Certainly that second album would be a clear WP:MUSIC pass if released. I think the chart position is just about high enough since it seems to be an all-genre chart, not a one-genre chart (where #94 wouldn't cut it). MadScot (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But I don't think the band members are individual;ly going to meet notability, FWIW MadScot (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep from the #94 on Billboard 200. -Verdatum (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as before. I think they just about justify notability, specially with a new album out soon. Jakisbak (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep See allmusic.com: Suicide Silence Canniba loki 02:39, 5 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Gaslamp[edit]

Essentially spam. This Christian community did get a little bit of local media coverage but certainly not enough to support the current content of the article or, in my opinion, a full article which can be properly sourced. Oh and if you like the notability guides: WP:ORG. Pichpich (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein[[User talk:Klespan style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach]] 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Of the two newspaper articles the SD Reader is a weekly paper, but the Union Tribune is a daily paper serving a local, but significant, metro area - it's at the border of regional vs local paper I'd say - it claims to be in the "top 25" US newspapers on it's 'readership' page and with a circulation of 300,000 it's equivalent to, say, the Guardian or the independent in the UK market (though not ranking as high in national influence, obviously). It would be nice if there were coverage other than of the opening of the church, though - it's a bit "oneventy" right now. MadScot (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, noting the serious NPOV problems in the text. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Now Neutral - see below. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete as this is an original event and exclusive type of Christian Community in Northern America. This Kind of Community only really exists in Great Britain. This is the First of it's kind in the states and is a new model for church organizations. The Missional Movement and Incarnational Communities are relatively new in the Christian Movement. So new in fact that there is very little written on Wikipedia about them. When I first heard of this idea, I could find NO information on here about it. Once this Community Started it was the perfect informational center to explain the hows and whys of these new movements. This community embodies these ideals. now if someone is interested in the subject matter, they will find a working model. This is NOT spam or advertisement. This is pragmatic definition, not an ideal. Please Consider giving instructions for revising the article where needed instead of deleting. Please instruct me on how to improve the article and make it acceptable. vince11881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince11881 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete (more) - Below I have Copied the afore mentioned notability guide originally used to begin this discussion on the validity of this article WP:ORG:
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
Vince11881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince11881 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be an exercise in futility but I've greatly cleaned it up so some of the more glaring problems have been largely mitigated. WP:CHURCH would be a good place for those familiar with the church to look at. There's an orphanage? Has this been written about? You may find Wikipedia:Citation templates helpful as well to see how different sources are cited. There may be online sources that do source this information but we're not yet finding them. The group is likely too young to be in any books but they might be written up in magazines or have their activities in the larger community documented. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The Following are excerpt that pertain to this article from the guidelines mentioned in WP:CHURCH:
Guidelines:Local churches, parishes, and congregations should usually be considered to be notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria, as documented by references cited in the article:1. The congregation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the church itself. 4. The congregation plays a notable or significant role within its denomination or religion. This only should apply if the denomination is notable in itself. It also should be documented by sources external to the individual church, but possibly internal to the denomination. 10. The congregation's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination. 11. The congregation building has particular architectural and/or historic significance."
Please Consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.35.158 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in two reliable sources. All else is WP:PROBLEMS. The issues with the article can and will be rectified. the skomorokh 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The re-write is excellent. However, if I'm going to move over to Keep, I think it's going to be necessary to show a reliable source backing the claim made above that this sort of community is otherwise unique to the UK. (I'm a Londoner, and things like church plants and Christian groups meeting in Starbucks are pretty common here, even within the established Church of England.) That would make the Anchor community definitely notable and distinctive in North America. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I'm reading you right but they are in California.

I know they are. A commenter further up this AfD discussion mentioned that this project is apparently the first of its type in the USA, and that such projects are otherwise restricted to the UK. I was reporting the anecdotal evidence that these things are indeed reasonably widespread over here in England. I hope someone else can tell me whether this is, in fact, the first in the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I doubt this is a first but a part of a trend of evangelical churches doing so. That they seem to devote half their gatherings to doing community outreach instead does seem notable so that part may be more unique. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an offshoot of the much larger Anchor church in San Diego which started in a similar manner and now runs it's own school and is quite large; Vince Larson is likely related to Rev. James N. Larson. Unclear what official tie-in the two have. There are more sources just on the individual pastors but given that everything in the article seems supportable I'm inclined to week keep. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable source material to maintain an article and good liklihood of finding more. -- Suntag ☼ 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you claiming that one of/both the references are unreliable sources or that some/all of the coverage trivial, or both? Both articles are dedicated exclusively to the subject, and are several paragraphs long, so I can't imagine that you think the coverage is trivial, while it seems a stretch to cite the Sand Diego Union Tribune or San Diego Reader as printing unreliable information about a church group. Would you mind clarifying? Gracias, the skomorokh 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Articles are reliable, nontrivial and pertinent, Subject of Debate is of descent notoriety and informative to people interested in the subject, and all issues in the original have been corrected in the rewrite. No real basis for deletion or further discussion on the matter.— 72.199.104.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gazi moff 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Europe[edit]

This article is devoid of meaningful content. It's just a list of geographical names. It was created in February 2005 but never developed. There are already many other articles on aspects of European music, so notability is not really relevant here. The problem of the article was discussed on the Music project here. Klein zach 01:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely broad topic that could never be covered in one article. It would be like saying "Music of Asia". Michellecrisp (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad--essentially a dab page in disguise. JJL (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A notable topic but the article doesn't really help. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost impossible to write as a single article. We would need to cover everything from Neanderthal vocalisations through the Classical Greeks to Beethoven to the boy band phenomenon and beyond. The Music of Europe template at the end of the article is sufficient to provide links to the various countries covered in the sections of the article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As nominator notes, this really is a list of geographical names, with someone's personal vision of how to divide Europe ("Western european music includes the music of Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.") Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 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 WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod games[edit]

The subject of this article is not notable, as it has not received any third-party coverage. While I agree that many of the games themselves are notable, that does not make the concept of iPod games notable. There are two sources: the Apple website itself and a website which is not a reliable source. Therefore, the article is both non-notable and unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review here at MacWorld which I believe is sufficiently independent of Apple for our purposes. It's a review of games as a group, not individually, which seems to validate the article concept. MadScot (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-written, sourced, and notable, I think the opposite is reverse: while not every game is notable, the concept of an iPod game is notable. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at worst, there's no problem with "List of games for X platform"-type articles, though sourcing would help a bit more. This article attempts to add more, so that's even better. --MASEM 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — additional sources from Engadget and in Popular Mechanics — more than enough to satisfy the hunger of WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuZemike. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Subject is notable and article simply needs regular editing. It would be nice to start including sources so readers can have confidence in what is written. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: individual games on the list are notable, as well as the larger concept of games on the iPod. LOTS of reliable third-party coverage out there, and certainly enough in the article currently to meet our standards. Randomran (talk) 00:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent One-Half[edit]

The movie appears to have not been released and that it's status isn't known even though IMDB has the release date as March, 2008. The reason that I think that is because the only reliable source that I could find is the official site. I searched on Google, Google News, Rotten Tomatoes, and Movie Review Query Engine.Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased movie, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:05, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 01:37, 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 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haskore[edit]

It's messy, ad written, and it doesn't assert notability, nor seems that it is. If this is a total screw up on my part then let me now. It's been so long. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources. It's more like a "how-to" right now. It would be better posted in a music software site than on WP. Redddogg (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will readily concede that it is messy (I would have written it better), but it is certainly notable. Consider a quick Haskore search on Google Scholar. As one would expect of a major research vehicle for Dr. Hudak of Yale, there are papers on it which are cited repeatedly - "Haskore music notation-An algebra of music" is cited dozens of times; besides the papers, it is one of the oldest large Haskell projects and a simplified version of Haskore is a key pedagogical ingredient of his The Haskell School of Expression textbook.

That is, from an academic standpoint I believe it as notable as, say, Xmonad. --Gwern (contribs) 12:03 26 September 2008 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haskell is developed and used mostly by academics. There is a Journal of functional programming, ICFP etc. An inevitable side-effect is that you'll find a lot more academic citations for a Haskell library than for the equivalent C++/Java/someotherlanguage library. VG ☎ 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that. There may be a few JoFPs & conferences which explicitly focus on functional programming, but that's a reaction to the overwhelming mass of all the other stuff, which are so mainstream that they are practically default. Arguendo, I'd also note that I've never seen anything in the relevant criteria that discriminate against 'noisy minorities' (as you seem to suggest the Haskell community is). --Gwern (contribs) 14:02 29 September 2008 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can't find any reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are there, article needs clean-up but that's not a reason to delete. Google books [61] has 20+ hits. -- Banjeboi 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources (books, academic papers) to make it notable. VG ☎ 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... can you point them out, please? Stifle (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you expect a list of reviews like for popular software, that's not likely to happen. Academic papers mention significant related work, and usually summarize it in a paragraph at the most. The only exception are survey papers, but even there the coverage is generally not extensive. The initial paper about Haskore has 23 third-party citations on CiteseerX [62] and 53 (total) on Google scholar. Here are a few papers describing Haskore as related work: [63], [64], [65]. In comparison Lilypond has far fewer academic citations, but cites Haskore in its academic paper [66]; another proof that popular ≠ notable). It's also covered in The Haskell School of Expression: Learning Functional Programming Through Multimedia by Paul Hudak, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521643384. While Hudak is the primary author of the initial Haskore paper, I would not consider CUP vanity press. These seems sufficient to me to prove notability. I expect(ed) the functional programming buffs to add these references to the article. VG ☎ 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also mentioned a number of times in A Semantic Time Framework for Interactive Media Systems by Eric Lee, Cuvillier Verlag, ISBN 3867274363. VG ☎ 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Might be able to scrape together an article using accessible, reliable source material Google books, Google scholar, Google news. If no changes, AfD2 in three months. -- Suntag ☼ 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 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.

Douchepuss[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10- Attack page. Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about a non-notable neologism. Prod was removed by someone. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:53, 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 Gazi moff 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxdvd[edit]

This article has a lot of information, but seems to be purely an advertisement. — Yavoh 02:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Speedy was declined. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 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 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an elaborate but mostly unreferenced page of advertising for a commercial product wrapped in instructions for its use. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday morning preview specials[edit]

This is an unsourced, cluttered trivial list. It's nothing more than an advertisement list of shows that helped promote new seasons of shows. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly I'd like to keep this, but this has no sources and pretty much reads more like a time capsule of the shows targeting kids and teens than it does as a serious examination of the subject. At best, I would merge the details of the CBS, NBC and ABC programs to the articles dealing with their individual Saturday morning blocks (Fox and WB/CW don't have any content needing to be merged). Nate • (chatter) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion is sources exist to confirm notability. Article need expansion and cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist.[67] [68] They're going to be hard to find though, because they don't seem to be doing them much anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 26 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) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going with a keep on this because these are verifable, nationally broadcast programs on major networks, and having a list like this is preferable to separate articles on same. Needs much better sourcing, however. 23skidoo (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IMHO a notable topic but badly needs something in the currently empty "references" section. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Town Square[edit]

Does not show significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area. No support in third party credible and reliable secondary sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is the same subject of a major industry magazine article, that counts towards RS + V. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this mall falls into the super regional catagory, which in itself (usually) endows notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Richmond Heights, Ohio. Epbr123 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mall is notable as a super-regional, I have expanded the article a bit and added some references stretching back over its 40+ years of service. - Dravecky (talk) 13:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super regional mall, several sources added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:18, 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 Gazi moff 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Amoroso[edit]

Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and it is uncited and appears to be wriiten by the subject, i.e. being a Vanity page. 125.236.160.92 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the article claims a body of work for this musician, I don't find any indication that he's received much in the way of coverage to verify any of it. As the anon notes, it's unsourced, tags were removed some weeks ago by an IP, there's been a lot of edits by Nickamoroso (talk · contribs) and an IP, so there's definitely some WP:AUTO issues here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page without references or establishment of notability. -Verdatum (talk) 15:53, 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 Gazi moff 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WeCreate[edit]

This seems to be a purely local company without anything more widespread. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only Google News hits are typos [69]. VG ☎ 13:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:52, 29 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) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, third-party sources in sight. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 05:19, 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) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SevOne[edit]

A user added a CSD. It doesn't meet that criteria, but I'm not letting the article off the hook just yet. LAA Fan^sign _review 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Delete. A single mention, and that's a press release in google news. Comment by User:VasileGaburici. Sorry, my bad google fu, so keep. VG ☎ 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are additional results if you expand the search to all dates (not just the past month), but many are press releases. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the problem with the wikipedia SevOne page. It offers a neutral viewpoint and gives a reader a basic understanding of what SevOne is. I have read the Wikipedia: Deletion policy (Reasons for deletion) and do not see a reason for the SevOne page to be killed off. Other pages that are very similar to the SevOne page that are not in danger of deletion are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netqos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSFS_Bank

I can not see a difference between these pages and the SevOne page. Please let me know what actions I need to take to insure that the SevOne page remains on Wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwmetz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article should be kept because other articles exist is typically disregarded, because each article is judged on its own merits - you might want to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more detail. On point, The article is sourced with four references - two to a NetworkWorld article, one to the company's website, and one to a press release. I'd want to see more independent news coverage before choosing to Keep this article. I'd also note that items that seem neutral, such as a list of clients, can seem promotional if there is little other content. The list of officers, for example, can be safely removed - I believe such a list would be found on the company's website, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:33, 26 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) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reformatted the citations and added some new references. Using {{cite news}} for news references makes it easier for other editors to spot and evaluate one's sources. On the basis of the coverage in InfoWorld and Network World and the award from Technology Marketing Corporation (TMC) - Communications Solutions, I think the article now passes notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur, the additional (independent) sources demonstrate some notability. It's thin, but I'll take it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you for everyones help. What's next to get rid of the AfD message. gwmetz(talk)
- Comment- let this discussion run its course. In around five days' time the discussion will close and, if the consensus is to keep the article, the AfD tag will be removed. Reyk _YO! 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- it looks a trifle spammy to me, but on the strength of the sources I can't support deletion. Reyk _YO! 21:02, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaze (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable rapper with only 1 album on a major indie label; fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. Unreferenced—also fails WP:V.—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom the artist fails WP:MUSIC and the prod should not have have been removed. Sigh. JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC completely. ~~SIS~~ 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 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) 00:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin' Fancy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nothin' Fancy

None of the awards cited are notable ones. The only source is a PR piece, and I can't find any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 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) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some, possibly most, of the references under "Reviews, articles, notices" are from reliable sources and cover the band in enough depth to demonstrate notability that way. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think they just meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. ~~SIS~~ 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expect the sources have improved since nomination. The BMI award nomination stuck out for me. The article is fairly well written in respect to WP:V WP:NPOV. Since the relm of bluegrass bands (a true genre, and not just Yet-Another-Subgenre) is smaller than more popular styles of music, I don't feel it is as nessisary to strictly adhere to WP:MUSIC. It at least comes close, and it appears to meet the GNG. -Verdatum (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the current sources I can see at least two pieces of decent, substantial, non-trivial coverage in newspapers, satisfying WP:MUSIC criterion 1. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:25, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Chen[edit]

Subject is a non-notable model and the article is unreferenced. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick look for references returned nothing on person described. Non-notable.--Boffob (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think I found confirmation that she's dating the basketball player, but, as I read the notability criteria, notability is not sexually transmitted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exists, but no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not much context.--Res 2216 firestar 01:14, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSO Punishment 2008[edit]

This article appears to be about a subject that does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who repeatedly accused me of persecuting him for nominating the article for deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find anything on Google for NSO Punishment 2008 or NSO Punishment. I don't even see any pages on "Non-stop Obliteration". Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-notable and possible hoax with 0 Google hits, along with no relevant Google News hits. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically an unsourced advert for a non-notable event. ~~SIS~~ 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- Totally unsourced, and even if real, non-notable.--Res 2216 firestar 01:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a "backyard" wrestling competition that is pay per view? Is this a hoax? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Backyard feds are never notable. -- Oakster Talk 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not trying to pile-on here, but completely non-notable and quite frankly, porrly referenced. —Sunday · Speak 15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax and at best grossly non-notable, PPV's e.g. "Happy Brawlidays" seem madeup. Related article NSO Punishment was speedily deleted a couple of days ago. Nerdluck34 (talk)09:12, 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.